 Ac mae'r bwysig yn ôl yn gweithio, ond rydyn ni'n siaradau bod oes y byddwch amgylcheddau a'r ddweud o gwaith, i ddweud o bwysig o'r ddiwrnod. Ieithio, mae'n gweithio'n gweithio, byddwn i'n ddechrau panel, ac mae'n Gwylch Cats, that is the Vice-President of the Brookings Institute. And Philip Broad who is Executive Director of The Cities . Program here at LSE. And we are going to begin this part of the session by inviting first of all Bruce to comment and react. And then Philip. Ond o'r cyfnodd trwy'r cyfrifio, felly mae'r panellydd yn ei wneud o'r ymddwys gweithio i'w grannu ar gyfer y dda, cael ei gweithio, yn ymdigo'r bod ni'n bod yn fwy amdalau, ond mae'n ddechrau. Rwy'n meddwl. A fyddai'n gweithio yma oherwydd. Yr wych yn ffordd i'r bwysig i'r gweithio. Rwy'n meddwl i'r brinwys i'r ymddwys i'r eurbonet. Yn ymddwys i'r gweithio, ond mae'r bwysig i'r eurbonet. Mae'r eich bod yn cyfafodol o'r effordd sy'n byw yn ymddiad yn ymddiad, ymddiad, ymddiad, ymddiad, ymddiad, ymddiad. Mae'r eich hun i'r hyn o'r roi hyn sy'n gyllidol i'r ffalenthau. So, gwasanaeth yw'r rhanig. Yn gyfodol i'r prydyn ni. A yw'r wahanol, ychydig yr un o ymryd, yn y Llywodraeth yng Nghymru, a ddim yn gallu ffynig o'r perspective americyn. Yn y gweithio'r llawr iawn, mae'n gweithio'r rhanig i'n llwyddiad y platform i'r rhanig o'r rhaglen i'n amser. Efallai eich cyfrifio ar gyfrifio, Ie ddweud i'r cychwyn cyfdreid y mewn cyfnodol yn perthynol'r reger a cyfnodol. Ie ddweud efallai'r cyfrifio sy'n gwneud cwylio, gyda'r cyfrifio, a'r cyfrifio a'r cyfnodol, sy'n ddim yn ynnig o'r mewn cyfnodol yn y gyfrifio sydd y cwylio, a'r cyfrifio yma yn y ffordd. Mae'r fawr, cynnydd i gyd, oherwydd, mae'r prysgol yw Iobama'n oedgylchedol hefyd. There essentially is no national government in the United States today. It is mired in partisan gridlock, and essentially it has sent a signal to the United States to the society. We are basically not acting. And so the rest of you all, cities and metropolitan areas in particular, you're in charge. And so what essentially is happening, because states for the most part are also on a frolic and detour, with the exception of California and maybe a few others. Cities and metropolitan areas are essentially being forced to step up, not just as city governments but as networks of public, private, civic, university, labor, community leaders, and to take the hard actions necessary to the extent that they can to make a difference. So there are three kinds of actions happening in the land of climate denial right now that I think are important to focus on. The first are cities are beginning to invest in a new kind of built environment. So what are we talking about? And Karen had a great slide up there about the various ways of looking at this. Sustainable transit infrastructure match with new land use and zoning. So this is Los Angeles, this is Denver, basically going to voters to basically raise their sales tax to raise tens of billions of dollars over multiple decades to build large state-of-the-art transit systems that then begin to alter development patterns. Now in the past some of those investments were made by our national government. Now essentially cities are having to go to their own citizens and say, well, they're gone, it's up to us. Other cities, Washington D.C., investing in a new kind of clean water infrastructure. Cities like Philadelphia basically investing in new core city infrastructure in the downtown and midtown so that they can grow 10x residential, 5x jobs around Drexel, University of Pennsylvania, essentially the core of the city. So what we're seeing first and foremost are cities using their own financing or going to voters for new revenues or going essentially aggregating public, private and civic capital to do what we all know has to be done, right? More choice and transportation, more density and accessibility, all the things that Karen was talking about. But having to have to be done through local resources essentially or local action that connects to institutional investors. Second piece, what do cities do? They set rules, they set building codes, they set zoning and land use ordinances. They have mandates on reporting on emissions and so that's the second thing that cities are beginning to do. Now, Portland, Oregon has been doing this for decades. They drew an urban growth boundary back in the 1970s and no surprise where has most of the growth gone in Portland, Oregon. We don't compare Atlanta to Barcelona, we compare Atlanta to Portland because Americans generally don't have a passport but that's okay. So not surprisingly, there's been a large amount of reinvestment in Portland, Oregon and because of that reinvestment and because of the sort of tilting of growth and development to the core, you've got the benefits of density that enable you to build out street cars, build out public transit, build out the kind of radical mix use that increasingly not just a new demographics but a new kind of open innovative economy one. Boston has done this on energy efficiency, other cities have done it on a range of other signals to the market. Last bit, and this really may be the greatest contribution of the United States to deal with climate change in the absence of any national leadership which frankly I think won't be coming for quite some time. So you all watch the 2016 election, you must be horrified by the reality show that is going on in the United States, you know, buckle your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride, right? So what we will contribute to climate change solutions will be out of our innovative sector and that's because the United States still through our advanced research institutions, through our military and through our national labs has an incredible depth of basic science which then leads to the commercialization of ideas, the startup of companies, the maturing of companies that essentially create the new kinds of products and services to help us mitigate climate and carbon emissions at scale. Now is this going to solve the problem? Obviously not, but if you go to Atlanta, which again is the poster child for sprawl, there is Georgia Tech. If you go to Pittsburgh, which is sprawl and a no growth kind of metropolis, there is Carnegie Mellon. If you go to Boston, there is MIT. And these are the places around which now are congregating entrepreneurs and startups and global companies with their own R&D and investors and venture and a large segment network of researchers that basically get up every morning and say how do we through market innovation? The creation of a product that can be then introduced in a Beijing or Mumbai or a service that then can be applied. How can we contribute to climate change solutions? So I think at the end of the day what cities do and the urban age really is at the vanguard of basically showing this. One city innovates, it creates a new norm of how to invest, of how to solve problems, and this goes from relatively, in the scheme of things, simple things like bike lanes to much more complicated large infrastructure solutions, but new norms are established that then get basically spread horizontally across the world. And again cities are centers of innovation, centers of economy that are increasingly the places in which the new products and services will be invented to be applied. So the United States from an outside perspective again must be semi horrifying, or maybe it's just completely horrifying, but our cities and our metropolitan areas are stepping up to deal with climate change and they are inventing I think what essentially will be new norms that will be replicated across the world. Great Bruce, thank you very much indeed. Thank you Tessa. Let me try to bring all of this back to the urban age program and what we have just heard from Nick and Karen is how climate policy has embraced the urban dimension. And I want to reflect a bit how urbanism has engaged with climate using our last 10 years as sort of a reflection point. And I can see two main arguments that can be made. The first one is, and given the particular urgency we have just seen, that we have probably not been engaging as urbanists with the subject enough. And there are a couple of reasons which I want to speculate on why that is the case. First there is the technical language of climate change mitigation and adaptation which tends to disguise the deeply political nature of climate action in cities. I'll come back to this in a moment. There are very strong associations, particularly in some circles and these circles are big in the urban world, where we see that climate policy directly sort of in sync with technocratic top-down government intervention, which not only assumes that efficient governments exist everywhere, but also is at odds with more cooperative forms, post-modern notions of urban governance. And then there's the radical change required to achieve the two degree sort of global warming target, which directly leads us to a tension between what you could refer to as an urban evolutionary process and a revolution. Think of strict building and land use regulations which will probably have to severely limit suburbanisation, conventional car use, and the use of unsustainable building materials, the main point which Karen was making. So as a result and reflecting on our urban age conversations and the cities we have been working in, climate action has remained kind of disconnected from particular daily urban practice we have been discussing from more ordinary city perspectives, issues around urban inequality, poverty and the right to the city. Take one example which we have been exposed to when we were working in South Africa. Post-apartheid housing policy in South Africa, which for very obvious and culturally sensitive reasons, was promoting the ownership and therefore the further proliferation of very low density bungalows at the urban periphery. Now the environmental damage of this policy is fairly obvious and it's enormous. But if we come with our climate change debate to the discussion, we really need to understand the politics of the urban expansion that is playing out. Now from a completely different perspective, and I'm turning now the view, it's absolutely clear that city level sustainability thinking, which actually is maybe even more mature than national level sustainability thinking. And the pushing of the urban sustainability community have led to an entirely new recognition of the role of cities at the national and international level. Karen mentioned that we shouldn't take it for granted that the IPCC chapter has in some ways a chapter on cities although they are not allowed to call it cities, so human settlements. Take the most recent urban SDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals. We can't take these things for granted. They were established for the first time it was a battle. Now as part of the urban age, there were actually very few issues that we discussed over the last 10 years that didn't have a central and direct link with the underlying arguments that connect cities and climate change. In some ways, urban climate action is simply common sense urban development. Let me give you a few examples of how good urbanism equals a better climate. Richard Sennett's elaboration on the universal importance of fine grain mixed and intensely interconnected urban development is one example. But there was also our colleague the Indian urbanist Gitaam Tiwari who constantly emphasized the importance of enabling the most equitable means of travel for social reasons and that is walking. And the late Indian transport expert Fabio Casaroli who worked a lot and informed us on the importance of efficient and affordable public transport. It's exactly these co-benefits, these mutual benefits which we really need to, I think, centrally regard as our notion of hope. Three final examples. Compact, connected and coordinated urban growth which we communicated with Nick so strongly in the new climate economy report on better growth, better climate. Not only means a big plus for yes the economy and yes for the climate, but it means to avoid excessive forms of peripheralization of the urban poor which is socially unsustainable. We have done work in three emerging mega cities, Sao Paolo, Istanbul and Mumbai where we looked at how poorer segments of the population can access daily services including their jobs and how long it takes compared to richer sections of the population. The difference in Sao Paolo, which is very car oriented and sprawling, is at least double at already very high absolute levels. Poor people are on top of being sort of disadvantaged, punished in terms of access time. By contrast, more compact, more transit oriented, Mumbai and Istanbul actually equalize that access across income groups quite elegantly. Now social inclusion is actually a big driver for this sort of public transport policy we are seeing around the world. When bus rapid transit was invented in Curichiba and Föller Scaled in Bogotai, it was a strategy for more efficient and equitable transport. The now re-elected mayor Enrique Peñalosa who set up the trans-millennium bus system in Bogotai in the late 1990s, he wasn't thinking about carbon at all. However, these systems not only produce several billions of benefits in efficient access to the cities and for its jobs but are reducing carbon emissions by at least, I mean these are sort of the latest estimates by half a million metric tons annually in these BRT cities. And one final example linking proactive citizenship and renewable energy, which is also referred as decentralized energy, which is a unique opportunity for local empowerment, not only at the level of individual PV units, photovoltaic units or so-called citizen windmills, but at the scale of the city, the city of Munich owns its utility company and because of that public ownership they have set themselves a vision of becoming 100% carbon neutral with its electricity by 2025. That would have been impossible if it wasn't for public ownership. So all these examples just underscore a unique opportunity our cities provide us with to join up climate policy with other fundamental policy objectives. Philip, thank you very much indeed. I'm very glad that in that last contribution you got close to the democratic issues because I think what we've heard is an exposition about the choices, not just about where people live in cities or in rural communities, but how people live. What we've heard this evening is nothing short of a looming catastrophe and very clear trade-offs. We need renewal of infrastructure but while we renew infrastructure we deteriorate further, progress on climate change. I think that this reflection on the engagement of citizens, people feeling that this is something they must own, the correlation between that being the behaviour of people who are better educated and better paid jobs while poor communities exercise very little choice. I mean I know very well the community you refer to in Mumbai which is an optimistic but subsistence community. I wonder if you'd like to react perhaps Bruce to this question about engagement, personal responsibility, inter-governmental legislation, national legislation. Where does the bite and the leverage come? It's hard to mention national in the United States. Here's the issue. Cities are not governments. The national government is a government. States are governments. They can be hijacked by partisanship in the most parts of the world they are. The typical kind of ideological divisions. Cities are networks. Where you have not just representative democracy but participatory democracy. And that's why a lot of the actions that we've all described which again are not sufficient to have the kind of scale effect you want are happening in cities. In the United States what's essential for these kind of investments or regulatory reforms to happen is for people to make the argument, for leaders to make the argument. Whether it's public, private, civic or otherwise that there's a jobs effect and that there's a capital effect. This is not just environmental imperative but these are the kind of actions that are going to create good and quality jobs that can be coupled with the kind of skills training and education to bring more people into the prosperous economy. So it is particularly important in the United States to make the environmental, economic and social relationships both in general at the policy scale but at the granular level of geography. And so I think that is happening and frankly when you go into any city the kind of conversations that naturally occur in a very integrated way. That doesn't really happen at the national level or at the state level because then there are governments. They have specialized agencies. They have specialized expertise. At the city level it becomes mashed up across sectors, across disciplines. And so I think as we go forward here cities obviously will invent many solutions. They'll innovate on products but they're also going to send a signal higher up the food chain so to speak. I actually think cities are at the top of the food chain that there needs to be an integrated holistic perspective which Nick and Karen really have laid out. But it's hard for, I mean I was in the national government at the federal level for 10 years. Trust me it is so specialized. It is so compartmentalized. The natural relationship between housing and transportation and environment does not occur. At the city level how could it not occur? You live at every single day. So I do think that this network driven perspective and the sort of integration of economic, social and environmental solutions is fundamental to going forward. Thank you. Nick? I think we should also think of aspects of different kinds and often lower level politics. If you look at how the auto rickshaws in Delhi changed to compress national natural gas, it was essentially a legal case brought by a number of people settled in the Supreme Court on the human right to breathe. And they demanded that the auto rickshaws and some of the buses and trucks changed to compress natural gas. And it happened very quickly. Everybody said it's never going to work. The rickshaw drivers are going to stop. Excuse me. Sorry. I'm going to stop. Stop is the air pollution. I'm going to stop everything but it happened very quickly. I've done a lot of work in India over the last more than four decades. And there's one company called Selco which operates in Karnataka centered in Bangalore, one of the cities that Karen was focusing on. And they bring micro finance and small scale solar to people. Much of it is in some of it's in rural areas but much of it's in cities. And those things change understandings. So I think that type of event, whether it's through the courts or it's through entrepreneurship, can be extremely important in changing the way in which people understand and thus the politics. Karen. Well, cities are not going to act on climate change in and of itself. I mean, I think one of the things that really resonated that Phillip said was that it's all about what's happening at the local level. And in the climate change world we think about co-benefits as these other things you get when you also mitigate climate change. You get better health. You get economic development. But that's the co-benefit because your real aim is lowering emissions. But that's not going to make cities act or people act. People act because they want to live in better cities. They don't want to be commuting two hours or three hours. They want to breathe the air. They want to be able to live in safe, pleasant, aesthetically pleasing places. And I think we need a change in language because the co-benefit, if we have sustainable urbanization, is actually mitigating climate change. I would argue that Jane Jacobs is maybe one of the first environmentalists in terms of really linking cities and the environment. Because if you think about the small grid, the walkability, that's really all the features of low-carbon human or urban settlements. Maybe a follow-up. So I think absolutely right and I think probably we need to move from co-benefits to mutual benefits so we lose the directionality. But the question still reminds how can we inspire urban populations with what is possible and what would be so much better. And I think what I pick up a lot is this idea of we need to be more bold and do trials and test certain things, expose people to new experiences. Exposing is critical. They actually can live this new situation. Has anyone since we're doing lots of surveys, has anyone been to the car free day in Paris a few weeks ago, which was a much happier event in Paris? No, well, there were a few. Those that commented on the experience of being in central Paris without any vehicles, out there with kids, with bikes, feeling safe, has been an amazing eye-opener for every single person who has been there. And very successful urban policies that were actually introduced over time go back to those initial moments of getting the buy-in by people emotionally connecting to a new idea how urban life can take place. Thank you. Now, we're going to open this up to you. We've probably got time for four brief contributions and we've got roving microphones. And what we're going to do is take four contributions. I mean, literally 30 seconds each. Have you ever tried to express a view on climate change in 30 seconds? But tonight's your chance. And then I'm just going to ask each of our panellists just to respond to part of the aggregate group of questions. So who would like to start? Yes. Hi. With the responsibility for carbon emissions already generated, falling more heavily on the northern hemisphere, what sort of direct transfer either financially or technologically should there be between cities in the northern hemisphere and cities in the poor global south? The north south reactions. Did you get that? Okay, fine. Thank you very much. Gentleman here in the red jumper. Yeah, hi. Good night. One question maybe for the professor Nicholas Stern regarding the climate change is the biggest externality that some authors have said that there are some ways to mitigate it like taxes, but maybe there are other kinds, other ways to do it. Maybe with people engagement on some economic behavioral movements that are born like nudging. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Crispin, it's coming. I'll hear it. Great. Thank you. We've heard some very good talks covering I think most of the field, but not all of it. One of the things people have not spoken about is the pressure of human proliferation. The increase in the human population bears directly upon all of this. And in my own feelings about this I feel that the first element of trying to persuade not just people or governments but local communities is in fact to show that change is in their interest. That you have to be able to present things in such a fashion that it's in the interest of people to make the changes that we all think desirable. Okay. Thank you very much. And this is our last contribution. Thank you. Could you comment on the relationship between economic inequality and the quality of the environment and the possibility that it's open for mitigation? Okay. Thank you very much indeed. Right, Bruce. I'll try to respond to this because I do think, again, American perspective, we're responsible for the crack up of the great recession. Post recession, what you've seen is an attempt to return to the fundamentals of what drives a modern, sophisticated economy that can great more opportunities for a broader set of its citizenry. Well, what really drives this is advanced kinds of industries that are innovative, sustainable, and ultimately create more and better jobs. And then again training and education that can complement that. The question therefore is can we begin to invest in the clean energy economy at scale through R&D and then through new financial instruments, intermediaries, institutions around sustainable infrastructure and the companies that generally are going to make the sustainable products and create the sustainable services. There is a positive, there isn't essentially an interplay here between innovation, sustainability, and inclusion that needs to be fundamentally understood. And so at this point I think this is really about norms of finance because again it's not the old system of a national government basically doing what I said the first time or in the first statement. Set a price on carbon, tilt the playing field in this direction, that ain't going to happen in the United States. It's going to have to happen through the local and state financing of these disparate kinds of activities that in the end will create the more and better jobs that will send a clear signal that this is something that can relate to people's lives and should be fully politically supported. I'm happy to reinterpret the question about, actually it was for Nick, about what other policies are out there and I did hear you mentioned nudging, that's the one I leave for Nick. But I do think besides policies particularly from a national level that are targeted at the individual, national governments need to take much more serious their frameworks with regards to how cities operate Yes, spatial planning is the number one sort of power of urban governments but they are very much playing a game where the rules of the game are set in most countries at the national level for infrastructure finance and funding and even related to questions around developing new land for your local tax revenue as we have heard it. And by the way this is not just a story in China, it's actually a big issue in my home country in Germany where we still with a stagnating population are developing every day 73 hectares with a goal of 20 hectares. 73 hectares per day, so I don't know how many football, well that's 73 football fields here. But just to give you an idea per year that equals more or less the developed land of a city of Mumbai of 12 million people. And this happens in a country which is aware of the environmental issues, sophisticated democracy, a lot of environmental pressure, good urban planning but the national frameworks are still not up to speed incentivising cities to operate in the right way. The question about cities in the north versus cities in the south and their relative responsibilities, I mean absolutely there are very different responsibilities and very different strategies going forward. Remember I said there are four main drivers of urban emissions, income or socioeconomic factors, technology, the economy and then there's urban form. And for most cities in the not North America but really in the northern hemisphere their urban form has already been built and even though they're adding they're really adding on the fringe. And so when we infill or when we change the urban form in these cities it's really on the margin for cities that are already developed we have to look at those three other things. That's technology changing our maybe changing our economy and then changing our lifestyles. For the developing country cities it's a very different set of challenges and also opportunities and I think this is where the scale of the population comes in. Because if you remember that slide that I showed with the upper middle income greenhouse gas emissions almost at the same level as the higher income countries. So we're going to see that the aggregate effect of these emerging economies is going to be significant simply because of the sheer size. And then there's the lock in effect. Thank you, Nick. Can I take one or two things together? How far do people behave only in their own self interest? How do you get people together to share the benefits of what are good actions for a group as a whole? And some parts of this story I think it's remarkable how people do get together. I mean the fact that you've got a meeting in Paris in a couple of weeks time where people without a global government are getting together to try to do what collectively makes more sense. Is an example of groups getting together going beyond some very, very narrow sense of self interest and looking for a broader scope for community interest. So I actually think we do it injustice to people if we think they behave like the consumer in economics 101 with a single narrow objective perfect information about all the options and prices. And instant calculation of self interest. People do get together in ways. And secondly, that's a sort of a big scale. Incentives do matter, but people see bigger pictures. Another one is the example of getting people to share from the benefits of good infrastructure. I buy my electricity from good energy, you should too. I have no shareholding in the thing. But they've been very good. A lot of it's wind, a lot of it's onshore wind. Now some people don't like onshore wind. And what they do is they get local communities together to discuss how they can share in the benefits. Some cheap electricity, playing fields for the schools. So you can actually structure things in a way that people will see the advantages of acting together. It's a little bit like, although it's too mechanical, one of our LSE Nobel Prize winners, Ronald Coase, thinking about negotiations so that people get together to share the benefit. What you need, I think, is not simply the property rights in the negotiation. That's overly rigid in Ronald Coase. But you can get people to see common and shared interests and look beyond their own very narrow story. And good examples and good behaviour can be catching. Good. Thank you, Nick. Quick, far. Optimist or pessimist? Optimist or pessimist? If you're an urbanist, you're an optimist by definition. I'll give the example of my great, the reply of my great friend Jan Arthus Betran, who made these wonderful books, The Earth from Above, which you've probably seen. And he said it's too late to be a pessimist. Wonderful. Great. Karen, you've already told it. Absolutely optimist. Fabulous. Well, there you are. Listen, thank you all very much indeed. Happy birthday, LSE cities. And thank you all for coming to the party.