Carbon neutral by 2030: How does Oslo's ambitious carbon budget work?

Storms over Norway. Image: Getty.

Oslo’s city government has issued an ambitious “climate budget” with the intent of halving its carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2020, and becoming completely carbon neutral by 2030. To achieve this goal, the city plans to limit access for cars with new tolls and fewer parking spaces; to power the bus fleet with renewable energy; to increase cycle use; and to eliminate heating with fossil fuels in homes and offices.

The move comes at a time when cities are taking on a more important role in addressing the issue of climate change. Globally, cities are thought to be responsible for roughly 75 per cent of human-sourced carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions, because urban populations still depend largely on fossil fuels to generate energy. Since CO₂ is the chief greenhouse gas, cities are considered to be key drivers of global climate change.

Yet cities are also uniquely well-placed to address this issue. Most cities have their own planning systems, which can be used to manage the local economy and the urban landscape (that is, land-cover and land-use), in order to regulate energy use.

Until relatively recently, policies to measure and reduce greenhouse gas emissions were administered at a national level, to ensure compliance with international agreements, such as the Paris Agreement. But over the last decade, cities have started to play a bigger role in global efforts to tackle climate change.

A new protocol

This is evident in initiatives such as the Global Compact of Mayors, of which Oslo is a member. The compact – founded by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2014 – is a coalition of cities and local governments that are voluntarily taking action to combat climate change and move toward a more resilient, low-carbon society.

To come up with effective policies for reducing emissions, cities first need a way to inventory their energy use. To that end, the compact has created a protocol that classifies energy use into six main sectors: stationary (for example, building construction and use); transportation; waste; industrial processes and product use; agriculture, forestry, and other land use and any other emissions occurring outside the boundary as a result of city activities.

These categories account for the greenhouse gas emissions associated with burning coal, gas, oil and so on. But they also take stock of the gases that are taken out of the atmosphere by plantations and forests, for example.

Get planting. Image: Dreamhamar/Flickr/creative commons.

Completing a greenhouse gas inventory using the protocol can guide urban policies to reflect the character of a city. For example, cities in cold climates use more gas and electricity to heat buildings in winter, while low-density cities generally dedicate more energy to transportation, and cities with a strong industrial base expend energy on manufacturing.

Becoming carbon neutral means reducing or even eliminating fossil fuel use, reducing landfill waste and offsetting any remaining emissions. Typically, the strategies involve incorporating aspects of technology (such as renewable energy generation), design (for instance, making cities more compact) and behaviour (for example, shifting commuters from private to public modes of transport).


Healthy competition

In the case of Oslo, its population of about 650,000 people emits roughly 1.34m tonnes of CO₂ per year, with much of this energy expended to meet building and transportation needs. While the plan to reduce emissions to zero is very ambitious, it’s worth keeping in mind that Norway already generates the majority of its electricity using hydropower.

This gives Oslo options that other cities may not have. For example, adding to the electric car fleet is a common policy in many cities concerned about air quality and greenhouse emissions. But if the electricity is produced by fossil fuels, then electric cars simply shift the creation of greenhouse gases from moving transport to stationary charging points.

Likewise, most of Oslo’s homes are heated with electricity generated from hydropower, and by burning wood pellets, which are also considered to be a renewable fuel. Here, the challenge is to make homes more efficient, and to ensure that more fuel for direct and indirect heating comes from renewable sources.

There is much to be learned from Oslo’s progress; in particular, it highlights the need for tailored policies and plans, to address the unique emission profile of each city. Yet the city will still need to overcome significant barriers, to become carbon neutral by 2030. In particular, it will need to offset any residual emissions through forestation, or by actively capturing carbon at the source.

Yet Oslo’s carbon budget raises the stakes for other cities which are working to combat climate change. The greenhouse gas protocol provides a consistent, transparent and internationally recognised approach for cities to measure and report emissions, allowing for credible comparison – and a little healthy competition – between urban areas across the globe.The Conversation

Gerald Mills is senior lecturer in geography at University College Dublin.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

These maps of petition signatories show which bits of the country are most enthusiastic about scrapping Brexit

The Scottish bit. Image: UK Parliament.

As anyone in the UK who has been near an internet connection today will no doubt know, there’s a petition on Parliament’s website doing the rounds. It rejects Theresa May’s claim – inevitably, and tediously, repeated again last night – that Brexit is the will of the people, and calls on the government to end the current crisis by revoking Article 50. At time of writing it’s had 1,068,554 signatures, but by the time you read this it will definitely have had quite a lot more.

It is depressingly unlikely to do what it sets out to do, of course: the Prime Minister is not in listening mode, and Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom has already been seen snarking that as soon as it gets 17.4m votes, the same number that voted Leave in 2016, the government will be sure to give it due care and attention.

So let’s not worry about whether or not the petition will be successful and instead look at some maps.

This one shows the proportion of voters in each constituency who have so far signed the petition: darker colours means higher percentages. The darkest constituencies tend to be smaller, because they’re urban areas with a higher population density. (As with all the maps in this piece, they come via Unboxed, who work with the Parliament petitions team.)

And it’s clear the petition is most popular in, well, exactly the sort of constituencies that voted for Remain three years ago: Cambridge (5.1 per cent), Bristol West (5.6 per cent), Brighton Pavilion (5.7 per cent) and so on. Hilariously, Jeremy Corbyn’s Islington North is also at 5.1 per cent, the highest in London, despite its MP clearly having remarkably little interest in revoking article 50.

By the same token, the sort of constituencies that aren’t signing this thing are – sit down, this may come as a shock – the sort of places that tended to vote Leave in 2016. Staying with the London area, the constituencies of the Essex fringe (Ilford South, Hornchurch & Upminster, Romford) are struggling to break 1 per cent, and some (Dagenham & Rainham) have yet to manage half that. You can see similar figures out west by Heathrow.

And you can see the same pattern in the rest of the country too: urban and university constituencies signing in droves, suburban and town ones not bothering. The only surprise here is that rural ones generally seem to be somewhere in between.

The blue bit means my mouse was hovering over that constituency when I did the screenshot, but I can’t be arsed to redo.

One odd exception to this pattern is the West Midlands, where even in the urban core nobody seems that bothered. No idea, frankly, but interesting, in its way:

Late last year another Brexit-based petition took off, this one in favour of No Deal. It’s still going, at time of writing, albeit only a third the size of the Revoke Article 50 one and growing much more slowly.

So how does that look on the map? Like this:

Unsurprisingly, it’s a bit of an inversion of the new one: No Deal is most popular in suburban and rural constituencies, while urban and university seats don’t much fancy it. You can see that most clearly by zooming in on London again:

Those outer east London constituencies in which people don’t want to revoke Article 50? They are, comparatively speaking, mad for No Deal Brexit.

The word “comparatively” is important here: far fewer people have signed the No Deal one, so even in those Brexit-y Essex fringe constituencies, the actual number of people signing it is pretty similar the number saying Revoke. But nonetheless, what these two maps suggest to me is that the new political geography revealed by the referendum is still largely with us.


In the 20 minutes it’s taken me to write this, the number of signatures on the Revoke Article 50 has risen to 1,088,822, by the way. Will of the people my arse.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and on Facebook as JonnElledgeWrites.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.