Compact of Mayors Newsletter Copyright 2014
City of Dubuque Consent Items # 4.
ITEM TITLE: Compact of Mayors
SUMMARY: City Manager transmitting the December 2015 Compact of
Mayors newsletter Climate Leadership at the Local Level:
Global Impact of the Compact of Mayors.
SUGGESTED DISPOSITION: Suggested Disposition: Receive and File
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Compact of Mayors Supporting Documentation
Global I mpact of the Compact of Mayors Supporting Documentation
Emissions Scenario Model Supporting Documentation
Page 1 of 1
Mike Van Milligen - Fwd: Compact of Mayors-Aggregate Commitment Impact News
From: Roy Buol<rdbuol(a),cityofdubuque.org>
To: CtyMgr@cityofdubuque.org,Rgehl@cityofdubuque.org, Tgoodman@cityofdubuque.org
Date: 12/4/2015 3:55 AM
Subject: Fwd: Compact of Mayors-Aggregate Commitment Impact News
Attachments: wri15 TECH Compact Mayors.pdf, CoM Aggregation Report Glossy.pdf
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: 'Robin Reck" <robin(dtheinciteagency.com>
Date: December 4, 2015 at 9:10:25 AM GMT+1
Subject: Compact of Mayors-Aggregate Commitment Impact News
Dear Compact of Mayors cities,
Today,we officially release the aggregate impact all of your commitments will make on addressing
and finding solutions to climate change. I wanted to share a variety of materials with you all so that
you can use them in media, back at home, over social media and perhaps even as a recruitment
talking point when you see other non-Compact cities today.
. Glossy Report: 6-page highlighting the results of our efforts,placing the Compact of Mayors
within the context of global urban potential and the INDC gap—attached here. We will have
printed copies of this at the Summit.
. Infographic: This is an interactive infograyhic showing the results,highlighting cities in the
analysis, and providing an opportunities for users to interact with the data—this is narrated, so
view this with volume on. It also allows you to click through and learn all about the cities and
the process to gain full compliance.
. Technical Report: This is a comprehensive technical note outlining the methodology of the
Compact and sets up for future enhancements to the model with support from the broader
community of researchers.
. Compact of Mayors video: This features interviews with Mayors Paes,Park and Toybas, as
well as Mike Bloomberg, and incorporates data visualizations from a handful of complaint
cities—these have been developed by Carbon Visuals, an organization committed to creating
scientifically accurate volumetric images that help audiences make sense of data.
I hope to see you all at the top of the entry staircase in the Compact of Mayors space.
Very best and thank you all for your hard work on this important issue.
Robin
Robin Reck I The Incite Agency I (202) 223-9512 I @ThelnciteAgency
Click here to report this email as spam.
file:///C:/Users/jhilkin/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/56610EBEDBQ DODBQ P010... 12/4/2015
COMPACT
4&
PACT
f MAYORS
December 2015
Climate Leadership at the Local Level:
Global Impact of the Compact of Mayors
Key Messages
• Commitments already made through Compact
of Mayors cities and towns can deliver half of the
global urban potential greenhouse gas(GHG)
_ emissions reductions available by 2020.
• Potential urban emissions reductions in 2030
! _ are equivalent to nearly 25%of the"gap"
between national pledges made in advance
of the 2015 Paris Climate Summit and the
r.,. "2-degree"scenario.
• Greater ambition today,spurred by local
government pre-2020 climate actions,creates a
About This Studypathway for significant future impact
The Compact of Mayors is a global
coalition of cities and towns.
Supported by city networks, they
pledge to reduce local greenhouse
gas(GHG)emissions,enhance their
resilience to climate change, and •
transparently report and track their • • • .:
progress.This study demonstrates
• �ii
the impact of this leadership by .� • ��.-�'li� • «
estimating the collective impact i•• • _ • ••�
of Compact of Mayors cities. The ••• • •
analysis covers all cities and towns ab M• % •
•
committed to the Compact of • •. • • •
Mayors as of November 23,2015— • . •
360 cities from all continents and • ;�• ,•. ••, • •
regions across the globe. Figure 1 1•• • •
to the right shows the distribution • ~• Committed City • •N+
of these cities(please refer to the
Compliant City •
Compact of Mayors website for the Figure 1:Compact of Mayors Cities
complete list of cities).They represent
over 340 million people or 8.7%of the Compact Committed City:Each city committing to the Compact agrees to:
Measure
3.9 billion global urban population, Set data-based targets •address
and emit 2.08 gigatonnes carbon Plan to addresschange
dioxide equivalent of greenhouse Report on all these efforts publicly and annually
gases(GtCO2e), nearly 5%of globalalready these requirements in 2015.
-•annually.
emissions.
0 COMPACT
of MAYORS
Compact of Mayors cities are leading the fight against climate change in every region across the globe. Their potential to cut
emissions in 2030 is significant, ranging from" MtCO2e per year in south and west Asia to 172 MtCO2e per year in North America.
EuropeM.
HHHHHh
niriffij� North America
imi
171.7 92.5
IMIES
�CIT S:. ::.
.. ::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::• :::::::•::...
.............. ........................................................ ............. ............ .
•
Latin Wiffilln.
America
...... ........................ ..... ::::::
Figure 3.Regional Emissions ""' "•'"•'•R """"" -L 192
`.......'
Breakdown in 2030,MtCO2e
T.1111115., M.
Annual potential for global urban action is equivalent to
1
% of - "2-degree • . • in 2030.
. There remains a gap between the emissions Total 2-Degree INDC Gap:15 Gt CO2e
i�
level required to meet a 2 degrees r — — — — 15.00 Gt CO2e — -To
centigrade threshold of global warming
above pre-industrial levels and the pledges
I I
made to date by national governments
through their"Intended Nationally — — — — 11.25 Gt CO2e — — — — —i-3/4
Determined Contributions"(INDCs).Notably,
the potential for global urban GHG emissions
Hi
mitigation in 2030 is 3.7 GtCO2e annually.'
This potential is equivalent to roughly 25%of ~ — — — — 7.25 Gt CO2e — — — — —1-1/2
the gap between the pledged INDCs and the
2-degree emissions scenario,as identified by
the United Nations Framework Convention — — — — 3.75 Gt CO2e — — — — —1-1/4
on Climate Change.'
II ITotal .. Potential • •
Figure 4.Diagram of the 2-degree gap with INDCs. 3.7 Gt CO2e
"" Stack diagram of the gap compared to city potential.
Global urban potential is as reported in the Stockholm Environment Institute's"Advancing Climate Ambition:Cities as Partners in Global Climate Action"report
6 For more details on INDCs,please see the UNFCCC report"Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions"
The 360 cities committed to the Compact of
Mayors today can deliver over half of the world's
2020 potential urban • • •
III
Over the last 20 years,local governments have demonstrated \
accelerating leadership in tackling climate change,yet the
collective impact of this action had note yet been clearly
quantified.' Launched in 2014 the Compact of Mayors for the
first time recognizes all of the city efforts currently underway.
The Compact helps cities consolidate and compare their climate
actions by creating a framework for consistent and transparent
public reporting of greenhouse gas emissions data,tracking II II
11
climate hazards and risks,and encouraging strategic plans to
address both.This data-driven platform,similar to the one used
by nations as they create national climate plans,will help direct '
111 II 9
resources and policies to better support and accelerate local
climate actions.The 360 Compact of Mayors committed cities
(as of November 23,2015)can realize over 50%of the 2020
global potential for urban GHG emissions reductions.2
Figure 2:Annual Urban Emissions in 2020
GHG Reductions
from Compact
commitments
0.50 GtCO2e
2020 2030 2050
Total Global Urban Global urban potential for actions under current city authority(GtCO2e)3 1.0 8.0
Potential in 2030 Annual emissions reductions from Compact of Mayors cities below
0.50 0.74 0.95
2
1 Gt CO e BAU levels(GtCO2e)
Cumulative emissions reductions from BAU(GtCO2e)4 2.64 9.06 26.59
Remaining Potential
for Urban Action
0.50 GtCO2e
Local leaders around the world are making strong commitments to fight climate change,and the Compact of Mayors is providing
an outlet to showcase those ambitions.Analysis shows that the 360 cities already committed to the Compact can reduce their
GHG emissions by 0.50 GtCO2e per year from business-as-usual (BAU)levels by 2020,and by 0.74 GtCO2e annually by 2030.The
cumulative emissions avoided account for more than 9 GtCO2e over the period from 2010 to 2030.
The fifth IPCC Assessment Report identified a lack of consistent and verifiable assessment of city impact:https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ars/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf
2 The analysis of Compact of Mayors commitments as compared to urban GHG emissions reductions is derived from"Advancing Climate Ambition:Cities as Partners in Global Climate
Action,"which calculated the emissions mitigation potential of cities based on actions in those three areas where municipal control over energy use and emissions is greatest:
buildings,transit and waste management.
3 Global urban potential is as calculated in"Advancing Climate Ambition:Cities as Partners in Global Climate Action."
4 Cumulative emissions are calculated from 2010.
Greater ambition today opens the pathway for significant future impact.
The negotiations underway in Paris at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change(COP21)are important in setting national emissions reduction targets from
2020 onwards, but emissions of carbon dioxide,the most prevalent GHG,accumulate in the atmosphere for many
decades, if not centuries. This means that each additional ton of avoided emissions today provides cities and nations
additional time to tackle the climate challenge and reduces the need for costlier interventions tomorrow. Cities are
already leading efforts to cut emissions today,well in advance of the INDC window.
Analysis of Compact business as usual emissions(BAU) projections suggest that in 2030 the average city
resident will emit 6.0 tCO2e per year(see BAU emissions in Figure 6). If Compact cities continue to cut emissions
at their present level of ambition by 2030,the average emissions for each resident would drop to 4.2 tCO2e per
year(see Compact commitment estimates in Figure 6).
Ambitious city action has even greater potential to reduce emissions. Many cities are already committing to
targets equivalent to only one or two tons of emission per resident. If all Compact cities took on similar efforts,
the impacts would be significant: A two-ton average per capita would cut emissions by 17% below business as
usual,and a one ton average per capita would cut emissions by 33%. (See 1-ton and 2-ton analyses in Figure 6
below).
Figure 6.2010-2050 annual emission levels under different levels of ambition
2,500
2,000
1,500
O
U
c'7
1,000
500
0
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Compact BAU 0 Target scenario 1 t/cap 2 t/cap 3 t/cap
Key Terminologies
• Business-As-Usual(BAU):A BAU scena rio isa projection
ofcities'future GHG emissions assuming no specific
action is taken to cute missions calewstea
• Targetscenano:A target scenario is a projection of theInnnuai
Savings
citiesfuture GHG emissions based on established GHG gPJ�
emissions targets or on likely reduced emission levels for
cities that have notyet reported targetsf iamricai arueia �0 Gatti
Savings
• Annual avoided emissions:The difference between BAU
scenario and to need scenario in a given year
• Cumulative avoided emissions:The aggregate amount of 2010 2030
all annual avoided emissions for a given number of years
Figure 5'.Peak emissions scenarios under delayed action
0
]CRE 2.0-C per TFC
Decline at 2 4%per year
1
Ff
L7
E
10
2.000000 205or
SFFW
Peak CO2-induced warming�C)
0
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Year
As indicated in the chart above,limiting peak warming to two degrees above pre-industrial levels means
reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 2.4%per year from 2015(blue). Delaying emissions mitigation by a
decade, until 2025,means the same rate of cuts would result in 2.5 degrees of global warming(green). Delayed
action will, therefore,make it more difficult to prevent the worst impacts of climate change, as storing below
two degrees would require much faster and deeper emissions cuts 7
As noted earlier, cities that have committed to the Compact of Mayors as of November 23, 2015, can
contribute half of all 2020 annual global urban emissions mitigation potential (see Figure 1). The sooner
titles scale up their climate actions,the greater room there will be for additional emissions cuts In 2020
and beyond.
7 Stocker&Allen(2013)-Impact ofdelay In reducing cation dioxide emissions
SL
1„
'� „ =� < •,." •matv
y• —
� _ .. �r
Pat
IWI .
etn7 ,
Contributors- Compact of Mayors The Compact of Mayors would Study Undertaken By: Funded By:
Management Committee like to thank these organizations
for their support and input WORLD Blotonib�g
Blooniberg
Acknowledgement
cao
arses
UNWHABITAT For further information,including a technical note that details
....... FOR A BETTER URBAN FUTURE F S E I the methodological approach and an interadive infographic,
please go to wwwcompadofmayors.org
About Compact of Mayors
The Compact of Mayors is a global coalition of mayors and city officials committing to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions,
enhance resilience to climate change and track their progress publicly. It is an agreement by city networks-and then by their
members-to fight climate change in a consistent and complimentary manner to national efforts.
• The Compact collects the significant climate action data that cities are already reporting in a consistent,transparent manner and makes that data
available in a single place.
• The Compact builds on existing cooperative efforts,partnering with other initiatives to better measure and communicate the impact of city action.
• The Compact represents the greatest opportunity to bring attention to,and quantify,city action,both in the lead-up to Paris and beyond.
W W W.COM PACTOFMAYORS.ORG
WORLD
`;�, RESOURCES TECHNICAL NOTE
INSTITUTE
COMPACT OF MAYORS EMISSIONS SCENARIO MODFL
BY ALEX KOVAC AND WEE KEAN FONG
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Compact of Mayors is an international coalition of CONTENTS
cities committed to addressing the challenges of climate Executive Summary....................................................... 1
change.Since its launch in September 2014,hundreds of 1. Introduction...............................................................2
cities have joined.To improve understanding of the col- 2. Purpose and Outputs of the Model............................2
lective impact of cities,World Resources Institute and the
Compact of Mayors jointly developed a model to estimate 3. Methodology Overview.............................................3
its cities collective emission trajectories.This technical 4 Business-as-Usual Emissions Scenario.....................4
note outlines the methodology used in the model. 5 Target Emission Scenario...........................................6
The model provides methodologies to aggregate the green- 6. Limitations and Future Research...............................9
house gas (GHG) reduction targets reported by cities and
to estimate the likely GHG reduction of cities that have Annex: Current Reference Cities.................................. 10
signed up but not yet formally reported their GHG List of Contributors..................................................... 11
reduction targets to the Compact of Mayors. References................................................................... 12
Endnotes..................................................................... 12
This robust model produces results in different formats,
timeframes,and for different categories of cities,such as
business-as-usual(BAU)scenario emissions and avoided Technical notes document the research or analytical
emissions for Compact-compliant cities,cities with methodology underpinning a publication,interactive
reported targets,cities without targets,and so on.The application,or tool.
quality and accuracy of the results depend on the choice of
input data and the purpose of analysis. suggested Citation:Kovac,A and W.K.Fong.2015.
"Compact of Mayors Emissions scenario Model."Technical Note.
Washington,D.C.:World Resources Institute.Available online at
The model's main limitation is that it estimates the emis- www.wri.org/pubheation/compactdata 015
sion reductions based solely on top-down emission-
reduction targets without considering the emission-reduc-
tions potential of cities'financial,technology,renewable
energy, and other resources.A focus of future research is
to estimate the emission reductions of these cities based
on bottom-up approaches.
ift
iW WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE TECHNICAL NOTE I December20151 1
1. INTRODUCTION ■ CATEGORIES OF CITIES:It yields results for all Compact
of Mayors cities and for subsets of cities including
The Compact of Mayors is an international coalition of fully Compact-compliant cities,cities with targets,and
cities committed to addressing the challenges of climate cities without targets.Subsets of cities by region and
change.Since its launch in September 2014 at the UN by target period are also available.
Climate Summit in New York City, hundreds of cities
havejoined' 2.2 Input Data
Increased interest in and recognition of climate actions by The quality of analysis results depends on the choice of
cities have spurred new research to put city contributions input data.The following considerations are important
in a global perspective.Several recent reports aggregate when choosing input data:
the impacts of cities and other subnafional actors to ■ The model provides methodologies for aggregating
provide context for urban commitments and capacities to cities'emissions targets as well as estimating likely
fight global climate change.41,343 emission reductions for cities without targets.If data
input includes only cities with emissions targets,the
To improve understanding of the collective impact of model will yield more accurate aggregation results.If
Compact of Mayors cities,World Resources Institute and the data include cities without targets,there will be
the Compact of Mayors developed a model to estimate its uncertainties in the model results (see section 5.4)•
cities'collective emission trajectories.This model builds
on earlier efforts and focuses on the cities signed on to If city GHG inventory data are provided,the model
the Compact of Mayors.This technical note outlines the will prioritize them for the analysis.The model can
methodology used in the model. also approximate current emission levels for cities
without GHG inventories,which will lead to some
uncertainties (see section 5.4)•
2. PURPOSE AND
' For cities with GHG inventory data,the model can
OUTPUTS OF THE MODEL
include scope 1 or scopes 1 and 2 data(see Box 1). If
The model described here is a first-phase model developed scopes 1 and 2 data are included,there is a possibil-
to address the limited data available during the Compact ity of double counting between cities depending on
of Mayors'first year.At this stage,although more than how many cities are in the same electricity grid and
300 cities have committed to the Compact of Mayors,not whether any city contains fossil fuel power plants.The
all have reported GHG inventories and emission reduc- decision on whether to include scope 1 or scopes 1 and
tion targets.The model provides robust methodologies to 2 data for reference cities will determine the scope(s)
aggregate GHG reduction targets reported by cities and/or approximated for cities without data. Currently it is
to estimate the likely GHG reductions for cities that have not recommended to include scope 3 data as it may
signed up but not yet formally reported their GHG reduc- lead to significant double counting.Incorporation of
tion targets to the Compact of Mayors. scope 3 emissions may be an area of future research.
■ Ideally,all GHG data should be based on a common
2.1 Model Outputs GHG accounting protocol.Using GHG data from
This robust model can produce emissions results for different protocols leads to greater uncertainty.As
different assumptions and timeframes,and for different required by the Compact of Mayors, in future years
categories of cities. Among the model results are: all cities will use the Global Protocol for Community-
Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories to
■ TIMEFRAME OF THE ANALYSIS:This model can produce develop GHG inventories,which is expected to mini-
results for any year(s)from 2010 to 2050. mize data inconsistency issues.
■ BUSINESS-AS-USUAL(BAU)AND TARGET SCENARIOS:It ■ It is unlikely that all cities will have complete GHG
can estimate BAU and target scenario emissions for data for all emission sources and all types of GHGs.
each of the analysis years. Incomplete GHG data will also lead to greater
■ ANNUAL AND CUMULATIVE AVOIDED EMISSIONS:It shows uncertainty.
annual and cumulative avoided emissions for any
year(s)within the analysis timeframe.
2 1 ift
V WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
COMPACT OF MAYORS EMISSIONS SCENARIO MODEL
Box 11 Scope Definitions According to the Global ■ There should be a description of the methodologies
Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse used.When multiple methodologies are used (e.g.,
Gas Emission Inventories methodologies for estimating emission reductions
for both cities with and without targets),the fraction
of result for each methodology should be provided to
ensure transparency.
SCOPE 3. METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
SCOPE 2: GHG emissions occurring from use of grid-supplied
electricity, heat,steam,and/or cooling within the city boundary. Producing the model results described in section 2
SCOPE 3:All other GHG emissions that occur outside the city bound- involves three major steps:
ary as a result of activities taking place within the city boundary. ■ Estimating BAU scenario emission levels.
Source WRI,040,ICLEI,2014 ■ Estimating target scenario emission levels.
■ Calculating avoided emissions.
Section 3.1 provides an overview of the calculation meth-
2.2 Results Presentation odologies for estimating avoided emissions.It explains
Considering the robustness of the model and how the why BAU and target scenarios are needed to calculate
analysis results may vary depending on the choice of input avoided emissions.Subsequently,sections 4 and 5
data and methodologies, it is important to ensure that describe the methodologies used for estimating BAU and
the analysis results are presented in a transparent way, target scenario emission levels.
acknowledging the uncertainties and quality of the data.
Regardless of whether the analysis result is presented in a 3.1 Calculating Avoided Emissions
report,an infographic,a communication brochure,or in A BAU scenario is a projection of cities'future GHG
other forms,the following guidance for data presentation emissions assuming no action is taken to cut emissions.
should be followed: A target scenario is a projection of the cities'future GHG
■ A link to this technical note should be attached to emissions based on established GHG emissions targets or
the results. on likely reduced emission levels for cities that have not
■ There should be a description of the data use and an yet reported targets.The difference between a city's BAU
acknowledgment of the data quality. scenario and target scenario equals the avoided emissions
or emissions savings.6 Annual and cumulative avoided
GHG emissions are illustrated in Table 1.
Table 11 Calculating Annual and Cumulative Avoided Emissions
CALCULATIONr
BAU scenario
Annual avoided emissions of a given year GHG =BAU scenario —Target scenario - Avoided
emissions
Targescenario....
Cumulative avoided emissions over a given n BAUscenario ....
GHG= (BAU scenario—Targetscenario� Avoided
number of years emissions
=1
Target scenario
Source:Authors.
TECHNICAL NOTE I December2015 13
Calculating annual and cumulative avoided emissions is Considering the available data,the following BAU scenario
not difficult.However,accurately estimating BAU emis- projection options were considered:
sions and target emissions into the future is very difficult,
especially if data are missing or not comparable.The rest ■ OPTION 1:Apply population as a common factor for
of this note discusses how to collect and estimate data for BAU scenario projections for all cities.
the two scenarios. ■ OPTION 2:Apply GDP as a common factor for BAU
scenario projections for all cities.
4. BUSINESS-AS-USUAL ■ OPTION 3:Apply both population and GDP at 1:1
EMISSIONS SCENARIO weightage.
A BAU scenario represents the future conditions most ■ OPTION 4:Apply given BAU scenarios for cities with
likely to occur without policies or actions to reduce GHG available data then apply one of the above options for
emissions.Ideally, the BAU scenario analysis would sim- the remaining cities.
ply use the BAU scenario data from each city's action plan.
However,some city action plans contain detailed scenario Sensitivity analysis was undertaken by applying all the
projections,whereas others do not,and not all city data above options to Mexico City; Rajkot,India; Jakarta; Cape
are comparable.The most practical way to do a collec- Town; Rio de Janeiro;Philadelphia,United States; and
tive study is to normalize the BAU projection method by London,England.Figure 1 shows the analysis results for
identifying one or more parameters that are consistently Mexico City,which were typical for all the cities studied.
and accurately available across all cities. Option 2(GDP)leads to the highest BAU scenario fol-
lowed by Option 3 (population and GDP),Option 4(sce-
4.1 Methodological Options narios in the city action plans),and Option 1 (population).
Developing a BAU scenario requires selecting the factors
that drive emissions and making assumptions about how Figure 11 BAU Sensitivity Analysis
these emission drivers will change over time.Common Based on Mexico City
factors include economic activity,energy intensity,and
population growth.Detailed BAU scenarios may also take
into account expected changes in technology and struc- 5
tural shifts in economic sectors,among other things.
In this first year of the Compact of Mayors,however, 4
when many cities have signed up but not yet fulfilled their
requirements of reporting GHG inventories,GHG reduc- 3
tion targets,and action plans,most of the factors men-
tioned above are not easily available. 2
Based on reported and external data, it was found that 1
population and GDP data are most consistently available
for all cities: e
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
■ POPULATION DATA:The United Nations Department of —Option f Population growth —Option 3 GDP and population t1
Economic and Social Affairs,Population Division's
World Urbanization Prospects: 2014 gives population —option 2 GDP growth —option 4 Baseline scenario
from city climate action plan
data and trends for urban centers.
Source:Authotsanalysis of Mexico City metro-level population projections from UN
■ GDP DATA:Under the World Bank's World Economic world Urban Prospects, national GOP projections from Pricewaterhousecooperf The
Prospects,national GDP annual growth rates are world in 2050,and the baseline projection from Mexico CIt/s climate action pian,
available for 2010 to 2017.PricewaterhouseCoopers' normalized to 2010.
The World in 2050 provides national average annual
real GDP growth rates for 2010 to 2050.
4 1 ift
V WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
COMPACT OF MAYORS EMISSIONS SCENARIO MODEL
4.2 Chosen Methodology Thus,the BAU scenario is based on population growth,
After broad consultation with stakeholders (see List of projections of carbon dioxide equivalent(CO e) emissions
Contributors),it was decided to use a population factor per capita from the base year,and a per capita adjustment
vector to account for expected emissions trends as shown
across all cities because it is most consistently and reli- in equation 1:
ably available across all cities and it produces the most
conservative result.The application of the conservativeness
principle prevents overestimating BAU emission scenarios BAU emissions -base year emissions per capita
that would lead to overestimating avoided emissions. projected population,x per capita adjustment vector,
Population trajectories use United Nations urban popula- 4.3 Advantage and Limitation
tion projectim for urban agglomerations of over 300,000
people up to the year 2030,and national-level projections of the Chosen Methodology
of urban population growth up to 2050.Absent alternative The advantage of using a population factor is that UN
data sources,United Nations urban growth projections population projections provide greater consistency,are
from 2010 to 2050 were used for cities not included in the more granular, and produce more conservative growth
United Nations metropolitan region data set. rates than available GDP projections.Applying an adjust-
ment vector to account for expected changes in urban per
Each city's BAU scenario was based on projections of capita emissions due to ongoing technological changes
population growth and regional per capita emission should also avoid overestimation of the BAU emission
trends to 2050.Regional per capita emissions trends were scenarios.
adapted from Stockholm Environment Institute's Advanc-
ing Climate Ambition:How City-Scale Actions Can The limitation is that using the population factor over-
Contribute to Global Climate Goals,'which draws on the simplifies the emission drivers.Although adjustment
scenarios presented in the International Energy Agency's factors should account for ongoing technological changes,
Energy Technology Perspectives series.These data,which the diversity of cities and the dynamic interrelationships
account for expected changes in urban per capita emis- between population,economics,energy efficiency, and
sions due to ongoing technological changes,were tran- other factors are still oversimplified.However,at this
scribed into vectors to integrate with the population and stage population is the most reliable and consistent type of
base-year per capita emissions. See Tables 2a and 2b. data applicable across all Compact of Mayors cities.
Table 2a I Urban Per Capita Emissions Under Business-as-Usual Scenario 12 per capita), 2010-2050
REGION 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
WORLD 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7
Table 2b I Adjustment Vectors 2010-2050
REGION 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
WORLD 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8
Source:Projections of carbon dioxide equivalent(COze)emissions per capita from 2010,adapted from Stockholm Environment Institutes Advancing Climate Ambition:How City Scale Actions
Can Contribute to Global Climate Goals,and the associated adjustment vectorwhich shows the trend normalized to 2010(shown in Table 2b)calculated by authors Although only the global
example is shown here,data on regional per capita emissions projections covers OECD and non-OECD regions,and country level projections for Brazil,China,India,Japan,Russia,and the
United States.
TECHNICAL NOTE I December2015 15
5. TARGET EMISSION SCENARIO Box 2 1 Target Categories According to the GHG
Target scenarios are the projected emissions inferred from Protocol Mitigation Goal Standard
cities'targets to limit or reduce their emissions. However,
since not all Compact of Mayors cities have reported their
GHG targets,target emission scenarios for some cities are BASE-YEAR
SE-YEAR TARGET: Reduce,or control the increase of,
approximated. emissions by a specified quantity relative to a base year.
For example,a 25 percent reduction from 2010 by 2030.
5.1 Target Normalization 0 FIXED-LEVEL
Established and reported city GHG targets fall into four of,emissions to an absolute emissions level in a target
categories as classified in the GHG Protocol Mitigation year.One type of fixed-level goal is a carbon neutrality
Goal Standard(see Box 2). goal,which is designed to reach zero net emissions by a
certain date.
Calculating potential and avoided emissions from ComBASE-YEAR INTENSITY TARGET: Reduce emissions
-
pact of Mayors cities requires normalizing the data intensity(emissions per unit of another variable,typically
according to the target category.Table 3 shows the equaGDP)by a specified quantity relative to a haseyear. For
-
examplea 40 percent reduction in emissions intensity
tions used to calculate target-year emissions inferred byfromthebaseyear III by 2030.
each target category.Target year emissions from base-year
intensity and baseline scenario targets are inferred from BASELINE SCENARIOTARGET:
the BAU scenarios. specified quantity relative to a projected emissions baseline
scenario.A baseline scenario represents future conditions
most likely to occur in the absence of activities taken to
The model provides options to either keep cities'chosen meet the target. For example,a 30 percent reduction from
base years (if applicable) or to normalize all cities'base the 2025 baseline scenario emissions.
years to 2010.In the former case, the start year of a city's
BAU and target scenarios is determined by the city's choSource:WRI,2014
-
sen base year,which may take into account savings from
policies made since the target was established.However,
for the collective GHG impact,both the BAU and target
scenarios start at 2010 and emission savings are calcu- Sensitivity analysis on data from three cities assessed
lated from 2010 onward. the appropriateness of keeping cities'chosen base years.
Sensitivity analysis on data from Vancouver,New York
City, and Rio de Janeiro found that using their chosen
Table 1 Calculation of Inferred GHG Emission Levels for Different Categories of Targets
EQUATION FOR GHG EMISSION LEVEL INFERRED IN TARGET YEAR
Base year emissions target Target year emissions=Base year emissions—(BaseyearemissionsxPercentreduction)
Fixed-level target Target year emissions-Absolute quantity of emissions specified by the target
Base-year intensity target Target year emissions=Base year emissions intensity(1—percent reduction) x projected level of output
Baseline scenario target Target year emissions=Projected baseline emissions in the target year(1—percent reduction)
Source:WRl,2014.
6 1 ift
iW WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
COMPACT OF MAYORS EMISSIONS SCENARIO MODEL
base years produced BAU scenarios similar to those in One output of the model is an extrapolation of emissions
their action plans.Normalizing the base years to 2010 may in the target scenario from any target date to 2050.This is
omit the action taken by these cities prior to 2010. accomplished by assuming the trend of the BAU scenario
Sensitivity analysis was also carried out for 140 cities from the city's chosen target year until the end of the study
(including cities belonging or not belonging to the Com- period.The BAU scenario,described in section 4,rises or
pact of Mayors)with chosen base years.Most chosen base falls based on the city's projected population growth and
years are between 2005 and 2010.Of these cities,44 from regional projections of per capita emissions.Extrapolating
developing countries had a median base year of 2010 the effect of meeting targets allows for the GHG impacts of
while 110 from developed countries had a median base targets for different time periods to be considered together
year of 2007. Considering that most Compact of Mayors in the cumulative target scenario.This extrapolation can
cities without targets are from developing countries, 2010 be calculated by multiplying the inferred GHG emissions
was used as the common base year.This is in line with the in the target year by the ratio of the forecast BAU to the
principle of conservativeness to avoid overestimating the target year BAU as shown in equation 3:
BAU scenario levels.
BAUscenario
Targetscenarioy���=Targetscenario,a�y�yaa�� x
5.2 Interpolation for Emissions BAUscenartota.yly
Between GHG Data Points
Emissions for years between data points were calculated 5.4 Estimating Emission Reductions for
via linear interpolation. Linear interpolation from his-
torical Cities without Targets
emissions data (i.e.,base year data and emission
inventory updates)to infer future emission levels(i.e., Upon joining the Compact of Mayors,cities initiate a
interim targets and long-term targets)assumes continu- three-year process to measure emissions,set a target,and
ous progress toward targets.Equation 2 shows the calcula- make a plan for delivering on their commitments. Over
tion for this target scenario emission level for year i. time,cities will report their targets and emissions to the
Compact of Mayors,but at this point many cities have not
Target GHG,= yet provided information.
GHG,a,a,—GHG_an,
GHG2n—tory+(Year,-Year�n—to,y) Year,,—Year2n,an,o,y A model was constructed to provide an approximation of
the BAU and target scenario emissions of these cities to
indicate the collective impact of all Compact of Mayors
The limitation of this method is that it over simplifies cities.Cities without a GHG inventory,a GHG reduction
the emission trajectories because it does not account for target, or either require proxy data to estimate potential
emissions peaking,variance from weather and economic emissions and targets.This was accomplished by
impacts,or the ratcheting up of ambition over time. assuming GHG emissions per capita and targets for cities
However,a linear interpolation is the most practical that are statistically similar based on a set of variables.
approach for this application that involves analyses for
hundreds of cities. These variables, or city typology data, are a set of
socioeconomic and climate indicators to assess the similar
5.3 EXTRAPOLATION FROM TARGET energy and emission profiles of cities for the purpose of
matching and generating proxy emissions data and targets
PERIOD TO END OF STUDY PERIOD
for the scenarios.The city typology approach is built from
The study period of this model is 2010 to 2050.A number an initial analysis and framework developed for the Global
of Compact of Mayors cities have committed to long- Aggregation of City Climate Commitments report.9 The
term targets for 2050;for example, Boulder, Bristol,Des estimated emissions for cities without GHG inventory
Moines,New York City,Portland,Toronto,and others data or targets are based on finding the reference city
have committed to an 8o percent reduction of GHG with the most similar profile through a nearest neighbor's
emissions by 2050. However,many have a shorter target algorithm." The variables used for this approach are
period:common target years are 2020, 2025, and 2030. outlined in Table 4.
TECHNICAL NOTE I December2015 17
Table 1 City Typology Variable Summary
Region Regional typology categorizesthe geographic location of a city.Cities in this study are grouped under their geographical region:
Africa, East Asia, Europe, Latin America, North America,and South Asia,Southwest Asia,Southeast Asia,and Oceania.
Population and popu- Population figures and population growth rates give an indication of a city's overall size and the rate of urbanization experienced.
lation growth rate Population data are supplied by cities and local governments,and the urban growth rates are from the United Nations dataset
mentioned in section 4.1.
GDP,GDP per capita, GDP per capita is the gross domestic product(GDP)divided by the number of people in the city.GDP growth illustrates the speed
and GDP growth rate of economic change experienced in the city. Rapidly industrializing countries and developing countries tend to generate more GHG
emissions as their economies grow associated with increased industrial output and energy demands. Data forthis typology are
available through the Brookings Institution,2015 Brookings Metro Monitor."Additional data sources were required to complete
this information,and occasionally a national GDP growth rate was applied.
Area City area typology is the surface area of a city,as defined by physical boundaries and administrative jurisdictions, measured in
square kilometers(kml). Information on city area size is provided by local governments through their respective reporting plat-
forms,and available through Brookings Metro Monitor,2014 and the Atlas of Urban Expansion."
Population density The number of people per square kilometer. For this report,the data are self-reported by city officials.
Human Development HDI is a composite statistic of life expectancy,education,and per capita income indicators at the national level used to rank coun-
Index(HDI) tries into fourtiers of human development.
The HDI forms part of the 2014 Human Development Report of the United Nations Development Programme.The HDI is the
geometric mean of normalized indices that measure economic and social welfare.
Heating and cooling Heating degree days(HDD)and cooling degree days(CDD)are indicators of energy required to manage the thermal load of build-
degree days ings to maintain indoor temperatures of 65° F/18°C.They relate each day's temperatures to the demand forfuel or energy to heat
or cool a building. Measured as"degree days,"this index demonstrates the actual energy demand to keep indoor temperatures
within ideal thresholds.Widely used in the energy sector to calculate energy consumption,this weather data is calculated from
daily air temperature,and correlates with energy used in buildings forthermal load management.The degree days were taken from
the airport orweather station closest to each city forthe year 2014.
Fuel price Cost of gasoline from the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ)fuel prices 2014.The price index for gasoline, in U.S.
dollars per liter,was calculated from retail prices taken from a survey of 174 countries in November 2014.
S WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
COMPACT OF MAYORS EMISSIONS SCENARIO MODEL
Reference city data provides a basis to map emission levels
for cities that have insufficient data. 6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The nearest-neighbors approach identifies the"training These results should not be interpreted as a forecast of
cases"(i.e.,reference cities)closest to a"testing case"(i.e., city GHG emissions reductions,but rather as an indication
non-reference city)based on Euclidian distance between of GHG emissions avoided under specific assumptions
the variables in the testing case and the variables in each and conditions.Predictions of future conditions inher-
of the training cases.To improve the data coverage of ently have some degree of uncertainty and depend on the
the reference cities,cities that have not yetjoined the assumptions and data used.This methodology provides a
Compact of Mayors but have sufficient GHG emissions simplified model of emission trajectories of cities and can
and target data,were used as potential matches in the be the basis for more granular research.It represents only
algorithm(see Annex).Cities assume the mean GHG per one possible scenario for emission reductions whereas
capita emissions intensity of their three nearest neighbors, ambition and implementation of future targets can vary
and the GHG reduction target of the nearest neighbor. from existing targets.The accuracy of results depends on
Cities with insufficient data were matched with cities the quality of input data.Results will be more accurate
that share the same typological profile to generate a if all cities use a common protocol to report their GHG
proxy emissions profile to determine BAU and target inventories.Furthermore,the inclusion of scope 2 and
scenarios.This methodology presents an estimate of what scope 3 emissions may lead to double counting between
the GHG target scenario could be if cities with similar cities.
characteristics adopt targets in line with the targets of
their statistical peers. This model will be updated and improved as more city
data become available.WRI and the Compact of Mayors
aim to continually improve the data and methodology and
welcome any feedback and suggestions on how to advance
development of city target modeling.
Data completeness and data availability were a significant
challenge overall.Joining the Compact of Mayors initiates
a three-year process,and WRI and the Compact of Mayors
anticipate significant improvements in data quality and
availability as cities progress through the Compact of
Mayors'requirements.
TECHNICAL NOTE I December2015 19
AnmirV. r�i IDDFKIT DrrrnrK1(�F ('ITIrP Paris(France)
Sofia(Bulgaria)
Reference cities as of November 2015 Stockholm (Sweden)
Vaxjo(Sweden)
Africa Warsaw(Poland)
Cape Town (South Africa) Zaragoza(Spain)
Durban (South Africa) Zurich (Switzerland)
Johannesburg (South Africa)
Tshwane(South Africa) Latin America
Amacuzac(Mexico)
East Asia Axochiapan (Mexico)
Akita(Japan) Belo Horizonte(Brazil)
Aomori (Japan) Bogota(Colombia)
Aomori (Japan)
ung (South Korea) Buenos Aires(Argentina)
GangnHiroshima(Japan) Cali (Colombia)
Kaoshiung (Chinese Taipei) Caracas(Venezuela)
Kobe(Japan) C (Venezuela)
Kumamoto(Japan) Cuernavaca(Mexico)
Kyoto(Japan) Floria aaras(Brazil)
Nagasaki (Japan) Guadalajara(Mexico)
Nagoya(Japan) Hermosillo(Mexico)
La Paz(Bolivia)
Nara(Japan)
New Taipei (Chinese Taipei) Mexico it(Mexico)
Osaka(Japan) MontMexico City lMexico)
Sapporo(Japan) Puebla a(Colombia)
Seoul (South Korea) Puebla(Mexico)
Quito(Ecuador)
Suwon(South Korea)
Taito(Japan) Bio de Janeiro(Brazil)
Tinan City(Chinese Taipei) Santiago(Chile)
Yeosu(South Korea) Santiago de Cali (Colombia)
Yokohama(Japan) Sao Paulo(Brazil)
Tlalnepantla de Baz(Mexico)
Toluca de Lerdo(Mexico)
Europe Zapopan (Mexico)
Almada(Portugal)
Antwerp(Belgium) North America
Arendal (Norway) Aspen (USA)
Barcelona(Spain) Atlanta(USA)
Berlin (Germany) Austin (USA)
Bilbao(Spain) Boston(USA)
Birmingham (UK) Boulder(USA)
Bologna(Italy) Chicago(USA)
Bristol (UK) Cleveland (USA)
Copenhagen (Denmark) Columbus,ON (USA)
Freiburg (Germany) Des Moines(USA)
Ghent(Belgium) Lakewood,CO (USA)
Gothenburg(Sweden) Los Angeles(USA)
Leon (Spain) Minneapolis(USA)
Lisbon (Portugal) Montreal (Canada)
London (UK) New York City(USA)
Ludwigsburg (Germany) Oakland,CA(USA)
Madrid (Spain) Philadelphia(USA)
Malmo(Sweden) Pinecrest(USA)
Manchester(UK) Pittsburgh(USA)
Milan(Italy) Portland (USA)
Mouscron (Belgium) Salt Lake City(USA)
Oslo(Norway) San Francisco(USA)
Padova(Italy) San Jose,CA(USA)
10 WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
COMPACT OF MAYORS EMISSIONS SCENARIO MODFL
Santa Monica(USA)
Seattle(USA)
Toronto(Canada)
Vancouver(Canada)
Washington, D.C. (USA)
Southeast Asia and Oceania
Auckland (New Zealand)
Balikpapan(Indonesia)
Bandung (Indonesia)
Central Australian Territory(Australia)
Cimahi (Indonesia)
Jakarta(Indonesia)
Lampang (Thailand)
Melbourne(Australia)
Semarang(Indonesia)
Singapore(Singapore)
Sydney(Australia)
Wellington (New Zealand)
South and West Asia
Amhedabad (India)
Coimbatore(India)
Gandhinagar(India)
Gwalior(India)
Hyderabad-Greater(India)
Kota(India)
New Delhi (India)
Raj kot(India)
Seferihisar(Turkey)
Shimla(India)
Tbilisi (Georgia)
Thane(India)
TECHNICAL NOTE December2015 11
REFERENCES
Angel,S.,J. Parent, D. L Civco and A. M. Blei,2010.Atlas of Urban Expan-
sion,Cambridge MA:Lincoln Institute of Land Policy,online at http://wwvv.
lincolninst.edu/subcenters/atlas-urban-expansion/.
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group,Arup, ICLEI—Local Governments for
Sustainability(ICLEI),World Resources Institute(WRI), UN-Habitat, UN Spe-
cial Envoy, United Cities and Local Governments(UCLG),carbonn Climate
Registry,&CDP.2014. "Global Aggregation of City Climate Commitments."
Available at http://publications.arup.com/Publications/G/Global Aggrega-
tion of City_Climate Commitments.aspx.
C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group&Arup.2014. "Global Aggregation of
City Climate Commitments: Methodological Review,Version 2.0"September
23,2014.Available at http://c40-production-images.s3.amazonaws.com/re-
searches/i mages/27_Methodology-Report_Global Aggregation_Sept_2014.
o ri g i n a I.pdf?1411757034.
Erickson, P.,&K.Tempest.2014. "Advancing Climate Ambition:Cities as
Partners in Global Climate Action." Produced by Stockholm Environment
Institute in support ofthe UN Secretary-General's Special EnvoyforCities
and Climate Change and C40.SEI,Seattle,WA, United States.Available at
http://sei-international.org/publications?pid-2577.
Imandoust,S. B.,& Bolandraftar, M. "Application of K-Nearest Neigh-
bor(KNN)Approach for Predicting Economic Events:Theoretical Back-
ground" International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications,3,
no.5(2013):607-609.Available at http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/dow
n load?doi-10.1.1.389.4234&rep=rept&type=pdf.
James,G.,Witten, D., Hastie,T.,&Tibshirani, R.2013.An Introduction to
Statistical Learning. New York:Springer: 104-109.Available at http://wwvv
bcf.usc.edu/-gareth/ISL/.
United Nations.2014. "World Urbanization Prospects:The 2014 Revision,
Highlights" UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population
Division, New York.Available at http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/highlights/
wu p2014-h i g h I i g hts.pdf.
United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP).2015. "Climate Commit-
ments of Subnational Actors and Business:A Quantitative Assessment of
their Emission Reduction Impact." UNEP, Nairobi.Available at http://web.
u nep.org/ou rplanet/septem ber-2015/u nep-pu bl ications/cl i mate-comm it-
ments-su bnational-actors-and-business-quantitative.
United Nations Habitat. "Cities and Climate Change:Global Report on
Human Settlements 2011."2011. London: Royaume-Uni, United States:
UN-Habitat.Available at http://mirror.unhabitat.org/pmss/listltemDetails.
aspx?publicationlD=3086.
World Resources Institute,C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, ICLEI
Local Governments for Sustainability.2014. "Global Protocol forCommu-
nity-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories."GHG Protocol,Washing-
ton DC.Available at http://wwvv.ghgprotocol.org/city-accounting.
WRI(World Resources Institute).2014. "The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Miti-
gation Goal Standard."Available at http://wvvvv.ghgprotocol.org/mitigation-
goal-standard.
12 ift
V WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
COMPACT OF MAYORS EMISSIONS SCENARIO MODEL
ENDNOTES
1. UNFC CC No n-StateActorZoneforC I i mate Action(NAZCA)portal.
Available at http://climateaction.unfccc.int/about.aspx.
2. Compact of States and Regions."The Climate Group."Available at hUp://
wvvvv.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/programs/compact-of states-and-
regions/.
3. UNEP,2015.
4. Erickson&Tempest,2014.
5. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group of al.,2014.
6. Excluding negative savingsthat might occur if a city's BAN level is less
than its actual emission level fora particularyear between base yearand
target year.
7. United Nations,2014.
8. Erickson&Tempest,2014.
9. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group&Arup,2014.
10. Imandoust&Bolandraftar,2013.James,Witten, Hastie,&Tibshirani,
2013.
11. Brookings Metro Monitor,2015,Global Metro Monitor Map.Accessible
at EUp://wvvw.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/01/22-global-metro-
monitor.
12. Angel,S.,J.Parent,D.L.Civco and A.M.Blei,2010.
TECHNICAL NOTE December2015 13
COMPACT OF MAYORS EMISSIONS SCENARIO MODFL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ABOUT WRI
This project was made possible through the generous support of World Resources Institute is a global research organization that turns big
Bloomberg Philanthropies.The authors would like to thank the following ideas into action at the nexus of environment,economic opportunity and
individuals for providing invaluable insight and assistance: Pankaj Bhatia, human well-being.
Gerald Gloria, Elyse Myrans,and Francis Gassert,as well as Mary Paden,
Hyacinth Billings,Carni Klirs,and Julia Moretti for editing and design sup- Our Challenge
port. Fortheir guidance and feedback during the development of this work, Natural resources are at the foundation of economic opportunity and human
the authors would also like to thank: well-being. But today,we are depleting Earth's resources at rates that are not
sustainable,endangering economies and people's lives. People depend on
Kyra Appleby,CDP clean water,fertile land,healthy forests,and a stable climate. Livable cities
Tom Bailey,C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group and clean energy are essential for a sustainable planet.We must address
Derik Broekhoff,Stockholm Environment Institute these urgent,global challenges this decade.
Cesar Carreno, ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability
Holger Dalkmann,World Resources Institute Our Vision
Chang Deng-Beck, ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability We envision an equitable and prosperous planet driven by the wise manage-
Michael Doust,C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group ment of natural resources.We aspire to create a world where the actions of
Amanda Eichel, Bloomberg Philanthropies government, business,and communities combine to eliminate poverty and
Pete Erickson,Stockholm Environment Institute sustain the natural environment for all people.
Johannes Friedrich,World Resources Institute
Laura Frost,Arup Our Approach
Brian Holland, ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability USA COUNT IT
Angel Hsu,Yale University We start with data.We conduct independent research and draw on the latest
Robert Kehew, UN-Habitat technology to develop new insights and recommendations.Our rigorous
Paula Kirk,Arup analysis identifies risks, unveils opportunities,and informs smart strategies.
Kelly Levin,World Resources Institute Wefocus our efforts on influential and emerging economies where thefuture
Marcus Mayr, UN-Habitat of sustainability will be determined.
Ian Ponce, UNFCCC
David Rich,World Resources Institute CHANGE IT
Seth Schultz,C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group We use our research to influence government policies, business strategies,
Michael Steinhoff, ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability USA and civil society action.We test projects with communities,companies,and
Maryke van Stader, ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability government agencies to build a strong evidence base.Then,we workwith
Kerem Yilmaz, NPO Solutions partners to deliver change on the ground that alleviates poverty and strength-
ens society.We hold ourselves accountable to ensure our outcomes will be
bold and enduring.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS SCALE IT
Alex Kovac is a Research Analyst with the TRAC City initiative in We don't think small.Once tested,we work with partners to adopt and
WRI's Climate Program. expand our efforts regionally and globally.We engage with decision-makers
to carry out our ideas and elevate our impact.We measure success through
Contact:akovac@wri.org government and business actions that improve people's lives and sustain a
Wee Kean Fong is a Senior Associate with the Climate Program in healthy environment.
WRI's China office,where he leads the TRAC City initiative.
Contact:wfong@wri.org
a) To
2015 World Resources Institute This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.01nternatlonat License
.omm .
To view a copy of the license,visit http'.//creativecommons.org/I Icenses/by/4.0/
WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE 10GStreet,NE1 Washington,[)0200021w .WRl.org