Dunkerque makes me think

Last week the 6th Conference on European Sustainable Cities and Towns took place in Dunkerque, France. It resulted in a common Local Sustainability Declaration that stresses the need to create innovative, sustainable and inclusive communities.
At the same time a Call on Climate Action was released, which aimed at stressing the key role of local and regional governments in the international negotiations. Find more info here

In three days the over 1500 participants were offered panel discussions, parallel sessions to all kind of sustainability related topics and of course organistaions, regions, cities and companies presented themselves and their work for a more sustainable future.

The city of Dunkerque was the host - and they did great. The conference participants were well taken care of with volunteers and cocktail parties and shuttle busses. We got the impression that the whole city IS a conference venue and all citizens are happy to be part!

But it wasn´t. On the last morning the shuttle bus to the conference venue was escorted by a honking crowd of cars (which most of us mistook as a wedding/football game - reaction), just to see people unrolling banners in front of the Kursaal as well as on the beach, right at the lunch venue to demonstrate for "Solidarité" with them.
Those were people from the local chemical industry and oil plant, fearing to loose their jobs. So they were demonstrating against all the people at the conference, who want a sustainable, carbon(oil-free) world!

I have to say, that this end of the conference made me think.
Not that this was the most important that happened in Dunkerque and not that it "destroyed" the spirit that we had. But nevertheless it made me think, how people can demonstrate "against sustainable development" in which they mainly see a thread?

How do we actually communicate our vision of a sustainable future?And how holistic do we actually think? How much do we, who work with this everyday, actually really take into account the social aspect, the fear of people?
No doubt that the "unsustainable" industries employ loads of people...what alternatives do they have when (if!) industries are shut down?

A sustainable future is carried by people - not by political decisions and strategies or the economy. It´s about the people, who can influence with their everyday life, behaviours and choices.

But what if many see this sustainable future as something to be afraid of?
Isn´t it our task to take care of that, to improve our communication skills and messages that we give out? No doubt that a greener economy will also create loads of jobs, but this message seems not to have reached the people...

And isn´t a development only sustainable if all have the chance to get something out of it, live a good life and not fear?

No solutions from my side (yet), but this really makes me think.
Perhaps it makes you think, too.

You are welcome to leave your opinion here!

American cities acting for climate

The USA is the 2nd largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. It is also a major player in international climate change negotiations but has been lacking the political will to commit to climate protection. This hasn't stopped cities of tackling the issue of climate change locally: many local governments have climate action plans and ambitious targets for cutting their GHG emissions.

The State of California at the head is adopting statewide climate policies and regulations. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 is expected to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050. Moreover, a law to redesign communities to reduce greenhouse gases connects land use with carbon reduction goals. By offering carrots, the regulations encourage cities to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy that requires new development to be near transit or clustered with existing development. Many Californian local governments, Santa Monica, Pasadena and Los Angeles, for example, have already implemented green building standards and resource GHG emissions programs.

At the same time, Austin, Texas is the first city in the US committing to going carbon neutral. Interestingly, Austin is the Capitol of a conservative state that is the national leader in greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007, Austin resolved to make city facilities, vehicles and operations carbon-neutral by 2020 and move the city-owned energy utility toward this goal over time. To this end, a Climate Action Plan targeting four areas: municipal operations, utility, homes and buildings, and community, is to be developed and implemented. In Austin, an integrated approach to climate work has been adopted: An inventory of greenhouse gas emissions has been completed for all city departments and a Climate Action Team composed of representatives from all city departments is working on department-specific plans to attain the municipal goal, as well as greenhouse gas-reduction strategies specific to their roles across all four areas.

Source:
SolveClimate.com / Patricia Kirk
Pictures: Cities of Los Angeles and Austin

Read more:
California Climate Change Portal
CoolCalifornia: Local Government Case Studies
Austin Climate Protection Program: CoolAustin.org

Cities are key to fight climate change

With more than 50 % of the world' s population is living in cities, we are an urban species. Cities account for about 80 % of the world-wide pollution. According to Anna Tibaijuka, Executive Director of UN-HABITAT, this clearly shows, that human species is putting the world in danger and cities are key in addressing this challenge. At the same time, cities are leading the world-wide process to fight climate change both in mitigation and adaptation. Adaptation strategies in developing countries are by nature survival strategies. Global climate governance should therefore include those managing the habitats. This discussion has been recorded as part of the series 'Time for Real Questions' during COP15 in Copenhagen.

Lights off on Saturday: It's Earth Hour!

Earth Hour 2010 is taking place on Saturday the 27th of March, 8:30 PM (local time) and switching off the lights around the world for an hour. The idea is not to save electricity but to take a stand against climate change. Individuals, businesses and communities all over the world are called to action: to take responsibility and get involved in the fight against climate change.

In 2009, over 4 000 cities in 88 countries took part in Earth Hour making it the largest climate change initiative in the world. This year, many global landmarks such as the Eiffel tower in Paris, Big Ben in London, Empire State Building in New York City and Sydney Opera House are going to stand in darkness.

Earth Hour has been visible in social media such as Facebook and Twitter and there's a lot of enthusiasm around the event.One could ask if Earth Hour is really making a change. Turning off your lights for an hour per year is a great way to seem green to the public without really committing to mitigate climate change in everyday actions. But at the same time it is an easy way to show that you care.

One of the aims of Earth Hour is to show politicians the concern of the general public. Especially after the failure in the Copenhagen Summit, this kind of global campaign and enthusiasm is hopefully a way of giving world leaders the mandate they need to make the right climate deal.



More information on the campaign: Earth Hour website
Earth Hour is organized by WWF.

"Adaptigation"

There are different views when it comes to administrations and climate change response. The opinion of many is that climate change mitigation is most important while others believe that adaptation to the effects of a changing climate is more critical. Most, however, admit that both perspectives have to be taken into account.

Recently there has been a dramatic change in the perspective of how administrations act in response to climate change. After focusing almost solely on climate change mitigation for years, different administrations are now concentrating more on climate change adaptation. According to a Senior Research Fellow in Nordregio, Richard Langlais, good planning integrates both perspectives: adaptation and mitigation. He argues that separating the two perspectives in planning is becoming obsolete and can also lead to contradictory measures.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate change adoption is defined as "initiatives and measures to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate change effects". Climate change mitigation, on the other hand, means "implementing policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance sinks".

Langlais uses a simple example of a municipality planting a new forest along a local river. As he argues, this measure should be seen as both adaptation and mitigation, that is: "adaptigation", by which he means a response to climate change that integrates a focus on adaptation with a focus on mitigation, to avoid conflicts and create synergies. "Seeing this newly planted forest as both adaptation (it buffers the impacts of flooding) and mitigation (it absorbs carbon) is good planning", writes Langlais. The most important thing is to keep "adaptigation" in mind: adaptation and mitigation can be outcomes of the same measures.

Source: Richard Langlais, Journal of Nordregio 9:4, 2009.

"The Bill" - short film

In anticipation to the COP 15:

"The Bill" is a 4 min short film made by Germanwatch and funded by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.



Three friends meet in a bar and start talking about their lives. Cars, holidays, energy and diet represent a colorful range of "climate sins". With the appearance of the barmaid, the film takes a surprising change of course...
The screenplay was produced as a film in May, 2009. The actors Benno Fuermann, Bjarne Maedel, Christoph Tomanek und Ina Paule Klink took part; Peter Wedel directed.
Contakt: Peter Wedel, ECOFILM, peterwedel@web.de, http://www.eco-film.de/

Today is Earth Overshoot Day!

But what does that mean?

Earth overshoot day marks the day when we start living beyond our ecological means. We use more resources at a faster rate as what the Earth can regenerate in one year. So not a day to celebrate.

Source: Global Foorprint Network

The Global Foorprint Network is publishing that we would now require 1.4 planets to support our lifestyles, that means in less than 10 months we have used ecological services that take 12 months for the Earth to generate

And the overshoot day gets earlier every year!

This is definitely something to think about!

On the websites of Global Foorprint Network you find much more information about how this is calculated etc.

Of course the Earth Overshoot Day is something where all aspects of global actions are cncerned, still action ahs to be taken just in everyday life.

In CHAMP we will develop collection of calculators and guidelines on how to decrease the carbon footprint in travels, meetings and other activities that we hav ein projects. We want to encourage our cities and other stakeholders to think about this issue and to do what they are able to do.

More information on that will come later, here and on our website