Showing posts with label Carbon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carbon. Show all posts

Monday, 6 January 2020

20 Practical Ways for Cities to Manage Municipal Solid Waste

Every year, an estimated 2 billion tonnes of municipal solid waste (MSW) is produced worldwide and is predicted to increase to 3.40 billion metric tons by 2050. 5% of global greenhouse gas emissions arise from the decay of the organic portion of solid waste.

Between 30-40% of waste generated worldwide is disposed of inappropriately and often dumped illegally or openly burned. Below are 20 practical ways for cities to manage MSW better and some links to information on cities that have implemented these measures.


1.       Ban single-use checkout bags and non-recyclable plastics
+  MUMBAI
+  MILAN
2.       Ban disposable utensils from restaurants
+  TAIWAN
+  SEATTLE
3.       Introduce Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) program
+  AUROVILLE
4.       Launch Pay-as-You-Throw (PAYT) program
+  GUANGZHOU
+  SEOUL
5.       Partner with local organisations for waste awareness
+  DUBLIN
+  VERMONT
6.       Introduce Deposit Return Scheme
+  HELSINKI
7.       Establish facility for used building materials
+  BOISE
+  BEIJING
8.     Support paper waste recycling services
+  DELHI
9.       Implement / Extend Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs)
+  TOKYO
10.    Implement source separated collection for organic waste
+  ALAPPUZHA
+  DUBUQUE
11.    Implement centralised composting facilities
+  PUNE
+  PENANG
12.    Encourage the use of recycled materials for road construction
+  MADURAI
+  PONS
13.    Create a construction, demolition debris processing facility
+  LAHORE
14.    Install anaerobic digester plant
+  EAST BAY
+  UPPSALA
15.    Waste incineration for energy generation
+  SINGAPORE
16.    Integrate landfill fugitive emissions capture
+  LIMA
17.    Improve waste collection to managed landfill
+  KATMANDU
+  NINGBO
18.    Introduce a levy on waste sent to landfill
+  AUCKLAND
+  SAN JOSE
19.    Household waste drop-off program
+  CAPE TOWN
+  ZURICH
20.    Ban on landfilling recyclable and compostable waste
+  EU

Friday, 7 December 2018

Value of Low Carbon Urban Developments

Carbon-intensive urban sprawl
The built urban infrastructure of our cities, the types of residential and commercial buildings, the parking and public transport network, water and electricity networks and delivery mechanisms, will determine the energy use and carbon emissions of a city. Research suggests that roughly 30% of future, “committed” greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions will occur as a result of new urban building and transport systems. Energy-inefficient urban developments can, therefore, lock us in on a high emissions trajectory. 

Controlling greenhouse-gas emissions from standalone buildings can be achieved relatively easily through better insulation, daylighting, mixed-mode ventilation, more efficient heating and cooling systems, and the installation of small-scale renewable energy sources, particularly on rooftops. Broader strategies, such as achieving optimum urban density, overall building configuration or massing, and urban planning layouts to reduce wastage while ensuring comfort and affordability,  require much more careful analysis and consideration.

Car-dependent urban growth at the fringes of the city, known as urban sprawl, is increasing urban emissions and private transportation energy use. Sprawling, relatively low-density urban settlements make public transportation investments untenable as there are fewer people to the bus or metro service at each transit node. Research has also shown that low urban density can significantly impact urban energy use and the quality of life of urban residentsOn the other hand, dense, mixed-use developments that are close to public transit nodes give people convenient and cleaner transport options. Many cities have mass transit options in place or in the planning stage but are yet to fully adjust urban planning to maximise the benefits. [also see my older blog on Mapping Low Carbon Mobility]
Cities like Buenos Aires have mass transit options in place but are yet to fully adjust urban planning to maximise the benefits.

Towards a greener and more livable urban built-environment
Low -Carbon Green Urban Developments (GUD) can range from smaller projects built around or along with transit stations, i.e., Transit Oriented Developments (TOD), to mixed-use ‘in-fill’ development and ‘green townships’ where transit is incorporated into the masterplan. 

The typical features of these GUDs are:
  • Mixed-use development that includes shops, schools and other public services, and a variety of housing types and prices.
  • High density and compact development to maximise land and improve affordability.
  • More energy, water, and waste efficient design of buildings and infrastructure
  • Public transit stations or transit corridors that are easy to access, reliable, and secure, as well as street and road planning for non-motorized transport.
  • Pedestrian and bicycle friendly street and road planning. Streets should have good traffic calming features to control vehicle traffic speeds.
  • Restriction on car parking to discourage vehicle ownership.
  • Public and private sector participation.
Green Urban Developments provide a more livable urban built-environment

Planning and policy innovations have been critical for green urban development. In Barcelona, superblocks that combine city spaces into pedestrian-friendly, car-free mini-grids have been designed.

Copenhagen has used a “finger plan” an urban plan composed of five well-defined, linear corridors (or “fingers”), separated by green wedges with open spaces, watersheds, and ecological preserves, to drive green growth. Only compact, mixed-use developments were permitted around train stations to ensure a sustainable urban form.

Curitiba created structural corridors to promote job creation and activities away from downtown and inner-city locations and included housing and commercial density around mass transit lanes. As a result, the city has Brazil’s lowest share of car use. The commercial success of Curitiba's urban design and planning has also allowed the city to integrate low-income social housing into these structural corridors using cross-subsidies from market-priced private sector housing.
Copenhagen's 'fingerplanen' materplan developed in 1947

Green Urban Developments create value for all
Developing a reliable transportation system requires large capital expenditure, but a substantial pool of users will offset the costs over time. Decreased pollution and fuel consumption will provide
economic benefits to users, governments, and companies while enhancing a city’s ability to
maintain its competitiveness and environmental sustainability.

Green urban developments can provide substantial cost savings for both city governments and citizens. A recent study concludes that China could save $1.4 trillion in urban infrastructure costs if its urban development plans optimized density over sprawl.

Incorporating transit into urban design allows developers to benefit from stable or higher property values. Mixed-use settings also create commercial opportunities that benefit from increased foot traffic in the area. A developer may also be able to access government incentives for such projects. Hong Kong, for example, has created a financially successful rail and property funding model, allowing the Mass Transit Railway Corporation to partner with individual private developers to build along new and existing rail lines.

Reducing residents’ dependence on private vehicles will help decrease their overall living expenses while improving health outcomes by increasing physical activity. Living in such developments can increase a sense of community and wellbeing for residents and help improve living standards.

A thriving dense mixed-use neighbourhood of HCM City

Making it happen
Both market and policy tools can drive value creation in green urban developments by:
  • Developing a green urban development (or transit-oriented development) policy framework for integrated infrastructure planning that develops sustainable urban growth centres with high-density mixed land use.
  • Reforming land-use regulations such as single-use zoning, low-density limits, and high parking fees to encourage mixed-used, transit-oriented developments with reduced car parking. These should be combined with effective policy changes such as mandating reduced maximum car parking for homes rather than a minimum will also be needed to avoid perverse impacts.
  • Redefining policy definitions of affordable housing to include the combined cost of housing and transport e.g. H+T Index.
  • Creating incentives for the private sector. Cross-subsidization using tax abatement or value capture methods could help make the higher costs of transit-accessible locations less prohibitive for private developers and investors.
  • Exploring alternative implementation options, including Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), to leverage private sector skills and financing to develop projects.
  • Encouraging corporations to locate offices within green urban developments as an anchor tenant or employer through financial and non-financial policy incentives.

IFC is piloting a new tool to quantify the impact of Green Urban Developments.  The tool is an addition to the array of EDGE tools for green building projects and aims to help developers influence clients to choose “Green Urban Development” designs early in the project planning process. 

Sunday, 5 March 2017

Dealing with the Resident Evil: Why it’s Time to Get Serious About Embodied Energy

Brick kilns dot the landscape of South Asia cities. Source:Environmental Health Perspectives

Terracotta tiles or plastic sheets? This was the decision to be made when considering roof materials for Nrityagram, a dance training center on the outskirts of Bangalore that was designed and constructed back in the early 1990s. The project marked the beginning of my interest in lifecycle environmental impacts and in understanding how to best determine the “lesser evil” among building materials.

It was clear there was something wrong with the general consensus at the time that “earthy” clay tiles and bricks were natural materials and therefore “environmentally friendly.” The tiles used up precious top soil in the surrounding villages and took excessive energy to bake them, emitting deadly polluting particles into the atmosphere.

We didn’t have the tools then to determine the best choice for materials. I was fortunate to have had a chance to work under Nigel Howard at BRE to develop ENVEST, the first software tool of its kind for estimating the lifecycle environmental impact of buildings.

Embodied energy is about the way a building is built rather than how it is used. It concerns the “upstream” value of the energy consumed by all of the processes associated with building production, from mining and the processing of natural resources straight through to manufacturing and transport. Embodied energy is the “front-end” component of the lifecycle impact of a building – and it is the part that can never be changed.

The significant impact of building materials manufacturing on the environment

Proportion of materials that get used in buildings vs. other uses. Adapted from Europa.eu
The worst culprits in building materials manufacturing are easy to determine. Five to seven percent of globalCO2 emissions are caused by cement plants. The iron and steel sector account for 11% of global CO2 emissions. And more than 5% of the world’s entire electrical generation is spent on the production of aluminum.

A lot of these manufactured materials are going towards the construction of new homes and commercial buildings due to the construction boom that is happening in the developing world, where population growth and migration to cities will contribute to doubling building stock by2050.
The environmental impact from manufacturing can be a lot more direct for some building materials. For example, the brick sector emits large volumes of black carbon and other suspended particulate matter. According to the Norwegian Institute for Air Research, brick manufacturing kilns in and around Dhaka city are responsible for 58% of the capital city's airpollution — much more than cars, power generation and other industries combined. Brick kilns are a major source of air pollution not just in Bangladesh but across South Asia and China, together accounting for 75% of the global consumption of clay bricks. More than one trillion bricks are produced annually in these countries, resulting in 1.4% of global GHG emissions. To avoid the continued compulsive use of such resource-intensive building materials, actionable change must occur.

For those who still need convincing, consider the role that iron/steel, cement and industrial electricity play in India’s carbon footprint
The above profile is broadly based on the data India submitted to the UNFCCC  through the NATCOM  









The increasing role of materials in the lifecycle impact of buildings.

Most of the focus in the building industry has been on immediate impacts. For example, how can money be saved by reducing operational energy? The reality is that as energy consumption is driven down, the relative importance of embodied energy increases. For example, while adding roof and wall insulation to an un-insulated building reduces the building’s operational energy, it also increases its embodied energy. The proportion of embodied energy compared to operational energy can jump from 10% to 15%[1]. If more and more insulation is added, the embodied energy of the insulation increases but the “return on energy” in terms of operational savings decreases[2]. As the global trend is towards tighter regulations for operational energy consumption (especially in climate zones with high heating and cooling requirements), we must consider the impact of the choices that we make when selecting building materials.

Making Informed choices is much easier than ever before

Screen shot from edgebuildings.com
At the International Finance Corporation, we created the free EDGE software to help the industry determine which building elements have the highest embodied energy – and where there are  alternatives to reduce embodied energy. For instance, in a 6000m2, five-story office block, about 55% of the building’s embodied energy is from the structural concrete slabs (roof and floor), 20% from windows, 15% from walls and the remaining 10% from flooring.

Given its high embodied energy, finding realistic ways to reduce the embodied energy of the roof and floor structure is critical if one is serious about designing a green building. Generally, these alternatives fall under four main categories:

  • Reduce the quantity of materials used (i.e., steel and concrete) by adding “filler” in slabs and/or reducing column spacing.
  • Substitute high-embodied energy materials with lower embodied energy for example, adding Pulverized Fly Ash (PFA) or Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) instead of cement to concrete.
  • Selecting a more efficient construction technology such as post-tension concrete slab or planks and joists.
  • Finding a completely different material such as timber floor construction. 

Below is a list of embodied energy values for floor slab elements which indicates there are plenty of lower impact options available compared to a typical in-situ reinforced concrete slab.
Data from EDGE Embodied Energy in Materials Methodology Report  



Options that are practical and realistic depend to a large degree on the city or country where the project is located and the materials that are available, as well as the size and scale of the building. In most cases, paying attention at the early design stage and making sensible design and specification choices can reduce the embodied energy of a five-story office building by more than one third.

Create a larger market for low embodied energy products

There are positive signs that mainstream building material manufacturers are attempting to tackle climate change impact. With companies such as Lafarge Holcim pledging to cut CO2emissions by 40% per ton of cement by 2030 we are likely to see more such commitments. The Paris Accord is driving over 200 companies to commit to Science Based Targets, surpassing expectations for corporate climate action.

Given the important role that building materials play in global resource consumption, air pollution and GHG emissions, it is essential that the measurement of embodied energy become a crucial part of the decision-making process for responsible designers and clients. Recognition must also be given to those that are responsible in their choices. Through greater awareness we will create a larger market for low-embodied-energy products and put pressure on all manufacturers to develop alternatives for their respective markets.


[1] Based on an office building in Delhi, using the EDGE software and some back-of-the-envelope calculations.
[2]  The ratio of embodied to operational energy varies by country depending on construction methods and climate zones.