This article intends to give a comparative analysis of the carbon reduction strategies published for London and Paris respectively, and seeks to answer the question: ‘What can London Learn from Paris?’
The London approach
First the good news. The UK has already cut carbon emissions by 50% since 1990, and the carbon content of the electricity grid has shown a downward trajectory steeper than many of us would have believed just a few years ago. If you are a glass half full person, you’ll see this as a great reason for optimism. If not you may find the argument that the first 50% is quite easy but the last is difficult if not impossible, and that achieving Net Zero Carbon by 2030 is going to take a monumental effort.
That is however the declared aim of the Mayor of London and is considerably more onerous than previous targets, and that of Paris which aims to be carbon neutral by 2050. I together with Louise Wille of XCO2 have been studying the plans for both cities to assess similarities and differences, aiming to learn along the way.
Element Energy’s report for London Analysis of a Net Zero 2030 Target for Greater London outlines 4 scenarios, and the Mayor has responded to confirm that Accelerated Green, the second most ambitious pathway, is considered the preferred pathway for achieving net zero emissions by 2030 as it balances urgency, ambition, social justice and deliverability.
The Accelerated Green pathway sees London decarbonise as rapidly as possible ahead of national targets, while leaving long term technology options open as far as possible; in particular, allowing some heating systems to remain connected to a blended (hydrogen and biomethane) gas grid and a moderate share of pure hydrogen in selected applications.
The report includes Scope 1 and 2 emissions within recommendations, but excludes Scope 3, crucially therefore not incorporating recommendations for reduction in embodied carbon emissions of goods, services and construction products (though it is recognised that actions to address these emissions must be considered as part of wider climate change mitigation strategies).
This pathway is considered deliverable if London’s key institutions can quickly access the funding and powers needed and work together towards agreed goals. Delivering on this pathway will require co-ordinated action from the Mayor, boroughs, communities, businesses, financiers and the public sector. Every Londoner will have a role to play, but in particular, the UK Government will need to play a major role in achieving this pathway.
Examples of actions required include: greater investment in local public transport,supporting bus electrification to reduce car use, promoting active travel, ensuring Londonreceives its fair share of national funding schemes for retrofit and setting tighter standardson energy efficiency for existing buildings, and/or devolving the powers and funds to setand enforce these standards locally.
It is clear that meeting the targets of the Accelerated Green Scenario will entail ambitious behavioural change and energy efficiency retrofit in buildings “requiring unprecedented levels of deployment over the next 10 years”. It would mean heating systems being adapted to a blended (hydrogen and biomethane) gas grid. A major shift to active, public and shared transport is also assumed: The plan needs a 27% reduction in travelled car km relative to 2018 in order to achieve its goals, and there is also an assumption of limited recovery of air travel demand by 2030 following COVID-19 levels (reaching 50% of 2018 levels).
As a result of all of the outlined measures, the Accelerated Green pathway is estimated to reach a level of 22% residual emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels, and as little as 10% residual emissions by the late 2030’s, hence using offsetting to achieve the zero carbon target which many would find an unacceptable failure to reach the target. The level of residual emissions is highly dependent on the rate at which the electricity grid decarbonises and, if the national grid can decarbonise faster than current projections, then higher emission reductions can be achieved.
There are also caveats. “The Mayor can’t deliver net zero emissions in London on his own, and many measures will rely on national level decisions and consolidated action with relevant parties, stakeholders as well as engagement and behaviouralchange by the public and local businesses. All actors will need significant additional resource in the form of designated staff, funding streams and financing to deploy these policies and take crucial action.”
For example, for the scenario to work 210,000 homes per year on average for the next 8 years will need significant insulation improvements. This should be held up against the peak of 160,000 homes required to be retrofitted in the previous ‘net zero by 2050 scenario’. Further, by 2030 2.2million homes will need to be served by standalone heat pumps to replace gas boilers. Myles Allen however is a fellow glass half full commentator and describes this ambition as a “” and is “absolutely confident it can be done.” He like many does not believe that the solution is to rely solely on individuals to play their part. “How do you coordinate the actions of 8bn people in places as diverse as India, America, China, Saudi Arabia?”
The Mayor also notes that, as costs of living continue to rise, it should be ensured that these benefits are targeted at those who are most vulnerable, and that the costs of delivery are fairly distributed. The solution offered to this is for government and the private sector to provide much greater levels of investment in London’s and the planet’s future to “maximise the positive benefits for the most vulnerable and make London a fairer place in the process.”
Given that the government has very recently issued their Energy Security Strategy, crucially omitting mention of retrofitting opportunities for homes, it is debatable whether the Mayor’s call for action from the government has been heard in this case.
The Paris Approach
While the targets set out within the Paris report may seem less ambitious (i.e. aiming for a 2050 rather than 2030 ‘deadline’), where it particularly shines is in the sections concerning habits, politics and influencing. The Paris strategy does not stop short of setting specific targets that residents and communities themselves can implement, such as:
- Flexitarian diets (vegetarion/local/seasonal)
- Parties and celebration meals to mark car-free days
- The need to demonstrate, explain and convince people that the neutrality goals involve us all, and that we must be united by a new political framework and a new civic pact – now and in the long term
- Appealing to Parisians as voters to make sure that the next 5 administrations are held accountable to continue these efforts and campaign to provide the best solutions for the targets that must be attained during each term of office
The Paris Carbon Neutral report sets aside about a third of the document to looking at scenarios of families and individuals in a series of case studies. “Will you be a Camille, Eric, Monique or Thierry? Will you tremble along with Stephanie or Olga? Will you champion the cause of Adna and Theo” Myles Allen is of the opinion that rather than rely on individuals the fossil fuel industry must be tasked with cleaning up their activities. “If you want to exploit the earth’s resources you have to recompense and return the carbon put into the atmosphere” This would also make renewables cheaper.
The issues dealt with in the report go far beyond the scope of the powers of the City of Paris authority: the issues around food, for example, raise challenges relating to land use planning and the redeployment of farms well beyond the boundaries of Paris itself, affecting places and business models over which the City has no authority. Therein lies the challenge of the mobilisation around the goal of carbon neutrality. Although it is to Inner Paris that the different sources of emissions aggregated in our calculations are attached, the solutions that need to be found will have ramifications that are much more widespread.
The Learning
Climate change has been used as a political football for too long. Denial by the right wing since long before Sarah Palin’s “Drill Baby Drill” mantra has been a badge of honour for most free marketeers. In 1977 when a student, I won the Inplan Energy Conservation Award sponsored by Tarmac with ideas to make the architectural gem that was Leicester University Library by Castle Park Hook more energy efficient. This was in response to the Oil Crisis when Sheik Yamani and others formed OPEC and started to put pressure on the West by increasing energy prices. The crisis went away and in the 80’s energy usage went back to normal. By the time I qualified as an Architect in 1981 few clients were interested in energy conservation. The Library has long since been demolished which is shameful. When I look back at my Inplan ideas they would still be relevant and we cannot allow to let another 45 years go by without putting these ideas into practice. They were simple and unsophisticated. Better insulation, renewable energy, natural lighting and ventilation. But more importantly re-use rather than rebuild.