Urban centers: an opportunity or risk in the fight against the climate crisis?

Written By TBG

Urban centers can make or break our response to the climate crisis. Which one will it be?

Today, 56% of the world’s population lives in urban centers. That number is projected to rise to approximately 70% by 2050. With such a large labour pool, it may not be surprising that cities account for 80% of the Gross National Product globally. The flip side of being the engines of economic growth is that they contribute to 75% of total greenhouse gas emissions. These realities position cities as a great source of opportunity but also a great source of risk. Making cities environmentally friendly is paramount, not only to achieve a net zero future but also to build more resilient communities capable of absorbing the shocks of an already unpredictable climate. 

500 million urban residents currently live in high-risk coastal areas. Disaster events, like hurricanes, have become more severe and frequent over the past few years. They are slated to get worse as the effects of climate change intensify. Large parts of mega-cities like New York, Shanghai, and Mumbai stand to be submerged if sea levels rise 1.5 meters, which is likely should global temperatures increase by 3 degrees Celsius. Inundation of these urban areas poses a cascading threat to communities, triggering power outages, issues of contamination, and paralysis of critical infrastructures like hospitals and sewage treatment utilities. The loss of human life could be significant, not to mention the millions borne in economic damages.   

To overcome these challenges, municipal authorities must look to ensure that the inhabitants of cities continue to thrive and overcome the stresses posed by climate change. This means developing systems that are capable of absorbing sudden shocks and returning to function with limited disruption. Approaches to building resiliency must be grounded in the realities of the city in question, being careful to avoid the imposition of uniform solutions. For cities in developing countries unable to access international climate finance, adopting cost-effective, nature-based strategies like planting trees next to streets and river-catchment management might be more prudent. More developed countries might explore more expensive options like building up coastal areas and retrofitting existing infrastructure. At the end of the day, cities must leverage their particular strengths to devise climate plans that work for them.

More often than not, simple measures, like London’s surcharge for highly polluting vehicles entering the city, or the outlawing of diesel cars in Paris are incredibly effective. Improving energy efficiency in buildings, planting green roofs, and expanding green spaces will also help keep emissions in check and help reduce the urban heat island effect. These measures not only benefit the environment but also produce a positive impact in the form of better public health outcomes. 

However, the path to more resilient cities would be incomplete without addressing issues of inequality. Authorities must look beyond short-term political considerations to address deep-rooted structural problems that make minority groups and low-income individuals bear the brunt of climate change. Moving towards a community decision-making model when it comes to environmental policies will provide greater confidence that the concerns of those most vulnerable are adequately addressed. Engaging in meaningful partnerships with organizations across society, like non-profits, social enterprises and universities will ensure that no one is falling through the cracks. 

Prioritising climate adaptation is the need of the hour. Execution of effective and feasible climate action by cities will prove the differences between realising a net zero future by 2050 and not. Let’s hope they get this right. 

References:

TBG
Previous

Climate Change News
Next

The Global Supply Chain in the Midst of Unprecedented Public Crises