DOCSLIB.ORG

Beverage Producer Responsibility and Recycling

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Faculty code: CXP Sequence #: 0701 IQP division: 44 Beverage Producer Responsibility and Recycling An Interactive Qualifying Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science Submitted by: Submitted to: Project Advisor: Creighton Peet, WPI Professor ________________________ Project Co-advisor: Karen Lemone, WPI Professor Timothy Ebner On-Site Liaisons: Edwin C. F. Lau, Acting Director ________________________ Michelle Ladouceur Hahn Chu, Environmental Affairs Manager ________________________ Michelle Au, Nathaniel Rosso Environmental Affairs Officer ________________________ Ting Fung Tsoi Sponsored by: Friends of the Earth Hong Kong Date: March 1, 2007 Abstract The goal of this project was to recommend a framework for a producer responsibility system (PRS) to address the sustainable waste management of glass beverage containers in Hong Kong. The objectives we created to accomplish this goal were to identify the scale of beverage container waste; the mechanics, costs, and difficulties of recycling; and examples of PRS around the world. Results were obtained through interviews, tours, a focus group, and literary searches. From our conclusions, we generated a framework. i Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for providing us with information and support that aided us in the completion of this project: Hahn Chu, Environmental Affairs Manager, Friends of the Earth Hong Kong Michelle Au, Environmental Affairs Officer, Friends of the Earth Hong Kong Edwin C. F. Lau, Acting Director, Friends of the Earth Hong Kong R. Creighton Peet, WPI professor and Hong Kong Project Center Director Karen Lemone, WPI professor The Hong Kong Environmental Protection Department Zinc Lam of Laputa Eco-Construction Material Co., Ltd SIN Kwok-hau, LAM Kang-fuk, YU Man-fung, and YEUNG Shun-kui of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department The following individuals provided us with invaluable support. A special thank you goes out to them: The staff at Friends of the Earth Hong Kong Felix F. S. Choi, Environment, Health & Safety Manager, Swire Coca-Cola HK Tim Lucida Lo of the Tim Wai Group ii Authorship Timothy Ebner, Michelle Ladouceur, Nathaniel Rosso, and Ting Fung Tsoi all contributed to the writing of the project. Each section of the report contains the writing of multiple team members. iii Table of Contents Abstract________________________________________________________________ i Acknowledgements______________________________________________________ ii Authorship ____________________________________________________________iii Table of Contents _______________________________________________________ iv List of Figures ________________________________________________________ vii List of Tables _________________________________________________________ viii List of Acronyms _______________________________________________________ ix Executive Summary _____________________________________________________ ii 1. Introduction _________________________________________________________ 1 2. Background _________________________________________________________ 3 2.1 Definition of EPR ________________________________________________________ 3 2.1.1 Overview and Advantages of EPR _______________________________________________4 2.1.2 Criteria for Establishing EPR____________________________________________________6 2.1.3 Responsibility Defined ________________________________________________________6 2.1.4 Who Should Be Held Responsible?_______________________________________________7 2.1.5 Mandatory vs. Voluntary EPR___________________________________________________8 2.2 Notable EPR in Other Regions ____________________________________________ 10 2.2.1 Japan _____________________________________________________________________10 2.2.2 Taiwan ____________________________________________________________________12 2.2.3 Korea _____________________________________________________________________13 2.2.4 Germany __________________________________________________________________16 2.3 Waste Management in Hong Kong _________________________________________ 17 2.3.1 Management of Municipal Solid Waste___________________________________________17 2.3.2 Waste Reduction Framework Plan_______________________________________________20 2.3.3 Glass Recycling _____________________________________________________________21 2.4 Administration _________________________________________________________ 23 2.4.1 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department _____________________________________24 2.4.2 Environmental Protection Department____________________________________________25 2.4.3 Legislative Council and the Waste Disposal Ordinance ______________________________26 3. Methodology________________________________________________________ 28 3.1 Identify the scale of beverage container waste in Hong Kong.___________________ 28 3.1.1 Bar and Restaurant Interviews __________________________________________________29 3.1.2 Tim Wai Group _____________________________________________________________29 3.1.3 EPD Waste Data ____________________________________________________________30 3.1.4 Correspondence with Felix Choi ________________________________________________30 3.2 Identify the mechanics, costs, and difficulties of glass beverage container recycling in Hong Kong. _______________________________________________________________ 30 3.2.1 Interviews with Bars and Restaurants ____________________________________________31 3.2.2 Tim Wai Group _____________________________________________________________31 3.2.3 Swire Coca-Cola ____________________________________________________________32 iv 3.2.4 Laputa Eco-Construction Material Co., Ltd. _______________________________________32 3.2.5 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department _____________________________________33 3.2.6 Environmental Protection Department____________________________________________33 3.2.7 Students of Hong Kong University ______________________________________________33 3.3 Identify beverage producer responsibility systems used in other countries.________ 34 3.4 Identify examples of beverage producer responsibility in Hong Kong.____________ 34 3.4.1 Tim Wai Group _____________________________________________________________35 3.4.2 Swire Coca-Cola ____________________________________________________________35 3.4.3 Laputa Eco-Construction Material Co., Ltd. _______________________________________35 3.5 Summary ______________________________________________________________ 36 4. Results and Analysis _________________________________________________ 37 4.1 Determine the scale of beverage container waste in Hong Kong _________________ 37 4.2 Identify the mechanics, costs, and difficulties of recycling glass beverage containers in Hong Kong _______________________________________________________________ 40 4.2.1 Collection, Transportation, and Processing Problems ________________________________41 4.2.2 Spatial Limitations___________________________________________________________42 4.2.3 Publicity for Recyclers________________________________________________________43 4.2.4 Convenience _______________________________________________________________43 4.2.5 Material Selection: Glass vs. PET _______________________________________________45 4.2.6 Construction Value of Glass ___________________________________________________46 4.2.7 Government Support _________________________________________________________48 4.2.8 Past Recycling Attempts ______________________________________________________50 4.2.9 Support from NGO’s _________________________________________________________51 4.2.10 EPD vs. FEHD: Conflicting Goals _____________________________________________52 4.3 Identify successful and unsuccessful beverage producer responsibility systems used in other countries ____________________________________________________________ 53 4.4 Identify examples of beverage producer responsibility in Hong Kong ____________ 56 4.4.1 Financial Responsibility ______________________________________________________57 4.4.2 Physical Responsibility _______________________________________________________59 4.4.3 Conclusions ________________________________________________________________62 4.5 Summary ______________________________________________________________ 63 5. Conclusions ________________________________________________________ 64 5.1 Engage the Cooperation of Producers ______________________________________ 65 5.2 Empower the Consumer _________________________________________________ 66 5.3 Stimulate Local Business & Recycling Technology____________________________ 67 5.4 Maintain Free-Market Ideals _____________________________________________ 68 5.5. Maximize Feasibility ____________________________________________________ 69 6. Recommendations: Framework ________________________________________ 71 Bibliography__________________________________________________________ 76 Appendix A: Sponsor description _________________________________________ 81 Appendix B: Landfilli information ________________________________________ 83 Appendix C: Government structure _______________________________________ 90 v Appendix D: Global PRS________________________________________________ 91 Appendix E: Restaurant/bar information___________________________________ 92 Appendix F: Focus group with HKU students _______________________________ 99 Appendix G: Focus group questionnaire __________________________________
Recommended publications
  • What Is a Materials Recovery Facility? a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF

    What Is a Materials Recovery Facility? a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF

    What is a Materials Recovery Facility? A materials recovery facility (MRF) is a specialized plant that receives, separates and prepares recyclable materials for sale to end-user manufacturers. It is important that the materials which come out of the MRF are clean, properly sorted and relatively free of impurities. How It Works Step 1: It All Starts with YOU! You begin by preparing your recyclables (e.g., you rinse bottles and cans, flatten cardboard) and place them in the residential recycling bin at the curb. Step 2: Materials are Collected and Delivered to a MRF Recycling crews drive through your neighborhood and collect the materials. They transport the materials to a MRF where they are weighed and offloaded onto the floor. Step 3: Recyclables are Put on Conveyor Belts Commingled materials (i.e., steel cans, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, cardboard and mixed paper) are put onto conveyors that are used to transport the material streams inside the MRF. Step 4: Materials are Sorted The conveyors go past semi-automated sorting lines. In this process, workers remove debris and sort the materials by type. In addition to hand sorting, materials undergo both simple and complex automated processes. For example, disc screens separate fiber from containers and 2-D from 3-D materials. While an overhead magnet is used to remove steel cans from other recyclables. Step 5: Recyclables are Prepared for Transport Once recyclables have gone through all the necessary sorting processes, they are prepared for transport. Some materials (i.e., plastics, metal cans, paper, cardboard) are compressed into large dense cubes or bales.
  • Life Cycle Assessment

    Life Cycle Assessment

    Life cycle assessment http://lcinitiative.unep.fr/ http://lca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/lcainfohub/index.vm http://www.lbpgabi.uni-stuttgart.de/english/referenzen_e.html "Cradle-to-grave" redirects here. For other uses, see Cradle to the Grave (disambiguation). Recycling concepts Dematerialization Zero waste Waste hierarchy o Reduce o Reuse o Recycle Regiving Freeganism Dumpster diving Industrial ecology Simple living Barter Ecodesign Ethical consumerism Recyclable materials Plastic recycling Aluminium recycling Battery recycling Glass recycling Paper recycling Textile recycling Timber recycling Scrap e-waste Food waste This box: view • talk • edit A life cycle assessment (LCA, also known as life cycle analysis, ecobalance, and cradle-to- grave analysis) is the investigation and valuation of the environmental impacts of a given product or service caused or necessitated by its existence. Contents [hide] 1 Goals and Purpose of LCA 2 Four main phases o 2.1 Goal and scope o 2.2 Life cycle inventory o 2.3 Life cycle impact assessment o 2.4 Interpretation o 2.5 LCA uses and tools 3 Variants o 3.1 Cradle-to-grave o 3.2 Cradle-to-gate o 3.3 Cradle-to-Cradle o 3.4 Gate-to-Gate o 3.5 Well-to-wheel o 3.6 Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment 4 Life cycle energy analysis o 4.1 Energy production o 4.2 LCEA Criticism 5 Critiques 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading 9 External links [edit] Goals and Purpose of LCA The goal of LCA is to compare the full range of environmental and social damages assignable to products and services, to be able to choose the least burdensome one.
  • Craven Recycling-Frequently Asked Questions

    Craven Recycling-Frequently Asked Questions

    Craven County Curbside Recycling Program Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Q: I have not received a recycling roll cart or I’m a new resident. How do I get a recycling roll cart? A: Please call Waste Industries dba GFL at 252-638-1366 to request a 95 gallon recycling roll cart. Q: What do the carts look like? A: The carts are 95 gallon lime green roll carts with lids and they are easily distinguishable from the old bins or trash bins. They are stamped with GFL which stands for Waste Industries dba Green for Life (GFL). The cart you receive will also have information stamped on the top in white lettering. The dimensions of the cart are 42 inches tall and 35 inches wide at the top. Q: What day will my new cart be serviced? A: Each cart will be delivered with a calendar with the weeks color coded. Your cart will have a colored decal with the day of the week notated. Look at your calendar to find your week and day according to the colored decal on your cart. For example, if you have a red decal with an M, then you are serviced on Mondays on the red weeks. Your cart will be serviced every four weeks. If you lose your calendar, please go to www.cravenrecycles.com and use the Recycling Pickup Schedule App to find your recycling dates. Carts should be placed curbside by 7:00 a.m. on collection day. Q: The sticker on my cart has faded and I cannot read it.
  • FAQ for Recycle Right

    FAQ for Recycle Right

    FAQ For Recycle Right Why did the guidelines change for curbside recycling? Curbside recycling is facing a contamination crisis. Contamination is caused when people place materials in the recycling bin that do not belong. Recycling processors have a difficult time sorting out the trash, which makes its way into the sorted/bailed material that is sold to market. For a long time, China was the largest buyer of this material from the U.S. And because of increasing contamination levels, China made the decision to stop importing this material. This left the U.S. with an overabundance of recyclable commodities (re: bailed material) with a lot of trash mixed in. To address the contamination issue in Lancaster County, and ensure curbside recycling is sustainable, we went “back to the basics” with four material types that have a strong domestic market—meaning, there is a demand for this material by manufacturers in the U.S. We call these materials the “Big 4” and include: 1) corrugated cardboard (like shipping and packing boxes), 2) metal food and beverage cans, 3) plastic bottles and jugs with a neck, and 4) glass bottles and jars. Why are some materials allowed in the recycling bin, while others go to a drop-off location? In Lancaster County, we use a process called “single-stream” recycling, where residents can put all their approved recyclables into one bin. These materials are collected and taken to a materials recovery facility (MRF) where they are sorted, bailed, and sold to manufacturers, who turn them into new products. The sorting process is mostly automated, using various screens, magnets, and optical sorters to identify materials.
  • GEF Guidance on Emerging Chemicals Management Issues in Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition

    GEF Guidance on Emerging Chemicals Management Issues in Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition

    GEF Guidance on Emerging Chemicals Management Issues in Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition GEF Guidance on Emerging Chemicals Management Issues in Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition A STAP Advisory document June 2012 GEF Guidance on Emerging Chemicals Management Issues in Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition A STAP Advisory Document Prepared on behalf of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) by Hindrik (Henk) Bouwman NorthWest University (Potchefstroom Campus), School of Environmental Sciences and Development, P Bag X6001, Potchefstroom 2520, South Africa. E-mail: [email protected] Acknowledgements The author is grateful to co-authors Ming Hung Wong, Ricardo Barra and Lev Neretin, with further authorship support from Christine Wellington-Moore, Margarita Dyubanova, Bruce Vignon, Gregory Schiefer, Michael Mozur, Barbara Albrecht. Bo Walstrom, Anna Leung, Ho Ye Fung, Paul Booysen made contributions on the direction this document should take, while the wider network of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) provided core inputs via survey participation. Additional comments were provided by the participants of the STAP side event on Emerging Chemicals, held in the margins of the SAICM Open-ended Working Group, Belgrade 18 November 2011, which all went to improve the quality of this document. This advisory document was reviewed by three external reviewers and STAP Secretariat staff. Design and Layout: Critical Stages, LLC Disclaimer This document attempts to define, identify, evaluate and prioritize emerging chemicals management issues (ECMI) for Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition, as a first step in helping the GEF plan its allocation of resources to help anticipate, prevent, reduce and/or minimize adverse impacts of chemicals on human health and the environment.
  • Acceptable Recyclables

    Acceptable Recyclables

    Acceptable Recyclables Printed Paper Newspaper&insert Magazines Office Paper Envelopes So Cover Books Printed Paper Phone Books Junk Mail Catalogues Brochures Calendars Paper Packaging Cardboard Boxboard Kra9 Paper Paper Cores Moulded Pulp Plastic PET BoEles&Jars PET Thermoforms PET Clamshells PET Jars PP BoEles Plastic HDPE BoEles HDPE Jars HDPE Tubs and Lids HDPE Pails PE Bags Recycling World has Changed! Metal The items on this page are the only items we wish to see in your recycling bin. We can collect, process, and sell these materials day in and day out and you can feel good Aluminum Beverage Steel food and about it. Can beverage cans Placing the wrong items in the recycling bins increases the cost of the program, lowers the value of the remaining recyclables, and affects the safety of our employees. Just because something is made of paper, metal, plastic, or Glass glass, does not mean it is recyclable. Make sure you see it listed in the latest acceptable list posted on our web site, or your calendar. Clear and Coloured If you are unsure, please ask us at [email protected] or 1-800-265-9799, or visit www.bra.org BoEles and Jars Recent Program Changes While cartons are a defined commodity by the ISRI SpecificaQon circular, they are a laminated product that needs to be kept separate from other commodiQes otherwise they become a contaminaQon issue. Because of the shape shi9ing ability (2D vs 3D) this make Cartons them hard to separate even with the latest opQcal technology. Markets are not stable, price is low while handling costs are high.
  • Encorp Pacific Presentation Overview

    Encorp Pacific Presentation Overview

    The BC EPR Model: A Leader in North America Allen Langdon President and CEO Encorp Pacific Presentation Overview • Overview of EPR IN BC • EPR for Packaging in BC • Overview of Encorp System • Benefits of EPR • Impact on Municipalities • What’s Next? Extended Producer Responsibility • Extended to what? – End-of-life (EOL) management of products and packaging • Responsible for what? – Collecting, recycling and diverting material from landfill – Paying the costs associated with activities set out in the a stewardship plan approved by the BC Ministry of Environment • Whose responsibility? – Producer—the business that provides the product of packaging to the BC residential consumer is responsible – Producer also known as the “steward” in some other provinces EPR is the law in BC • July 2004 – BC enacted Environmental Management Act (EMA) • October 2004 – BC filed Recycling Regulation • Product categories included as separate schedules under the regulation (beverage containers are Schedule 1) • There are now over 15 stewardship agencies in BC that manage materials such as paint, tires and electronics Packaging EPR in BC Encorp Pacific – 75.8% recovery rate (2017) • Schedule 1 – Beverage Containers (both residential and IC & I) Recycle BC – 75% recovery rate (2017) • Schedule 5 – Packaging and Paper Products (residential only) Overview of Encorp Pacific • Federally incorporated, not-for-profit corporation under the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. • Used Beverage Container (UBC) management is our core business. Also a service provider to Electronic Products Recycling Association (EPRA) (2006) and Major Appliances Recycling Roundtable (MARR) (2018) • Five Members • Canadian Beverage Assn. (soft drinks), • Juice Council of BC, • Retail Council of Canada (grocery trade), • Canadian Bottled Water Assn., and • Beverage Alcohol Containers Mgmt.
  • Impact Assessment

    Impact Assessment

    Title: Reforming the UK packaging producer responsibility Impact Assessment (IA) system Date: 18/01/2021 Stage: Consultation IA No: Source of intervention: Domestic RPC Reference No: Secondary legislation Lead department or agency: Defra Type of measure: Other departments or agencies: Contact for enquiries: [email protected] Summary: Intervention and Options RPC OPINION: GREEN Cost of Preferred (or more likely) Option 3(2019 prices, 2020 present value) Total Net Business Net Net cost to business One-In, Business Impact Target Status Present Present Value per year () Three-Out Value £275.4m -£9,532.5m £1,131.0m In scope Qualifying provision What is the problem under consideration? Why is government intervention necessary? A producer responsibility (PR) system for packaging has been in place since 1997. Over this time, it has helped businesses across the UK to meet their packaging waste recycling obligations and the UK to achieve its and the EU packaging waste recycling targets whilst keeping the cost of compliance to businesses low compared to EU Member States. As the current system is designed to enable producers to meet (not exceed) their recycling targets it provides little incentive for producers to design their packaging to be more recyclable or encourage the use of reusable or refillable packaging. In addition, a range of environmental externalities (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions and disamenity impacts from littering) are not fully accounted for in packaging producers’ and users’ decisions. Other issues of the current system include stakeholders’ concerns over system transparency; limited direct financial support for local authorities (LAs) managing packaging waste and that recycling that can be done at a lower cost overseas resulting in a lack of a level playing field for domestic reprocessors.
  • Reinventing Multifunctionality

    Reinventing Multifunctionality

    Reinventing multifunctionality Combining goals, sharing means, linking interests Future Value Now, Revised Edition Artist impression: 3dok.nl Building design: MorePlatz architecten. GREENNEST EXPERIENCE & HOTEL A multiple layered park, which shows flowers and plants in a natural Hotel, Hospitality setting, is combined with a hotel and a rooftop restaurant. The Green- restaurant nest is a visitors experience and hotel and greenhouse in one. It is planned as an iconic building, 60 meters high, with subtropical and Mediterranean climate zones inside. Greennest links the greenhouse sec- Greennest Recreation, high-rise Experience leisure tor and the hospitality sector. The hotel will contain 215 rooms divided building over an area of 8,300 m2. The experience offers sensational views on top of a rainforest and dramatic landscapes. The entire experience will 2 extend across about 10,000 m . In cooperation with the municipality Greenhouse Horticulture of Amsterdam, the Greennest Experience & hotel concept has been elaborated for an attractive high-visibility location on the A9 motorway in the Amsterdam South-East area. The location is easy to reach by car and public transport. vel at the extraordinary design and savour the unique experience. The The hotel and horticulture experience programs are intertwined and 4D elevator ride to the top floor immerses the experience visitor in a form an integral whole with the high-rise building. The various bio- virtual journey through a plant from the roots to the flower. Awaiting topes are each given their own place in a stacked structure comprising him at the top – at 60 metres height – is a spectacular panoramic view six layers with a very ample storey height.
  • Waste Recycling System in Selected Places Research Office Legislative Council Secretariat

    Waste Recycling System in Selected Places Research Office Legislative Council Secretariat

    Information Note Waste recycling system Research Office in selected places Legislative Council Secretariat IN12/16-17 1. Introduction 1.1 Over the past decade or so, the Hong Kong Government has launched a number of initiatives to promote waste recovery, including (a) setting up the EcoPark in Tuen Mun in 2007; (b) establishing the Recycling Fund valued at HK$1 billion to support waste recyclers in 2015; (c) introducing legislations to implement producer responsibility for few waste streams beginning with glass bottles and electronic/electrical products; and (d) improving voluntary waste separation and collection facilities which are accessible to residence of some 80% local households. Yet the recovery rate of municipal solid waste still fell noticeably from 48% in 2011 to 35% in 2015. To a certain extent, the lacklustre recycling performance could be attributable to the sluggish global market for recycled products in recent years. Yet there are also concerns that the local recycling industry did not receive enough support to remain self-sufficient and financially sustainable, compared to their overseas counterparts which are supported by well-established extended producer responsibility systems ("EPRS") covering most kinds of waste.1 As such, the local recycling industry remained relatively small in size, with about 500 establishments directly employing 4 000 people in 2013.2 1.2 At the request made by the Subcommittee on Refuse Collection and Resource Recovery in October 2016 and as a follow-up to the earlier note entitled "Separation and collection of household waste in selected places" 1 In those places with good practice of EPRS, producers are held responsible for the environmental impacts of their products from the design to end-of-life phase.
  • Innovation in Eco-Industrial Parks

    Innovation in Eco-Industrial Parks

    Paper submitted to: R&D Management Conference 2018 “R&Designing Innovation: Transformational Challenges for Organizations and Society” June, 30th -July, 4th, 2018, Milan, Italy Innovation in eco-industrial parks: a comparative review of case studies Willerson Lucas Campos-Silva 1,5, João Amato Neto 2, Mary Fernanda Sousa Melo 3,5 and Rodrigo Trotta Yaryd 4 Abstract: The innovation is a factor that influences the formation and development of industrial symbiosis complexes, through improvements in material utilization and reuse technologies, and the adjustment of industrial production structures. In the Circular Economy context, the innovation could be an effective strategy to improve the eco-efficiency. Based on the eco-industrial parks potential to support sustainable development and to be a platform of innovation in environmental management, this research aims to analyze the international scientific production of the case studies in eco-industrial parks and understand the how innovation is undertaken. It was developed a systematic review of literature. Data analysis was done in two stages: descriptive and exploratory. The co-word network maps were analysed through the VOSviewer software. The number of citations has grown in recent years. Most of the authors are from China, followed by the USA, and the main journal is Journal of Cleaner Production. Most of the EIPs are in China and more widely in Asia. Through the co-word analysis, we studied the conceptual structure of the research field. This research presented an overview that can guide academics and managers interested in EIP and innovation in the context of the parks. 1. Introduction Long-term partnerships are essential so that organizations can make the transition towards sustainability, being necessary to have a systemic view to achieve sustainability (Geng et al.
  • Green Building City Market Briefs Table of Contents

    Green Building City Market Briefs Table of Contents

    GREEN BUILDING CITY MARKET BRIEFS TABLE OF CONTENTS NORTH AMERICA Rotterdam Stockholm Austin Venice Boston Warsaw Chicago Houston AFRICA Los Angeles New Orleans Addis Ababa New York City Cape Town Philadelphia Dar es Salaam Portland Jo’Burg San Francisco Lagos Seattle Nairobi Toronto Vancouver SOUTH & WEST ASIA Washington, D.C. Delhi Dhaka North CENTRAL & SOUTH AMERICA Dhaka South Bogota Karachi Buenos Aires Mumbai Curitiba Lima EAST ASIA Mexico City Beijing Rio de Janeiro Changwon Santiago Hong Kong Sao Paulo Seoul Shanghai EUROPE Shenzhen Amsterdam Tokyo Athens Yokohama Barcelona Basel SOUTHEAST ASIA & OCEANA Berlin Bangkok Copenhagen Hanoi Istanbul Ho Chi Minh City London Jakarta Madrid Melbourne Milan Singapore Moscow Sydney Oslo Paris ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Rome FOREWORD This report addresses a critical issue facing mayors in cities around the world: building energy use is a leading contributor to urban – and global -- greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It therefore represents one of the greatest opportunities for cities to tackle climate change locally, and contribute to ambitious national government targets at the Paris COP21 and beyond. Cities are the drivers of development, growth and investment. But rising consumption and production in cities is causing more than 70 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and cities are vulnerable to climate impacts, such as sea level rise, heat waves and drought. If cities continue to develop according to the prevailing 20th century model, it will not be possible to prevent severe climate change. Fortunately, today, a number of leading mayors are forging a path to low carbon development and are already achieving economic growth by investing in sustainable city climate solutions.