What is a Smart City and How Can a City Boost Its IQ?

Maggie Comstock
Associate, Policy
U.S. Green Building Council

Note: This blog was originally posted on WB Sustainable Cities

Earlier this month, the World Bank hosted a Smart Cities for All workshop in Washington, DC which convened experts from the United Nations, academia, government agencies, non-profits and industry. The purpose of the workshop was to share insights and experiences of equipping cities with the tools for intelligent growth. Additionally, the forum established a public-private partnership for collaboration in pursuit of shared goals for global sustainability. But what does it mean to be a “smart city”? Is this distinction only reserved for cities starting from scratch? Can an established city boost its IQ?

First, we must take a step back to reflect upon what it means to be a “smart city.” While there is no official definition, many have contributed to this debate. Industry leaders, such as Seimens and IBM, believe that stronger use of technology and data will enable government leaders to make better informed decisions. Whereas others, including the Sustainable Cities Blog’s very own Dan Hoornweg, consider the social aspects as a component of what it means to be a smart city. In his blog, “Smart Cities for Dummies,” published last November, Dan contends: “At its core a smart city is a welcoming, inclusive city, an open city. By being forthright with citizens, with clear accountability, integrity, and fair and honest measures of progress, cities get smarter.” Though I agree with both the data-driven and socially-conscious approaches, I’d like to propose my own definition of a smart city.

At its most basic level, a city is comprised of a government (in some form), people, industry, infrastructure, education and social services. A smart city thoughtfully and sustainably pursues development with all of these components in mind with the additional foresight of the future needs of the city. This approach allows cities to provide for its citizens through services and infrastructure that address both the current needs of the population as well as for projected growth.

UN Panel Names Cities as a Vehicle for Sustainable Development

Maggie Comstock
Associate, Policy
U.S. Green Building Council

Last week, the UN Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability released a report of recommended outcomes for the Rio+20 conference in June. The report, Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing, outlines both long- and short-term goals for governments, civil society and the private sector. These recommendations address all facets of resiliency, including climatic, economic and social. Below are a few of the UN Panel’s key recommendations that align with the goals of sustainable communities, many of which are already being addressed by the green building industry.

“Cities and local communities have a major role to play in advancing a real sustainable development agenda on the ground.”

As we already know, cities are a key to the success of the sustainable development agenda. Cities have the political will and flexibility to implement development goals more easily and quickly than national governments. Cities also have greater influence over the construction of buildings and infrastructure within their borders and can aid or incentivize the use of sustainable strategies. Past experience will also show that cities are leading the way by implementing innovative policies. See the World Green Building Council’s Government Leadership Awards publication for case studies of the leading green building policies in the world.

Scaling up Energy Efficiency Financing

Hope Lobkowicz
International Advisor
GLOBE Alliance

Here at COP17, some experts have said that the single most important outcome that can emerge from Durban is an agreement on the design of the Green Climate Fund – the new long-term mechanism for dispersing billions of dollars of climate finance for clean technology, adaptation, and capacity-building.

I’m interested in seeing a fair and equitable design for the fund. I’m also interested in watching how agreement on the fund can help bolster climate finance for energy efficient building projects – which so far occupy only a slim piece of international finance – yet offer the largest mitigation potential.

At a UNFCCC side-event on financing energy efficiency, panelists from the Global Environment Facility (the GEF), World Bank Group, and the Asian Development Bank presented a briefing note that summarized the results of an independent evaluation of these institutions’ investments in energy efficiency. Unsurprisingly, the evaluation acknowledged that:

• Investments in energy efficiency are highly cost-effective
• Fossil fuel subsidies are hampering investment
• Current obstacles and perceived barriers can be overcome – and the financial sector can in fact be persuaded to invest further in energy efficiency

To underpin these findings, the World Bank Group’s analysis offered some insightful statistics: Every $1 of GEF support for energy efficiency catalyzes a reduction of about 2.2 tons of CO2. The same investment in renewables catalyzes a reduction of 0.4 tons. Some energy efficiency investments, such as lighting, offer paybacks in a matter of weeks. Meanwhile, fossil fuel subsidies, which hinder efficiency investments by artificially lowering the cost of energy, remain larger than public spending on health in many countries.

This event made me realize that major international financial institutions do understand the environmental and economic benefits of energy efficiency. As President Obama recently said in his announcement of another $4 billion to improve commercial buildings and industrial facilities in the U.S.., “It is a trifecta.” So what’s standing in the way of global large-scale investment?

The panelists offered some suggestions. First, we need more data to help reduce the perceived risk. Second, we need capacity-building and technical assistance. Third, we need instruments such as loan guarantees from international institutions (and national governments) to catalyze investment in countries that are perceived as risky – especially the many in the developing world with poor credit ratings.

There are many drivers and varied approaches for financing green and efficient buildings. I am hopeful that the Green Climate Fund, which will oversee resources on the scale of $100 billion per year come 2020, can help with some of the above in order to leverage climate finance and spur even more investment in this “win-win-win” solution.

For more on how green buildings also improve lives, check out the COP17 legacy project spearheaded by the Green Building Council of South Africa.