Urban Regeneration Talk #6, France
20/01/2025
EUROLOC Summer School 2025 – Reminder
19/02/2025
Conversation #69
Hot in the City.
Failures at COP29 leave the best chance for Climate Action in the hands of local authorities
by Mark Charlton
De Montfort University, United Kingdom
The late, legendary musician Bob Marley once said: “Everything is political. I will never be a politician or even think political. Me just deal with life and nature. That is the greatest thing to me.” Had he still been alive in 2024, he might have wondered what is next for the things he held most dear in his homeland of Jamaica, one of the Small Island States left bitterly disappointed, and at risk, by the outcomes of COP29.
A decision at the global climate change talks in Azerbaijan, gives $300bn a year to these developing countries by 2035. This figure, according to the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) said, falls way short of what is needed to a region with a hefty to-do-list that includes: building renewable energy infrastructure, improving farming practices, creating extreme weather resilience, building storm-proof houses, helping people move out of vulnerable areas, emergency planning and disaster recovery. It is a compelling argument from the Small Island States, who have, in recent years, increasingly been struck by extreme weather events that cause significant damage (Thomas et al.,2020). These impacts have been magnified by climate change and the $300bn towards the AOSIS’ estimate of the $500bn needed in their "1.5 to stay alive" motto-led campaign to secure more funding.
Tense, and sometimes angry, negotiations marked a notable departure from the tone of previous COP climate conferences. While agreements were secured on financing and emissions targets, the dominant narrative emerging from Baku, was one of disagreement and rising activism. With confrontational demonstrations and jeers against finalised agreements, the conference raised fundamental questions about the evolving role of environmental NGOs, the diplomatic landscape, and the future of international climate negotiations. Like the small island states, the outcomes needed to address the effects of climate change on cities globally fell short of tangible action. Cities, and urban areas, are increasingly facing challenges like extreme heat, flooding, and poor air quality (Dharmarathne et al.,2024; Bikis and Wang, 2023; Irfeey et al., 2023). They also contribute over 70% of global carbon emissions, making them both a source of the problem and a potential solution (O'Regan & Nyhan, 2023). Initiatives launched at COP29, such as the Multisectoral Actions Pathways (MAP) declaration, highlighted that cities' have the potential to play a pivotal roles in reducing emissions and enhancing resilience. Like the damage caused to Small Island States, cities around the world face disproportionate impacts from extreme weather. Heatwaves, exacerbated by the ‘urban heat island effect’, where buildings are highly concentrated and parks and trees are limited, make them dramatically warmer than rural areas. Vulnerable groups like women, children, and low-income communities. In cities with poor housing and limited green infrastructure, extreme temperatures increase health risks, from heatstroke to respiratory illnesses. Solutions discussed at COP29 included creating more inclusive cooling spaces and investing in gender-responsive infrastructure to protect marginalised populations, but, in the main, these were just ideas not necessarily actions to be taken.
Whether the looming shadow of United States President Elect Donald Trump was to blame for the inertia of these talks is hard to access. Trump's previous tenure saw the US withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and his rhetoric regularly dismissed climate science as "mythical", "non-existent", or "an expensive hoax". However, in the Vaudeville style of his leadership he has also " described it as a "serious subject" that is "very important to me". Regardless, there is a feeling that the new Trump administration will undermine international efforts by reversing domestic climate policies and reducing US engagement in global negotiations. This was a sentiment not lost on a group of NGOs and activists at COP29 who publicly confronted US Climate Envoy John Podesta, chasing him from a meeting area while chanting “shame, shame, shame”. This moment fed heavily into the broader shift towards direct action and vocal opposition, rather than the traditions of international diplomacy, negotiation and agreement.
While the voices of the activists and NGOs, especially those from the Global South, exposed the accelerating climate crises, hope was offered in the unlikely shape of Local Governments, who appeared to be taking a lead in their own communities, regardless of their country’s positions. Initiatives, highlighted at COP29, such as the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnership (CHAMP) demonstrate integrated approaches between national and subnational levels in a framework that seeks to ensure cities' unique challenges are being addressed in global climate policies and promotes equitable, community-driven responses. Since it’s launch at COP28, some 74 countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States have joined CHAMP. Its membership represents 34% of the global population, 58% of global GDP and 36% of global emissions and many of the cities and local governments are taking impressive climate action. To give some examples of how this is offering hope through action, in the U.S, 24 states and Washington, DC, have Net Zero targets, 100% renewable or carbon-free electricity strategies, or both (CESA, 2024). This includes some states that voted for Trump, like Michigan and North Carolina. In the UK, a study showed 79% of local authorities had declared Climate Emergency and were undertaking or developing net zero strategies (Environmental Law Foundation, 2021). The study found even those who had not officially declared Climate Emergency were still taking action to address the issue. All of this positivity adds to the case articulated in Conversation #59 which made the case that although municipalities have a limited power in driving the private sector to reduce emissions, cities were innovating ways to deliver climate mitigation policies in local communities citing the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, at a global level, and the European Covenant of Mayors as influential networks. Altogether, this, and the actions of local government worldwide, has the potential for major impact on global emissions and environmental improvements over time.
Bob Marley would take no comfort from COP29’s failures, making it clear he had little interest in politics at the macro level – and maybe that’s the takeaway from these COP29 talks, that the real action to support life and nature will be delivered closer to home, in the towns, cities where we live.
References:
Bikis, A. (2023) ‘Urban Air Pollution and Greenness in Relation to Public Health’, Journal of Environmental and Public Health. Edited by Q. Wang
CESA (2024) ‘Table of 100% Clean Energy States’, Clean Energy States Alliance.
Dharmarathne, G. et al. (2024) ‘Adapting cities to the surge: A comprehensive review of climate-induced urban flooding’, Results in Engineering, 22
Environmental Law Foundation (2021) ‘Local urgency on the Climate Emergency? A review of local authority Climate Emergency Declarations and supporting action across the UK’. Environmental Law Foundation.
Irfeey, A.M.M. et al. (2023) ‘Sustainable Mitigation Strategies for Urban Heat Island Effects in Urban Areas’, Sustainability
O’Regan, A.C. and Nyhan, M.M. (2023) ‘Towards sustainable and net-zero cities: A review of environmental modelling and monitoring tools for optimizing emissions reduction strategies for improved air quality in urban areas’, Environmental Research, 231
Thomas, A. et al. (2020) ‘Climate Change and Small Island Developing States’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources , 45(1)
In “Hot in the City”, Mark Charlton reflects on the most recent COP29 and its most striking failures. For the first time in the 29 years of the UN climate negotiations, the delegations of the AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) walked out of the talks. The decision to give $300bn a year to these countries is an inadequate and disappointing outcome, to say the least. This amount will not be enough to tackle the increasingly urgent situation of vulnerability for the populations of Small Island Developing States (SIDS). COP29 failed also to deliver concrete and applicable measures to address climate-related issues in urban areas, although cities could play a key role in combating climate change and increasing resilience. The only glimmer of hope, as Mark Charlton notes, is offered by Local Governments and their attempts to manage the challenges of their communities.
This piece raises important questions about the efficacy of international climate talks and their future. COP29 offers at best a disheartening panorama and is another example of the international community’s inability (or unwillingness) to agree on appropriate measures. Perhaps foreshadowing the next Trump government, the decisions at COP29 were not as ambitious as hoped. But perhaps this simply speaks of a broader structural problem. Given their situation of poverty and lack of resources (often caused by a history of colonialism and domination), specific communities (such as SIDS populations) depend on external funding to cope with the costs of climate change (Jamieson, 2010). During the UN climate talks, richer countries in the Global North decide how much “help” to devote to them. Yet, decisions are basically made unilaterally, with no real decision-making power for the affected populations (Barnett, 2017). As the effects of climate change worsen, we should start giving more than only a (non-binding) say to the most affected communities, starting from the required resources to tackle climate change on their own terms.
As concluded in “Hot in the City”, if there is any hope to address climate change, we should look at community-driven resilience building at the local level. This is shown by initiatives currently undertaken in many cities. There is growing evidence that communities who interact with a specific environment are more attuned to it and better able to manage it (Schlosberg and Carruthers, 2010). Those communities have valuable knowledge of their challenges: they experience first-hand changes in the surrounding environment and can effectively contribute to drafting appropriate solutions (Vandebroek et al., 2011). Locally-led initiatives are often better co-ordinated and effective. Most importantly, they can lead to fairer outcomes compared to decisions made by non-affected external actors (Brondízio et al., 2021). What is the upshot then? The evidence so far points to the international community’s shortcomings in addressing climate change. It is probably time to try a different way. A bottom-up participatory approach led locally could be the right way to tackle the challenges of climate change going forward. We could all learn from successful local initiatives, and this could pave the way for increased resilience to climate change and more respect for people.