WRI Stories

China's Climate Change Playbook is Worth Reading

Jonathan Lash — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:00:00 -0400

The Olympics are an opportunity for the U.S. and China to better understand each other and move forward together on fighting climate change.

This article first appeared on HuffingtonPost.com.

In a few weeks, elite athletes from around the world will gather in Beijing. Press coverage of the Games is likely to highlight competition between America and China about which will win the most medals. Media coverage will also—as it has already—focus on air quality and environmental conditions in China.

As we compete on the playing fields, China and the U.S. should not lose sight of where our interests coincide—climate change. And looking beyond the recently sooty skies of Beijing, China is clearly taking many positive steps to address its energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The Olympics offers an opportunity for the U.S. and China to better understand each other and move forward together on fighting climate change.

China and the U.S. are the world’s two biggest producers of greenhouse gases. The U.S. can no longer use China as an excuse for inaction. Contrary to popular belief, China is already implementing a comprehensive energy policy that addresses climate change.

While China’s climate-change challenge equals the U.S. in scale, China’s emissions footprint is fundamentally different. In the U.S., one-third of energy use and CO2 emissions come from transportation. In China, transport accounts for just 10 percent of emissions, and industry is the biggest contributor by far. So, Chinese policy appropriately focuses most strongly on reducing emissions from industry. China is replacing old inefficient power plants with state-of-the-art new units. It closed down more than 1,000 inefficient cement plants and hundreds of power plants last year, as well as steel mills, smelters, and glass and paper manufacturers, resulting in more efficient, less polluting industries.

Over the last three years, the Chinese government has introduced a series of regulations on energy conservation, resource use, and recycling. The stance of China’s leaders is that energy conservation and efficiency come first—well before the search for new fossil fuel sources.

But are these policies translating into action? It looks like they are. The “Thousand Enterprises Program“—which forces the country’s biggest companies to make specific energy-reduction commitments—is meeting its goals. By 2010, this program will reduce China’s coal consumption by 100 million metric tons, approximately 5 percent of annual CO2 emissions for China or the U.S.

We will all see the results of strenuous short-term measures, such as closing power plants, staggering working hours and limiting vehicles, during the Olympics. But China also has long-term policies in place for reducing coal dependence, increasing the use of renewable energy and reducing pollution.

Visitors to Beijing this summer will experience a greatly improved public transportation network, including two new subway lines added to the three that already exist, light-rail to its airport, several new dedicated bus rapid-transit lanes, as well as special buses with easier navigation for Olympic visitors. The Olympics has spurred completion of these projects in Beijing, but a dozen other Chinese cities also have mass transit improvements underway.

Visitors will also be treated to venues demonstrating state-of-the-art green technology, including the elegant and energy-efficient airport and the Water Cube swimming facility, which uses the building itself to capture outdoor heat to warm the pool. As for ordinary new building construction, reported compliance with energy-efficiency building codes has jumped from 5 to 50 percent in the last several years – a substantial improvement. China also plans to install 150 million compact fluorescent lights by 2010 – substantially reducing the 14 percent of electricity China currently devotes to lighting.

China has already taken impressive strides toward meeting its ambitious climate policy goals. But these goals would be more attainable if the U.S. government would “toe the line” with a serious commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions globally. Perhaps some of these discussions can take place in the stands during the Olympics, while the athletes accomplish their own amazing feats out on the field.

A New Climate for the Forest Products Industry

Amanda Sauer — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:08:57 -0400

The forest products sector holds an enormous stake in the coming economy defined by resource constraints, climate change policies, and shifting consumer values. What was once a simple business of turning trees into lumber and paper is now uniquely positioned—or exposed to—political and economic forces that are reshaping regulatory and market landscapes.

Less than five percent of the world’s forests are plantations, yet this five percent provides 50 percent of all wood supply and fiber. Efforts to control climate change and deforestation will likely make plantations and other managed forests increasingly important for the forest products industry. If done sustainably, this could be a real opportunity for the industry to help protect native forests in areas such as southeast Asia, while meeting the growing global demand for wood and paper.

Another issue is found in the mounting questions regarding bioenergy. While a forest-based source of bioenergy that wouldn’t significantly affect food prices might be attractive, the environmental and social impacts are still unknown. Whether or not forests can sustainably provide wood, paper and transportation fuel is an unanswered question, and this uncertainty makes for real business risk.

Increasing demand for low-carbon construction materials is also important to consider. Construction materials from sustainably produced wood are far less carbon-intensive than steel or concrete. On average, using wood products save two tons of carbon dioxide per cubic meter over other construction materials. It is clear the wood products industry could be a major provider of low-carbon materials, but what strategies will be most advantageous?

Trees in the Greenhouse: Why Climate Change Is Transforming the Forest Products Business, a new report by WRI, looks at the industry’s exposure to climate change risks and opportunities. The report finds that while risks exist, climate change presents a potentially game-changing opportunity for the industry through:

new markets and products for forest goods and services,
competitive advantages in relation to carbon-intensive substitute materials,
enhanced forest productivity,
increased demand for sustainable forest management, and
green consumer preferences.

Climate change policies will be vital to realizing this opportunity. Forest products will need to be produced and consumed in a sustainable manner for the industry to create long-term value through contributions to global climate change solutions.

The report also finds that a clear, long-term international policy framework could benefit the industry by:

lessening uncertainty around the physical impacts of climate change on forests,
spurring an increase in the amount of sustainably managed forest in new regions, particularly in developing countries where illegal logging drives down prices, and
creating incentives to substitute sustainable forest products for more carbon-intensive alternatives.

When it comes to regulation, the industry is fragmented, and in many cases divided over what represents appropriate climate policies. Nonetheless, with the right regulatory frameworks in place, both internationally and nationally, the forest products industry could be a major solutions provider to climate change while seizing some of the greatest market opportunities of the 21st century.

Groundbreaking Study Finds the "Hotspots" Most Responsible For Deforestation

Fred Stolle — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:48:30 -0400

A new collaborative study by WRI and other researchers finds that much of the world’s deforestation is isolated in a handful of “hotspots,” not spread out over many nations and many locations. In fact, this study showed that over half the world’s deforestation (in this study only clear-cut are monitored) is happening in just two locations: 48% is occurring in Brazil, with another 13% concentrated in Indonesia. Meanwhile, deforestation in Africa is negligible in comparison.

The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), uses a completely new method of combining satellite systems to pinpoint changes and calculate the area of change over the entire tropics.

The methodology is unique because unlike previous studies, it uses a classification system that is free of human bias or methodological variance. Instead, it brings a uniform approach to tropical wide deforestation assessments that can be done in a timely, accurate and consistent manner over wide swaths of humid tropical zones.

The results show the enormity of the problem, but they are nonetheless encouraging. Policymakers, now armed with the knowledge of where these hotspots are, can use the data to make better-informed decisions about how to stop deforestation in their areas.

These findings are especially important for the current negotiations of the climate change agreement in 2012 in which forest will play a major role in the so called REDD mechanism (“Reduced emission from deforestation and forest degradation” in developing countries). Deforestation and land use change is responsible for almost 20% of the world’s emissions. Forests are therefore both part of the problem–and a major part of the solution–to combating climate change. The study will be important to the current negotiations and demonstrate the need for Brazil and Indonesia to be included and play a major role in a future climate agreement that includes forests.

A New Way to Track Changes in Forest Cover

The NAS study shows tropical deforestation with “unprecedented accuracy.” Previous studies of tree cover loss, such as those done by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, often relied on country-supplied data that was often unverifiable or not granular enough to isolate the worst-hit areas. In contrast, the satellite imagery used in this study is collected independently and consistently across countries and regions.

The study used medium resolution (500m) satellite imagery from the MODerate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) to pinpoint the “hotspots.” Detailed (30m) Landsat satellite images, like the ones shown below, are then used to calculate forest cover loss between 2000 and 2005. The tandem method has the great advantage to cover wide swath of areas and still come up with detailed results on area of change. Both results are important to pinpoint where conservation efforts should be concentrated. Plus, as the report points out, satellite monitoring can be done at “a fraction of the cost of obtaining extensive ground inventory data.”

Examples of Landsat Sample Blocks: Malaysia

Lead author Matthew Hansen of South Dakota State University (SDSU) explained how the study will improve our knowledge of deforestation dynamics. “We need operational systems that efficiently and accurately allow us to monitor forests,” Hansen said. “Consistency is paramount. Currently, we have to compare various estimates from results reflecting different periods, different study areas, different definitions and different methods. Our approach is meant to be repeatable and to cover the whole biome, which we think is an advance. Our method to could be implemented retrospectively and prospectively in monitoring change over time.”

The method described in this article were previously used by the Indonesian government in cooperation with WRI, SDSU and other organizations (e.g. World Bank, Sekala a local NGO) in a project called FOMAS (Forest Monitoring and Assessment System) that for the first time showed the changes in forest cover on an archipelago wide scale between 2000-2005. The result of this study has been used by the Indonesian government in their assessment of green-house-gas emissions from deforestation.

The “Hotspots”: Brazil and Indonesia

The majority of tropical deforestation is occurring within a few specific regions:

55% of clearing occurred within only 6% of the world’s forest areas.
Just two countries–Brazil and Indonesia–accounted for just over 60% of the world’s forest loss. In both countries, forest loss is largely confined to a single state or region.
Within Indonesia, deforestation was highly concentrated in two specific areas of peatland.

Forest Clearing and Forest Cover in the Humid Tropical Forest Biome: 2000-2005

As the report points out, the numbers “reveal a higher degree of regional variation in forest clearing than currently portrayed.” In particular, the study found the worst deforestation took place in Latin America and Asia, while Africa accounted for only 5.4% of total tree clearance.

The report “may hold unexpected benefits for conservation,” co-author William Laurance, a tropical forest researcher at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, said. For example, the study can show when, where and suggest why deforestation is taking place. And because forest loss appears to be much more concentrated than previously believed, it may be possible to drastically reduce deforestation by focusing efforts on a few critical regions. Using this data, advocates and government officials can now target their efforts to stop deforestation more accurately.

Learn More

You can find about WRI’s efforts using satellite imagery to monitor tree cover loss in our report, “Painting the Global Picture of Tree Cover Change: Tree Cover Loss in the Humid Tropics.” And read several case studies WRI has produced on tree cover loss in Brazil, Cambodia, Central Africa and Indonesia.

G-8 Endorsement of World Bank Falls Short

Smita Nakhooda — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:58:26 -0400

Much of the response to the G8 summit has focused on how leaders of world’s richest countries “missed an opportunity” to lay out strong long-term commitments and targets on greenhouse gas emissions.

However, another aspect of the G8 summit that deserves attention is the G8’s endorsement of Climate Investment Funds administered by the World Bank. In so doing, the G8 also welcomed the Bank’s “significant progress” in mobilizing a Clean Energy Investment Framework. The World Bank began work on this framework in 2005 in response to the G8 communiqué from its Gleneagles summit, which recognized that the multilateral development banks’ investments and expertise should be used to help developing countries choose sustainable energy options. But the Framework has had limited impact on the Bank’s own operations. WRI analysis shows that as late as 2007, more than 50% of the World Bank’s lending in the energy sector still does not consider climate change considerations at all.

Since the Climate Investment Funds were first announced early this year, public controversy has erupted over the credibility of the World Bank serving as a financial instrument in a post-2012 climate change agreement. The Bank’s track record on climate change issues is weaker than its rhetoric. Its record of forcing unpopular macro-economic reforms on developing countries makes many global stakeholders nervous about the implications of this new role. These controversies have highlighted the need for reform of the multilateral development banks (MDBs).

For its part, the G8 did emphasize the need to “work on reforming and adapting international institutions so that they be able to respond effectively” to climate change.

A key reform priority of the MDBs must be to mainstream climate change considerations into their decision-making. The cost of carbon needs to be considered in all investments they support, and these calculations must include a rigorous accounting for all greenhouse gas emissions.

The World Bank in particular must demonstrate measurable progress in advancing the climate change and clean technology agendas in all aspects of its activities.

Reefs at Risk +10

Lauretta Burke — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 09:12:29 -0400

What is Reefs at Risk and why is it unique?

Reefs at Risk was the first global, quantitative assessment of threats to coral reefs ever conducted. Released in 1998, Reefs at Risk confirmed that coral reefs are seriously threatened in most parts of the world, clearly identified the human activities contributing to this threat, and called for global action.

Why Now?

Given the mass appeal and impact of the Reefs at Risk approach, the time is right to revisit the global analysis and provide the information needed to help organise a global response. Answers are critically needed to questions such as:

Have our collective conservation efforts over the past ten years had an impact?
Has there been any improvement in reef health? Where?
Where are the most critical threats today? What is their origin?
What is the value of healthy coral reef ecosystems?
What economic losses will result if reefs degrade?
How will the threat to coral reefs from pollution, development and climate change impact national economies?

Reefs at Risk used an innovative approach to locate and map coral reefs at highest risk, helping to guide conservation and management efforts. It assessed the threats from coastal development, marine pollution, overexploitation of marine resources and watershed-based pollution.

What has been the impact of Reefs at Risk?

Thanks to its unique overview and distinct communication style, Reefs at Risk clearly established the link between human activities and coral reef condition. As such, it had an instant and global impact in the media, stimulating public awareness and interest, political debate, policy development, and scientific discourse. The publication remains widely quoted in both scientific literature and the mass media.

Reefs at Risk highlighted the links between human activity and coral reef condition, and showed decision-makers, politicians and the public where energy and resources must focus to reduce critical threats. Most importantly, the assessment served to spark an increase in research and conservation investments, and has been used to set regional and local priorities.

At the regional level, it led to more detailed analyses, like Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean and Southeast Asia. Produced in local languages, the maps and analyses provided a more detailed look into threat levels, examined the value of coral reef ecosystem goods and services, and estimated the potential losses from degradation. Reefs at Risk also led to local-level threat analyses in Belize and Sabah, Malaysia, and aided the development of legislation restricting coastal development near coral reefs in Sabah.

Why is Reefs at Risk needed again?

Since the 1998 release of the pivotal Reefs at Risk, the world’s coral reefs have dramatically changed. Despite promising research, conservation and policy efforts, many prompted by Reefs at Risk, we have witnessed an unprecedented decline in these fragile ecosystems.

Wide tracts have been assaulted by a range of destructive forces, from powerful hurricanes and tsunamis, to increased pollution, coral bleaching and disease. In 1998, the world witnessed the most intense coral bleaching event ever recorded, driving widespread coral death in many parts of the globe. Coral bleaching was not factored in to the original Reefs at Risk model, and yet it now represents one of the most pressing threats to coral reefs worldwide.

The world is more ready than ever to take action. Climate change and its effects have risen high on national agendas; natural disasters have called attention to the critical link between marine ecosystems and the safety of our shorelines and coastal populations; and countries have begun to link ecosystem health with poverty and are looking at their coral reef assets as a source of wealth and long-term prosperity. However, more information is needed to guide that action.

Ten years have passed since the original R@R analysis. Two regional analyses, Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean and South East Asia, have been completed using higher resolution and improved modeling methods. Now we want to take this experience back to the global level.

The scale, quality and detail of many global data sets, such as coral reef locations, has radically improved;
Our understanding of threats to coral reefs and ability to do detailed modeling has improved;
Climate-related threats, such as coral bleaching and ocean acidification must be included.

This updated, more comprehensive, high resolution information is needed to raise awareness and guide interventions.

What will Reefs at Risk +10 do?

The World Resources Institute (WRI) and International Coral Reef Action Network (ICRAN) are leading a world-class collaboration in a global, map-based analysis of threats to the world’s coral reefs. This update of the influential 1998 analysis will provide a detailed examination of human pressures on coral reefs, implications for reef condition, and projections of associated economic impacts in coastal communities. In partnership with institutions such as the Nature Conservancy (TNC), the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN), Reef Check, The World Fish Center, The UN Environment Programme (UNEP), UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), and others, ICRAN and WRI seek to raise public awareness to the location and severity of threats to coral reefs, and catalyze targeted, responsible, and informed decisions that protect coral reefs and the broad range of benefits they provide to people.

Reefs at Risk +10 will show decision-makers, politicians and the public where to focus energy and resources to address critical threats, and will inform bilateral, regional and international bodies as they seek ways to help coordinate and finance these efforts. It will support conservation priority setting, constructive public and private alliances, and better private and public policy, as well as highlighting the value of investment in effective coastal management.

Strategy

The analysis will be crucial for galvanizing support for coral reef issues and influencing the coral reef management and conservation agenda at the local, national, regional and global levels within government, donors, UN agencies and NGOs. To achieve our goal and objectives, we have organized the project around three complementary strategies:

Strategic Engagement of Constituency Networks, Key Organizations and Individuals.Targeted, High-quality Information and Analysis.
The project relies on a broad partnership to assure the accuracy of results and high quality of products, as well as to design the products to meet the needs of end users.
Targeted, High-Quality Information and Analysis.
Since the last global analysis, significant improvements have been made in the quantity, quality and level of detail of the datasets that will comprise the Reefs at Risk analysis. The project’s core partnership will focus on the completion of six main components: Collection, consolidation and integration of data; Spatial threat analysis; Climate and coral bleaching vulnerability analysis; Comparative threat analysis, 1998 – 2008; Economic valuation of coral reefs and the potential losses resulting from degradation; and a Social vulnerability analysis.
Comprehensive, Innovative Communications.
The Reefs at Risk+10 communication strategy is designed to move the reef threats discussion into the mainstream by using existing mechanisms, networks, and partnerships, and through global events and programmes of the International Year of the Reef 2008. The strategy will also take advantage of new information technologies and is designed to effectively reach more general, non-technical audiences. The approach will raise awareness through wide dissemination of data sets, model results, summary reports, economic valuations, and educational posters. It will provide readily accessible information from the Reefs at Risk analysis for input into the relevant international, regional and national policy making and environmental convention fora, and to inform policy makers.

Who should I contact for more information?

The Reefs at Risk +10 project has just begun. ICRAN and WRI are building the partnership needed to execute this vital, results-focused endeavor. We invite your feedback, comments and participation. For further information on Reefs at Risk +10, our goals, strategy and partnership, and how you can become a part of this innovative and exciting undertaking, please contact:

Lauretta Burke
Senior Associate, WRI
+1 (202) 729-7774

Kristian Teleki
Director, ICRAN
+44 (0)122 327 7314

Could Arctic Oil Exploration Be Made Safe?

Lars Laestadius — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 09:59:43 -0400

Surging energy prices are renewing calls to open highly sensitive Arctic areas to oil exploration. One condition of access should be greater public oversight.

When it comes to environmental protection, the energy industry likes to operate on the Titanic principle–accidents can’t happen, but if they do, we know how to manage them. But accidents can and do happen. The 2002 Gaz Diamond spill in Puget Sound, the Louisiana spill of 2000, the one in Rhode Island in 1996, and the Tampa Bay barge collision in 1993 are just a few examples of accidents in the U.S. alone.

Sometimes the impacts and the management of spills are disastrous: for example, the Black Sea spill of 2007, or the Prestige spill off the coast of Spain in 2002. And of course there is the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, which alone cost Exxon $3.5 billion in fines and penalties, another half-a-billion in punitive damages, to say nothing of the damage to its reputation.

Oil spills in icy seas of the north are difficult to spot, difficult to contain, difficult to clean up and difficult for nature to heal. In the Arctic, the hazards are especially severe. Visibility may be zero, ice is everywhere, storms blow often, and oil workers are frequently exhausted from the harsh conditions.

Politicians and the public are well aware of the risks. President George H.W. Bush established a presidential moratorium on offshore drilling in 1990, and Congress presides over a separate moratorium that has been renewed every year since its inception in 1981.

Now, some politicians and corporate interests want to lift the moratorium, opening the way to drilling in the American Arctic. Other countries are also opening up their Arctic waters, including Russia and Norway. They argue that better technology has reduced the environmental risks to manageable levels.

Perhaps. But at a minimum, we should stand firm on the operating principle established by President Reagan: trust, but verify. Let no offshore drilling take place in public waters without public monitoring. Establish a website where the public can see around the clock what is happening at current and future drilling and production sites. Add pipeline and tanker activities. Get started before the wave of development gets going and let the entire Arctic be covered, to ensure a level playing field.

No technological break-through is required, just a political and collaborative one. A big problem requires a big solution.

The oil companies do not like public monitoring–and none are asking for it–but they should. Public monitoring would reduce the inclination to cut corners with respect to safety. It would help discover spills more quickly (should they occur) and monitor their effects. No less important, it will restore public trust. If the risks are as manageable as the energy companies say, they ought to be asking for public monitoring as a condition of access to environmentally sensitive areas.

Mapping Ecosystems and Climate Change in Africa

Amy Cassara — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:49:00 -0400

Africa: Atlas of Our Changing Environment, a new United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report, uses more than 300 satellite images to tell the story of Africa’s environmental transformation. The photographic evidence of degradation is stark and irrefutable, and it serves as a call to action for protecting the continent’s natural resources. The Atlas was officially released in South Africa in June and the U.S. release is today.

Many of the Atlas’ examples of change may be familiar to the public, such as Lake Chad’s receding water levels (seen in the image above) or the shrinking glaciers of Mt. Kilimanjaro. Others are new or lesser-known, such as the disappearance of Madagascar’s South Malagasy spiny forest or the explosive growth of Dakar, Senegal’s capital. (View more of the dramatic images here.)

The Atlas finds there are many reasons to be concerned about the state of Africa’s environment:

Africa’s deforestation rate (4 million hectares per year) is the highest in the world.
65 percent of the continent’s farmlands are degraded because of erosion and physical damage.
Water scarcity affects more than 300 million of the continent’s people.

Climate change is a major factor. “The Atlas,” says UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner, “clearly demonstrates the vulnerability of people in the region to forces often outside their control, including the shrinking of glaciers in Uganda and Tanzania and impacts on water supplies linked with climate change.”

Africa is responsible for only 4 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, but the continent’s people will bear the brunt of the effects of climate change—and they are ill-equipped to handle the enormous costs of adaptation.

The Atlas is not all doom and gloom. Rather, it contains many examples of how proper management can lead to positive results. A few success stories from the Atlas:

Sidi Toui National Park in Southeastern Tunisia: Action on overgrazing has produced a dramatic rebound in the natural ecosystem.
Itezhi-tezhi Dam in Zambia: A new management plan for the dam led to the restoration of the natural seasonal flooding of the Kafue flats.
Diawling National Park: A restoration projecting at the park expanded the wetlands and is helping to control flooding and improve livelihoods in Mauritania.

There is hope that the Africa Atlas will spur greater investment in ecosystem management and restoration to improve livelihoods across the continent.

The report draws on 35 years worth of imagery from the US Landsat satellite program. Amy Cassara, Crystal Davis, and Dan Tunstall of the World Resources Institute contributed to the report.

Download your own copy of the Africa Atlas here, or purchase a hardback version here.

How We Move: Sustainable Transport Around the World

Nancy Kete — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:19:03 -0400

When it comes to urban transportation, ingenuity is the key to cleaner, greener, and smarter cities.

Until recently, Bogotá, like many other cities around the world, was choking on its own growth. Fostered in part by inadequate urban and transportation planning, its streets were crowded and polluted, illegal settlements and uncontrolled sprawl were rampant, and community-oriented urban space, like public parks and walking paths, were disappearing fast. Reinforcing Bogotá’s other well-known problems, this chaotic environment helped perpetuate a vicious cycle of urban decay, social and economic inequality, and environmental degradation in the city.

Then Bogotá got smart.

MAP: Cities with Cutting-Edge Sustainable Transport Initiatives. Click here to view a larger version of this map.

Driven by a vision of a city built for people, not cars, in 1998 the city’s reformist mayor, Enrique Penalosa, began a massive urban renewal campaign. In just three years, he created or renovated hundreds of miles of bike paths and over 1,000 parks. He also erected 100 nurseries, 51 schools and 14 libraries. Most famously, he launched the TransMilenio Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system – a cutting-edge network of buses that by 2003 was carrying 750,000 passengers each day – a subsequent expansion of the system increased ridership to 1.4 million passengers per day.

Almost immediately, air and noise pollution began to ebb, traffic accidents became less common, and people started spending fewer hours stuck behind the wheel and more time enjoying the city’s new green spaces. Even crime, a previously constant scourge in the capital, responded to the reforms, falling 35%. Considering the magnitude of these changes, Penalosa’s reforms were remarkably rapid and inexpensive.

This type of bold vision can also be seen in a handful of other metropolises around the world, where dynamic leaders are launching sustainable, people-centered policies of their own. In doing so, they are creating a cadre of global “smart cities” that is proving municipalities can reduce traffic congestion, increase energy efficiency, and create more livable communities – all at a fraction of the cost and the time that many thought possible.

Paris is a perfect example. In the French capital you can now rent a bike at one of the new docking stations all over the city, ride it across town, and drop it off at your destination. In a few years you’ll be able to do the same with one of the 2,000 electric-powered cars Mayor Betrand Delanoe plans to provide. It’s all part of his program to reduce car traffic in the city by 40 percent by 2020.

In London, Mayor Ken Livingston worked hard to reduce traffic and air pollution through a system known as “congestion pricing,” which charges drivers a toll whenever they enter the ancient burg’s chronically snarled downtown streets. In addition, he launched an ambitious action plan to combat global warming that would encourage more energy efficient homes and offices, decrease reliance on cars, and promote the use of alternative energy to meet London’s needs.

Cities across the developing countries are also wising-up. Last year, Guayaquil, Ecuador was awarded an international sustainable transit award for its efforts to create a new Bogota-esque bus rapid transit system, refurbishing its public spaces and pedestrian areas, and launching “Car-Free Sundays” on its downtown streets.

Even Mexico City, long the epitome of a sprawling city, with legendary air pollution and traffic congestion problems, is entering an urban renaissance fueled by new, more sustainable urban development and transportation policies. Under the banner of his ambitious new “Plan Verde” (or “Green Plan”) Mayor Marcelo Ebrard has committed to creating and renovating numerous parks, expanding Metrobus (the city’s bus rapid transit system), and increasing pedestrian and bicycle paths to reduce dependence on private automobiles.

The examples above illustrate that changing a city’s “built environment” can have transformative effects on its overall quality of life. Crucially, decades of planning or billions of dollars of investment are not needed to start making cities more livable. This is because being ‘smart’ doesn’t necessarily mean adopting space-age technologies, or launching exorbitantly expensive infrastructure projects. Instead, it is about creating better systems, based on more people-friendly principles.

In particular, we have identified three key policies that municipal leaders can implement in order to quickly and inexpensively transform their cities into oases of sustainability and livability.

The first is an increased emphasis on public transportation. By getting people out of cars and into clean, efficient mass transit, cities can free themselves from the expensive and self-defeating race to build more and more highways. It is important to note that cost need not be prohibitive for these projects. For example, Mexico City, Bogota, and Guayaquil have all proven the worth of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), a new type of mass transit system akin to an above-ground metro. By using special lanes reserved exclusively for high-capacity buses, these cities have mimicked the speed and capacity of subways, but at fraction of the cost.

Cities should also vigorously promote biking and walking. Like public transit, these “non-motorized” modes of transport get people out of cars, increasing energy efficiency and reducing air pollution. In addition, a large number of studies have shown that even modest increases in bicycling or walking can significantly reduce the risk of obesity, heart disease and stress.

Finally, policymakers can create people-centered cities by using their existing land more wisely. Current zoning policies and transport systems often encourage mindless sprawl. But by changing the way that cities grow and function, cities can foster higher-density neighborhoods, and bring shops and offices closer to residential areas. These steps cut down on the need to travel, and create more vibrant communities where people can spend more time enjoying community spaces, and less time in front of the TV.

The three interrelated polices above are common-sense, cost-effective, and mutually reinforcing. Unfortunately, they also represent a marked departure from the way in which most of the world’s cities have operated over the last 50 years. Thus, even though the policies outlined above can be accomplished quickly and inexpensively, they do require courageous city leaders willing to make the politically difficult decisions necessary to ensure the long-term health of their communities. The mayors highlighted above have all proven themselves up to this challenge. As a result, their cities are best positioned to take advantage of the new economic, social, and environmental realities of the 21st century.

Cities that have yet to embrace this new way of thinking, on the other hand, are at a crossroads. They must decide, and decide soon, if they can muster the political will to ‘get smart’ and leave behind the failed, unsustainable policies of the past. Cities have faced such hard choices before. As recently as the 1800s, metropolises like Paris, London, and New York were plagued by epidemics and overcrowding. In each of these places, leaders looked beyond the immediate problems they faced and made decisions that would help them achieve a better future. New roads, parks, public transportation and sanitation systems made their cities more livable and turned them into engines of the economic growth for France, England and the United States. These cities became great because their leaders made the visionary, though difficult, choices that moved their cities forward.

Much like these disease-ridden cities of the past, many modern urban areas are now choking on their own growth, struggling with traffic jams, energy inefficiency, urban sprawl, and depleted social capital. As humanity for the first time has become urban – with half the world’s population living in cities - finding solutions to these problems becomes all the more urgent. It is clear that thoughtless, shapeless, sprawling cities are no longer tolerable. Instead, what cities need is a purposeful shaping of public space, like that being carried out by the cities and mayors profiled above. We urge other city leaders to learn from, and build upon their example, and take the small but challenging steps necessary to create healthier, happier, and more sustainable cities.

This article was originally published in Poder Magazine and EMBARQ.

Making High Gas Prices Less Painful

Dario Hidalgo — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 13:08:15 -0400

Learn more about three long-term, sustainable policy solutions that would help ease the pain of high gas prices.

With gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, many Americans are feeling uneasy about the future. And for good reason. Higher prices at the pump channel money away from things that improve our quality of life, like health care, education, and leisure activities.

So far, the response from politicians on Capitol Hill has been anything but inspiring. Many politicians have disingenuously claimed that we don’t need to change our behavior and can “drill our way out of this problem.” Or that we can apply enough pressure on oil-rich countries, who will then turn against their own self-interests and ramp up production. Or that high fuel standards and alternative fuels like ethanol, which just suffered a huge setback with the Iowa floods, will make all our problems go away.

But there is a segment in Washington that gets it. Rep. Earl Blumenauer recently spoke out because he couldn’t find a parking spot in the garage of the Rayburn House of Representatives office building. So many Hill staffers now cycle to work that Mr. Blumenauer, for the first time ever, couldn’t find a space on the bike rack to lock his road bike.

Cycling to work is the type of small behavioral change that can shelter Americans from high fuel prices. But in addition to personal changes, we need a prescription of policies that have a large-scale, structural impacts that make American’s less vulnerable to the whims of OPEC and the global oil market.

The following three ideas, if implemented, will have the added value of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, improving public health, curtailing over-consumption, and providing a structural change that can be sustained over the long term.

Build high-density, mixed-use cities: The vast majority of American cities are built for cars, which creates a sprawling, low-density landscape where people spend too much time and money driving to conduct their daily activities. Cities built around people and walking as opposed to cars and driving have single-family housing, apartments, grocery stores, office space and shops all within walking distance, eliminating the daily need to get behind the wheel. The rise of “New Urbanism” in places like Kentlands, Maryland, and the revitalization of American inner cities in places like Chicago, New York, and Washington DC suggests that more and more Americans want a lifestyle that favors short walking trips over long car commutes.
Invest in Mass Transit: Americans are flocking to mass transit in ever greater numbers. At 10.3 billion trips last year, mass-transit ridership in the United States is at its highest level since 1957. To match this growing demand, cities should invest money to maintain and expand their mass-transit systems. One practical way to do this is to charge car drivers for using the most congested roads and use this revenue to fund mass-transit projects and operations. London, Singapore, and Stockholm all have wildly successful congestion-pricing programs that are, counter to conventional wisdom, popular among residents. Mass transit does not necessarily mean rail. Cities can also thrive with low-cost, fast implementation systems like bus rapid transit, which has been done in Los Angeles, Ottawa, Sidney, Mexico City, Curitiba, and Bogotá.
Invest in Cycling Facilities: Increasingly, cycling is becoming popular among commuters making short trips around cities. But the spike in the number of city cyclists has yet to be followed by a supply of cycling facilities like bike lanes and bike parking. In many cities, cyclists have to compete with cars for road space, a dangerous proposition that drives potential cyclists off their bikes and back into cars. By building special cycle lanes that are physically separated from traffic, cities can make cycling a viable, low-cost form of transit. Cycling can also be instrumental in countering chronic diseases like diabetes and obesity, which are now afflicting large swaths of the sedentary American population. Paris, among other cities, has taken cycling a step above the rest, creating a bike-sharing program with 15,000 bicycles available at a moments notice for anyone with a credit card. Cyclists and politicians in American cities should take note.

Building Laws That Work for the Poor

Remi Moncel — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 04:17:02 -0400

What is the link between the rule of law and poverty? A new report finds that billions of people “around the world are robbed of the chance to better their lives and climb out of poverty because they are excluded from the rule of law.”

According to the report, produced by the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor, a commission hosted by UNDP, “more than seven in ten children in the world’s least developed countries do not have birth certificates or other registration documents,” and in India, there are only 11 judges for every million people.

But while the report focused on countries around the world, WRI convened an event earlier this week with influential leaders from government and civil society to put the spotlight squarely on the United States.

“I do think, and I will stand up for this, that U.S. law and U.S. democracy is better than anything else,” said Madeleine Albright, former United States secretary of state and co-chair of the Commission. “But clearly there are issues, and New Orleans is the best example of it.”

Dr. Beverly Wright, a New Orleans resident and founder and executive director of the Deep South Center for Environmental Justice at Dillard University, said this about the poor response to Katrina: “We were absolutely looking at a situation where a government as rich and as powerful and as knowledgeable as our government is, was absolutely unable to protect vulnerable populations.” Wright continued: “I still ask myself, ‘why?’”

Wright traces her family in New Orleans back many generations, and before the storm, she lived in a home she had inherited. She talked about what happened to her and thousands of others who had no voice in what happened to their property after the storm:

“I looked up on a map and I saw a green space, and I looked at where it was, I said, ‘Darn that’s where I lived.’ And my question was, ‘So who made this decision? Where was I?’ Somebody decided, ‘We’re going to make this footprint smaller, and your house is gone.’ Well, that happened to a whole lot of us.”

Her moving story shows that even in the United States, many people are excluded from the critical decisions that affect their environment. To exercise their right to participate in decision-making, citizens need access to the information that drives those decisions and the chance to voice their opinions and to influence choices.

“Despite robust social safety nets and legal protections available to Americans, millions of poor people in America continue to confront both formal and informal barriers to participation in civic and economic life,” said Jonathan Lash, president of WRI. “These barriers have denied them access to secure property rights, to the judicial system and to sustainable livelihoods and resilient communities.”

WRI contributed to the Commission report, which drew specifically on the work of The Access Initiative, a project of WRI and the world’s largest network of civil society organizations working to ensure that people have the right and the ability to influence decisions about the natural resources that sustain their communities.

And WRI’s new book, Voice and Choice: Opening the Door to Environmental Democracy, looks at the progress governments have made in providing access to environmental decision-making–-and with the hope of accelerating this progress, the book identifies hurdles and suggests how to overcome them.

At the WRI event, Dr. Naresh Singh, executive director of the Commission, focused on the key message of the report: legal empowerment. Singh noted that some nations may have an established rule of law, yet its citizens are not empowered to take action. Singh talked about the four pillars which must be central to national and international efforts aimed at the legal empowerment of the poor: access to justice and rule of law, property rights, labor rights and business rights.

The panel talked about how billions of people worldwide have no voice in the decisions that affect their environment. The United States is no exception. The consequences of environmental degradation and poor planning are harshest on poor communities.

“Obviously, [the report] has an environmental aspect to it because we know that poor people suffer the most, I think, in terms of land that has been deforested or lack of water. So there is, I think, a direct connection between empowering the poor, the legal empowerment of the poor and [WRI’s] agenda,” said Albright.

“We believe the report contains lessons for a new administration committed to helping the poor and disempowered in this country,” Jacob Werksman, director of the Institutions and Governance Program at WRI, said about the Commission report. “Too often we assume the rule of law functions equally for everyone. As a result, ill-crafted decisions and the lack of enforcement of environmental standards unfairly harm poor communities.”