KEY POINTS:
I recently returned from a trip to Kyoto (at no expense to ratepayers) representing New Zealand mayors at a world mayors' conference on climate change. We sat in the assembly room where 10 years ago the Kyoto Protocol was agreed. I think future generations will regard it as
a shrine.
Why should mayors be debating issues of world climate change that are seen as the domain of national governments?
Well, half the world's population now live in cities and globally that figure is increasing by one million people a week. Half the world's population uses 70 per cent of the world's energy.
The message from Kyoto is that cities can make a significant difference to greenhouse gas emissions within a short time, often without legislative change, just by changing practices within existing structures.
Small solutions having a major effect, often with no politics involved.
Sounds too good to be true? The Kyoto answer says it is not only true - it is also achievable.
Global greenhouse gas emissions are now 27 billion tonnes a year. Of that figure, three billion tonnes is from the carbon dioxide humans expel each year. Assuming we cannot slow our breathing, that leaves us a discretionary 24 billion tonnes.
A Japanese professor at Kyoto used an analogy: If we collectively breathe out 3 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and if collectively we produce an extra annual 24 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases through services, industry, transport etc, then we all have, in effect, eight "slaves" to help us live our lives.
In the case of the United States, given their per capita greenhouse emissions, their figure would be 54 "slaves" each . The equivalent Japanese figure would be 27 and in New Zealand 20.
How can we reduce the number of "slaves" we need to live our lives in Auckland?
Why should Auckland, at the bottom of the South Pacific with 0.0023 per cent of the world's population, be concerned with world climate change and reducing greenhouse gas production?
As half the world's population live in cities using 70 per cent of the world's energy, then if all cities reduce gas production levels by 20 per cent, that is a 14 per cent reduction worldwide. A 35 per cent reduction by all cities would be a 2 per cent worldwide reduction and so on.
Conversely, if every city took the approach that alone they could not make a global difference, then no difference would be made. Climate change is about hundreds of thousands of changes. Every city can help to save the world.
And cities are achieving these figures already after only a few years of simple changes. Melbourne has set a target of 50 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2010 and aims to be carbon neutral by 2020. That from a city which is the manufacturing base of Australia. Melbourne is already 26 per cent of the way there.
About 80 per cent of Australian cities now have climate change programmes annually saving 8.8 millions tonnes of CO2. Toronto, on the other side of the world, has already reduced its CO2 emissions by 40 per cent and its economy is booming.
About 700 cities worldwide are now enrolled in the cities climate change programme. I led the charge to make sure Auckland was one of them. These cities only account for 6 per cent of the world's population but they account for 20 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas production.
Auckland will be directly affected by climate change. The 2C rise in sea temperature predicted by 2100 will bring tropical diseases and pests into Auckland. A half-metre rise in sea levels in Auckland harbour will affect all buildings on the extensive reclaimed land areas in the CBD.
In addition, the predicted heavier rainfall will mean radical redesign of roads and stormwater systems. And if that is not enough, a significant increase in rainfall would produce more leaky homes.
Another compelling reason for change is that cities the size of Auckland produce their own microclimate. The air above our city is noticeably hotter, dirtier and more toxic than the air outside it. Very small particulates in the air (PM10) levels now often exceed World Health Organisation standards.
We have premature deaths in Auckland from our air pollution. You can now see the "brown rim" on the horizon on a still Auckland morning.
What you don't see is what really matters - greenhouse gases are invisible.
Interestingly enough, reducing water consumption also helps reduce greenhouse emissions. Why? Almost all water is pumped and, in the case of Auckland, our last drops are pumped from the Waikato River.
That uses a lot of electricity. Then we use concrete pipes and cement production produces lots of greenhouse gases. Also "water in, largely equals water out", with all the waste water costs of pumping and pipes.
If we accept the arguments for Auckland city acting on climate change then what do we need to do?
This is what I learned from Kyoto: Firstly, that "in order to treasure we must first of all measure". Many cities with climate change programmes know their greenhouse gas emissions on a weekly and an annual basis.
They also know contributions from their industries, commercial sectors, retail sectors and different residential sectors. And the levels of different gases in the greenhouse gas cocktail. From detailed information, they can set reasonable and realistic targets and tell the residents of their cities.
Who in Auckland knows how many tonnes of greenhouse gases our downtown commercial centre produces each year? Certainly not those working in such centres. We must both measure and inform.
Secondly, climate change in cities is all about lots of carrots and very little use of sticks. The lesson from cities achieving major reductions in greenhouse gas is that you must win the hearts and minds of the population - providing incentives, rewarding those who make changes and advancing the concept that when the job is done people can say "we did it ourselves".
How do we involve civic leadership? We have to be able to tell people how to build "carbon neutral houses" and encourage the installation of photovoltaics, solar water heaters, small wind generators, grey water usage systems etc. Green hotel programmes are very successful overseas.
We must provide incentives where necessary and remove bylaws that specifically inhibit these installations. We must encourage power companies to buy back home generated power, set voluntary reduction targets with major industries, get public transport up and going. The list goes on.
As a city council, we must set an example, show what can be done and communicate persistently with the public.
Overseas experience convinces me Auckland could halve its greenhouse gas production per head of population if we really tried - with no decrease in economic activity and the added benefit of a significant increase in quality of lifestyle and health.
* Dick Hubbard is Mayor of Auckland City
