Why Some Cities Can Be Far More Energy Efficient Than Others

A new study challenges a common argument that efficiency must come at the expense of the quality of life

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A new study challenges the idea that rich cities must always churn out more carbon.

Two urban planners and an engineer assessed the carbon emissions of more than 100 cities in 33 countries, with emissions ranging from 0.08 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent to 29.8 metric tons.

The study challenges a common argument in the climate policy world: Efficiency must come at the expense of quality of life.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Well-governed cities can have much-reduced greenhouse gas emissions," said David Satterthwaite, a senior fellow at the United Kingdom-based International Institute for Environment and Development, one of the publishers of the study.

Take Porto Alegre, a city in southern Brazil known for its smart growth strategies. The per capita footprint for its residents is 1.48 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, approximately one-eighth of the emissions of Cape Town, South Africa, residents, whose GDP per capita is only slightly higher than that of Porto Alegre.

And although the GDP of Tokyo is slightly higher than Canada, its residents are 5.6 times more efficient.

"Cities can have low greenhouse gas emissions per person and be a nice place to live and work, with a strong economy," said Satterthwaite.

As a baseline, the authors factored in the population, GDP and greenhouse gas emissions of the C40 -- a group of 40 cities that has pledged to flight climate change. If the C40 were a country, it would have the second-highest GDP in the world, the fourth largest population and be the fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter.

Smart planning, lack of resources, or luck
Traditionally, cities have taken a double helping of blame for their emissions. Residents both produce emissions from vehicles, home utilities and waste, but also bear the burden of responsibility for emissions from agriculture, forestry and fossil fuel energy production.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that urban areas account for more than 71 percent of energy-related emissions, a number that is expected to rise to 76 percent by 2030.

While many of the results can be attributed to smart planning or lack of resources to burn, some cities are just plain lucky.

Compare New York City and Denver: Residents of the nation's most populous city in America emit half the amount of Mile-High residents -- 10.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent versus 21.5 metric tons.

"Some cities don't have the luxury of deciding where they are [located]," said Daniel Hoornweg, one of the study's authors and lead urban specialist at the World Bank. "Denver has high energy use, its electricity comes from coal, it's spread out, and it's cold."

As one of the largest investors in development projects in the world, the World Bank will be able to use this study as a basis for development aid, along with information on renewable energy use, investment in public transportation and efficiency throughout the power distribution grid, said Hoornweg.

The study is published in the journal Environment and Urbanization on the opening day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, where energy efficiency and resource conservation will be major themes.

"It wouldn't surprise me if it came up in Davos," said Satterthwaite, who will discuss the study at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's working group meeting in March in Calcutta, India.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe