Low-carbon policies in the USA and China: why cities play a critical role

Figure 1.  Comparisons between the US and Chinese energy statistics at the national scale.

Adapted with permission from [13].

In 2006, China surpassed the USA as the nation with the highest territorial CO₂ emissions from energy use worldwide [1]. Recent data suggests that China and the USA together are estimated to contribute a total of 42% of the global CO₂ emissions from energy use [2]. These data indicate that partnerships between the USA and China present a significant opportunity for global GHG mitigation.

However, the profiles of energy use and GHG emissions in the USA and China are quite different – the USA in 2008 was characterized by a relatively small population of 304 million people [101] with territorial GHG emissions of approximately 23.2 mt-CO₂e/capita [3], and 18.3 mt-CO₂/capita from fuel combustion [2,3]. Energy use in the USA is split: 22% residential; 19% commercial; 32% industrial; and 28% transportation [102]. The US economy is significantly dependent on carbon with energy and carbon intensities of 0.19 mtoe/US$bn and 0.48 kg-CO₂/US$ (both energy intensity and carbon intensities are expressed at as the price in 2000 [2000-US$]; Figure 1) [2]. By contrast, the population of China is over 1.3 billion with territorial per capita GHG emissions of approximately 5.8 mt-CO₂e/capita [4], and 5 mt-CO₂/capita from fuel combustion [2]. Energy use in China is dominated by the industrial sector, which represents 70% of the total. China’s energy and CO₂ intensities per GDP is approximately 0.81 mtoe/US$bn (2000-US$) and 2.5 kg-CO₂/US$ (2000-US$) [2]. In both the USA and China, urban areas contribute a high share of national GHG emissions; estimates show energy-related CO₂ emissions alone in the USA and China to contribute 80 and 86%, respectively [5,6]. In China, 35 cities with special emphasis in its national plan, which represent provincial capitals, large cities and other selected cities of high economic importance, account for 40% of energy-related CO₂ emissions while representing only approximately 18% of the national population [6].

China ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol in 1992 and 2002, and is not required to reduce GHG emissions owing to its status as a developing nation. Through the 1980s and 1990s, China instituted several national-scale energy efficiency programs, many of which focused on the power sector (e.g., phasing out old and inefficient coal powered electricity plants) that yielded significant gains in energy efficiency, such that China’s economic development was somewhat decoupled from carbon (carbon intensity dropped significantly from 5.84 in 1980, to 4.97 in 1990 and 2.53 in 2000, kg-CO₂/US$ [2000-US$]). However, with these low-hanging fruits of power-sector efficiencies picked, China’s energy and carbon intensity per unit GDP has been increasing since 2000, with 2.68 in 2005 but since then declined to 2.5 in 2008. New efforts towards low-carbon development in China are now considering a range of interventions including examining development of cities. This approach is consistent with the high rates of urbanization and rapid population growth seen in Chinese cities where the urban population share stands at 46% (∼1.7 billion) in 2009, in contrast to 26% in 1990, representing an increase of approximately 700 million urban dwellers in this period [103].

China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) is the primary national level agency that is directing low-carbon efforts in China. China’s national approach is built around dampening its economy’s carbon intensity, rather than an absolute (or per capita) reduction of GHG emissions. Starting in the 1980s, the NDRC established stringent energy efficiency targets for many industrial sectors that were very effective in achieving energy efficiency improvements in power production, steel production, for example, which yielded significant reductions in the carbon intensity of the economy. After adopting these efficiency measures, the NDRC is now attempting to stimulate low-carbon development in cities and provinces, consistent with the overall goal of sustainable development. In 2009, China pledged to reduce CO₂ emissions per unit gross GDP by 40 to 45% by the year 2020 based on year 2005 baseline levels. In 2010, the NDRC promoted China’s pioneering cities and provinces to detail low-carbon development plans as part of their 5-year planning efforts (2011–2015). The provinces participating in this pilot program are Guangdong, Liaoning, Hubei, Shaanxi and Yunnan provinces, along with eight cities: Tianjin, Chongqing, Shenzhen, Xiamen, Hangzhou, Nanchang, Guiyang and Baoding. These eight cities collectively account for approximately 70 million people. Cities have also been part of several other national programs. In the previous 5-year planning period (2006–2010), Chinese cities were encouraged to develop programs to promote the Circular Economy (i.e., reduce, reuse and recycling to improve energy efficiency in industrial production), resulting in the emergence of more than 100 eco-industrial parks supported by the national government. Large city governments were subjected to similar targets as the national government to meet the 20% energy efficiency targets set for the previous 11th 5-year plan (2006–10). Thus, the national government in China appears to be closely involved with city-scale low-carbon development efforts, linking and passing down its national targets for reducing carbon intensity of the economy to the city scale.

Whether Chinese cities merely follow national government plans and guidance or formulate additional ambitious agendas and plans, is yet to be seen. In the past, a few cities such as Shanghai, Beijing and Baoding have shown considerable interest in the World Wildlife Fund’s (WWF) Low Carbon City Initiative (LCCI) in China. Shanghai took part in the initiative to address the energy efficiency issues in large commercial buildings, mainly through the demonstration projects, research, and public awareness. Baoding city, as a part of the WWF initiative, aimed to spur on its solar industries through better networking and information sharing, encouraging investment and other supporting activities. Separately, Beijing, Shanghai and other cities engaged in pollution reduction, economic structure adjustment, clean coal technology, improving public transport and other areas of energy management. Beijing installed subsidy systems for efficient lighting, heating systems and public transport. Shanghai envisions wind-driven energy, making its renewable energy share 0.5% of its energy portfolio [7]. Although such measures in Chinese cities are not intended as climate change mitigation, they lead into the dampening of the CO₂ emission growth given that the CO₂ emissions of cities’ are increasing dramatically owing to high rates of economic growth.

In the USA, linkages between national funding and community-scale planning have only recently emerged with the National Sustainable Communities Program, administered jointly by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Department of Transportation (DOT). While the US Federal government has established energy efficiency programs for government institutions and operations [104], no Federal mandate explicitly requires or promotes specific targets for reducing energy use or carbon emissions community wide. Given this, states, cities and regions have independently set up carbon mitigation and adaptation plans. As of May 2011, 30 of the 50 US states had developed climate action plans and established quantitative mitigation targets [105]. For example, three states have set Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) with the percentage of renewable energy standing at: California (33% by 2020); Colorado (20% by 2020); and New York (30% by 2015). Climate action at the city scale was pioneered by the 2005 US Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement initiated by Mayor Nickels of Seattle, WA, USA to which 141 cities were the initial signatories. As of 2011, more than 900 cities have signed on the US climate protection agreement [106]. NGO’s such as ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability, have played a large role in organizing and providing technical assistance and protocols to US cities in their climate action planning efforts. The efforts of cities are sometimes directed toward their own municipal operations, while many cities are considering mitigation of GHGs from community-wide activities within their geopolitical boundaries [8]. Quantitative goals among, the cities vary. While the original 2005 US Mayors agreement called cities to meet or beat the Kyoto protocol goals, cities have since set different targets. For example, Denver seeks to reduce its per capita GHG emissions by 10% from 2005 levels by 2012 [107], while New York City seeks to reduce overall community-wide emission by 30% by 2030 from 2005 levels [108].

After approximately a decade since the first cities in the USA started working on community-wide GHG mitigation, the results are unclear and some of the above city-scale innovations have not diffused widely [9]. The relatively small spatial scale of cities compared to the large infrastructure systems they are embedded in (e.g., electric power networks, regional commutersheds, water supply networks) raises challenges both in measuring GHGs associated with cities, as well as developing robust cross-scale policy linkages that reduce GHG emissions all along the chain from production to use and consumption [10]. Measurement challenges are also significant in quantifying GHG reductions associated with interventions in buildings, transportation and industrial sectors. Estimates of the effectiveness of building retrofits can vary significantly by climate and by location, and are highly influenced by behaviors of occupants. In the transportation sector, the effectiveness of many ‘smart growth’ strategies are difficult to quantify owing to numerous confounding factors, including self-selection bias among city dwellers who choose to live in denser city neighborhoods [11]. Most importantly, a review of city scale efforts toward GHG mitigation reveal that we know very little about the social actors engaged in developing, implementing and participating in climate action plans. The participation rates of social actors in energy interventions greatly shape the rate and extent to which cities can reduce their GHG emissions [Unpublished Data; Ramaswami A et al.]. For example, while a few cities have developed high-impact regulatory approaches to GHG mitigation (e.g., time-of-sale ordinances mandating basic levels of efficiency in homes and commercial properties when they are sold – in effect in Berkeley and San Francisco since the 1990s – date-certain requirements to upgrade residential rental properties and carbon taxes on electricity use [Boulder, Colorado]), such approaches have not been disseminated widely in cities across the US or worldwide. More study of policy actors and their role in developing city-scale GHG mitigation plans is needed.

In both the USA and in China, climate concerns alone are not paramount in engaging large populations in low-carbon development. Indeed, surveys conducted in China (in 2007 and 2009) indicate climate concerns rank fourth after other priorities such as air pollution and waste issues [1]. In the USA, among top policy priorities identified in a survey conducted by the Pew Charitable trust [12], energy came in 11th after economy, jobs, education, terrorism, medicare, healthcare and so on. The environment came in 17th and global warming even lower at 21 out of 22 policy priorities identified in a nationwide survey. Thus, to develop low-carbon cities of the future, carbon mitigation potential must be combined with quantitative analysis of other benefits and cobenefits, including energy security and public health, suited to the overall goals of society.

This special issue, based on papers presented at a USA–China Workshop On Pathways Toward Low-Carbon Cities begins an exploration of the above challenges, bringing together experts from the USA and China covering the many disciplines and domains that must come together to realize the development of low-carbon cities of the future.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties. No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.