Cities are central to the fight against climate change, but the IPCC recently noted that many cities — and particularly those in the developing world — lack the institutional, financial and technical capacities needed to switch to low emission development paths. Based on detailed case studies of three Asian cities, this paper finds that the adoption of low emission development strategies (LEDS) at the urban level could be economically attractive. However, it also argues that without a coordinated multi-level, cross-sectoral governance framework these opportunities for low carbon urban development are likely to be left unexploited. As these governance conditions are frequently not in place, we argue that these case study cities, and cities in similar contexts, are likely to miss even the economically attractive low carbon development opportunities and become increasingly locked in to higher cost, higher carbon development paths. Due to their growing size and importance, we conclude that the presence or absence of governance arrangements that enable the adoption of low carbon development strategies in Asian cities will have global implications for climate change

There is increasing interest in the potential of cities to contribute to climate mitigation. Multiple assessments have evaluated the scale and composition of urban GHG emissions, while others have evaluated some aspects of urban mitigation potential. However, assessments of mitigation potential tend to be broadly focused, few if any have evaluated urban mitigation potential on a measure-by-measure basis, and fewer still have considered the economic case for investing in these measures. This is a significant knowledge gap as an economic case for action could be critical in building political commitment, strengthening institutional capacities, securing large-scale finance and targeting investment and implementation in cities. In this paper, we conduct a comparative analysis of the results of five recently completed studies that examined the economic case for investing in low-carbon measures in five cities: Leeds in the UK, Kolkata in India, Lima in Peru, Johor Bahru in Malaysia and Palembang in Indonesia. The results demonstrate that there is a compelling economic case for cities in both developed and developing country contexts to invest, at scale, in cost-effective low-carbon measures. The results suggest that these investments could generate significant reductions (in the range of 15–24% relative to business-as-usual trends) in urban carbon emissions over the next 10 years. Securing these savings would require an average investment of $3.2 billion per city, which if spread over 10 years equates to 0.4–0.9% of city GDP per year. However, the savings generated in the form of reduced energy bills would be equivalent to between 1.7% and 9.5% of annual city-scale GDP, and the average payback period of investments would be approximately 2 years at commercial interest rates. We provisionally estimate that if these findings were replicated and similar investments were made in cities globally, then they could generate reductions equivalent to 10–18% of global energy-related GHG emissions in 2025. While the studies offer some grounds for optimism, they also raise important questions about the barriers to change that prevent these economically attractive options from being exploited and about the scope for mitigation based on the exploitation of only the economically attractive options. We therefore discuss the institutional capacities, policy environments and financing arrangements that need to be developed before even these economically attractive opportunities can be exploited. We also demonstrate that, in rapidly growing cities, the carbon savings from such investments could be quickly overwhelmed – in as little as 7 years – by the impacts of sustained population and economic growth. We conclude by highlighting the need to build capacities that enable the exploitation not only of the economically attractive options in the short term but also of those deeper and more structural changes that are likely to be needed in the longer term

Fast-growing cities in the global South have an important role to play in climate change mitigation. However, city governments typically focus on more pressing socioeconomic needs, such as reducing urban poverty. To what extent can social, economic and climate objectives be aligned? Focusing on Kolkata in India, we consider the economic case for low-carbon urban development, and assess whether this pathway could support wider social goals. We find that Kolkata could reduce its energy bill by 8.5 per cent and greenhouse gas emissions by 20.7 per cent in 2025, relative to business-as-usual trends, by exploiting readily available, economically attractive mitigation options. Some of these measures offer significant social benefits, particularly in terms of public health; others jeopardize low-income urban residents’ livelihoods, housing and access to affordable services. Our findings demonstrate that municipal mitigation strategies need to be designed and delivered in collaboration with affected communities in order to minimize social costs and – possibly – achieve transformative change.

Cities and other human settlements are major contributors to climate change and are highly vulnerable to its impacts. They are also uniquely positioned to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lead adaptation efforts. These compound challenges and opportunities require a comprehensive perspective on the public policy of human settlements. Drawing on core literature that has driven debate around cities and climate over recent decades, we put forward a set of boundary objects that can be applied to connect the knowledge of epistemic communities and support an integrated urbanism. We then use these boundary objects to develop the Goals-Intervention-Stakeholder-Enablers (GISE) framework for a public policy of human settlements that is both place-specific and provides insights and tools useful for climate action in cities and other human settlements worldwide. Using examples from Berlin, we apply this framework to show that climate mitigation and adaptation, public health, and well-being goals are closely linked and mutually supportive when a comprehensive approach to urban public policy is applied.

Where costs or risks are higher, evidence is lacking or supporting institutions are less developed, policymakers can struggle to make the case for low-carbon investment. This is especially the case in developing world cities where decision-makers struggle to keep up with the pace and scale of change. Focusing on Palembang in Indonesia, this paper considers the economic case for proactive investment in low-carbon development. We find that a rapidly growing industrial city in a developing country can reduce emissions by 24.1% in 2025, relative to business as usual levels, with investments of USD405.6 million that would reduce energy expenditure in the city by USD436.8 million. Emissions from the regional grid could be reduced by 12.2% in 2025, relative to business as usual trends, with investments of USD2.9 billion that would generate annual savings of USD175 million. These estimates understate the savings from reduced expenditure on energy subsidies and energy infrastructure. The compelling economic case for mainstreaming climate mitigation in this developing country city suggests that the constraints on climate action can be political and institutional rather than economic. There is therefore a need for more effective energy governance to drive the transition to a low-carbon economy