The Climate City. Группа авторов

could, and one might argue should, account for all the carbon their city has sent into the atmosphere up to the point they reach “net-zero” emissions and then beyond. First-principles logic supports this. If a customer kept going to their favourite store and leaving with goods without paying, then started paying for goods after a certain number of visits, the shopkeeper would reasonably expect the customer to settle their old tab at some point. Only then would the shopkeeper be paid in full. On Earth, scientists track the response of the world’s natural systems to historic emissions. In the couple of centuries since the industrial revolution, cities have been emitting GHGs at vastly different scales and increasing at different rates. Even fully scoped, science-based, Paris-Agreement-compliant emissions reductions that start today would not eliminate that historical debt.

      A fourth descriptor – “Cumulative” – would strengthen the definition of “Net-Zero”. It would also encourage cities in developed nations to fund the just transition to a sustainable future; not with unlimited liability but instead surrounded by some rational boundaries. These cities could calculate their historic emissions “debt” and fund carbon credits at a significant scale to help the less wealthy preserve the natural resources on which we all depend. Entities could also invest in carbon removal (just at a significantly higher cost per ton than preserving developing-countries’ forests). The key is to calculate how many tonnes of emissions long-term emitters have produced before they achieve net-zero emissions for the first time, and to purchase carbon credits to settle the full tab for the city up to that point.

The issue is not just theoretical. Carbon dioxide and some other GHGs, once emitted, remain in the atmosphere for over 100 years. The vast majority of global GHG emissions occurred within the last 80 years. For GHGs like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, HFC-23, and sulphur hexafluoride, most of the molecules ever emitted by human activity are still up there, trapping the sun’s energy and warming the planet. Like a debt owed to a shopkeeper, nothing substitutes for repayment. Box 1.1 highlights the activity at Microsoft as perhaps a model a city could adopt.

Box 1.1 Case study: If Microsoft was a city – a best-practice model?

Microsoft’s definition and target of “carbon negativity by 2030”²⁷ harmonizes with the approach just outlined. Planners and evaluators can use the four descriptors to discuss, applaud, and challenge their statement.

      Fully Scoped: Microsoft has defined its responsibility across scopes 1, 2 and 3 (complete with a jargon-light explainer video). The inclusion of scope 3 emissions sets Microsoft apart. Typical of companies with a complex product range and large reach, its direct emissions are dwarfed by those from its supply chain and its products in consumer use and disposal.

      Science-Based: Microsoft’s historic commitment to reducing what it calls “operational carbon emissions” runs across several years with reference to peer-reviewed science.

      Paris-Agreement-Compliant: Microsoft has correctly spotted that historical carbon credits available for purchase have not been issued by nations themselves, nor tied to independent assessments of any nation’s carbon budget as part of the Paris Agreement. Microsoft seems to view sparing trees as secondary to planting new ones and appears to conclude that investing in expensive technologies for reduction and removal is preferable to transferring wealth to developing countries to prevent deforestation. In fact, preventing deforestation and preserving existing forest cover is crucial to achieving Paris Agreement goals.²⁸ Despite Microsoft’s current view on forest carbon with which I would disagree, the company has stated its case clearly and left its options open for future changes in direction.

      Cumulative: Most resonant and forward-thinking, Microsoft is pledging to account for all previous emissions by 2050. This is a significant challenge from a 45-year-old technology company to older industrials and younger tech companies alike. Putting it into practice can create methodologies, develop staff experience, and potentially define a new space for intellectual and investment growth.

      Microsoft’s approach is one of the first corporate examples to have thoughtfully addressed all four criteria for a comprehensive “Net-Zero” strategy. It sets a new bar for companies of any age. Which city could be first to do the same?

      From Bold Leadership Goals to System Change

      To achieve bold, clear climate goals while managing all the other priorities of the complex modern city, we need leaders that are truly connected: to themselves; to the team around them; to their communities and stakeholders; and to an awareness and appreciation of the entire complex system they are trying to manage and change.

There are many cautionary tales of unintended consequences of trying to do the right thing but in the wrong way – parachuting cats into Borneo in the 1950s is still one of the easiest and quickest to illustrate the point (Figure 1.7).²⁹ Our leaders need to be able to have a curiosity for the potential consequences – both intended and potentially unintended – of various actions by actors within a system and be able to map causal loops before they act.

      Figure 1.7 Cats being parachuted into Borneo in the 1950s. (Source: U.S. Air Force / Staff Sgt. Manuel J. Martinez.)

Too often, leaders also try to change a system in a harmful or less-effective way because of their own perspective. Being aware of the “ladder of inference” is powerful (Figure 1.8).³⁰ The flow of our thoughts may build from the bottom of the ladder upwards, but it is vital to realize how our inherent subjectivity filters and creates a unique view as compared to others, even if we all “saw” the same “data” or “had the same experience”. Even more important, the reflexive loop noted in the diagram shows how as we form our beliefs about the world, it further influences and filters what we even choose to “notice”, what data we actually observe and retain from the objective experience that was in front of us.

      Figure 1.8 Chris Argyris’s ladder of inference. (Source: Chris Argyris, Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning, Allyn and Bacon, 1990. https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=z7i3AAAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Ladder+of+Inference%22.)

In cities, leading an ambitious programme like climate action from our own narrow ladders, without taking the time to “get back to the base of the ladder” and truly understand others’ point of view, would not only be unfair; the narrow view will likely be counterproductive to solving the problem at hand. Diversity of thought in the team and in the process not only can keep the individual leader’s ladder more “true” and open to new data and experiences, but also can lead to better outcomes. CityStudio Vancouver, which brings city staff together with students, faculty, and community to design experimental projects that improve the city, has long championed a systems approach that builds time into the process to understand individual perspectives and embrace others’ points of view.

The leaders of the ambitious city need to be depth-finding from a systems perspective. The “iceberg” tool is one of the more famous tools in systems thinking and illustrates effectively how little of the system is observable “above the water-line” (Figure 1.9). As the curious leader continually asks “why”, the learning is increased while the ease of visibility decreases: from readily observable events