Cities 30 Australia 25 Canada Sydney 20 USA

15 Shanghai 10 South Africa Mexico 5 China India Delhi 0 0 São Paulo 20,000 40,000

Figure 3: Carbon emission and income for selected countries and cities Source: LSE Cities based on multiple sources, see Appendix 1

that a majority of cities in Brazil, China, South Africa, India, Europe and the United States cities outperform their national average in terms of income per capita, education and employment levels. In terms of carbon emissions, energy, electricity and water consumption, dwelling and transport patterns and motorisation, however, there is a very marked difference between cities in developed and developing countries. Whereas cities in Europe, the USA and Brazil have a lower environmental impact than their respective countries, cities in India and China have a much larger impact owing to their significantly higher income levels compared with their national averages.

The social implications of traditional urban development Patterns of urbanisation in many areas also raise important social challenges. The traditional business as-usual (BAU) model of urban development – typical of rapidly urbanising areas – is characterized by uncontrolled,

often even incentivised, horizontal

expansion. This leads to urban sprawl of affluent populations with lower development densities and increased dependency on the private car and to peripheralisation of the urban poor, decreasing their access to the city and its workplaces, services and infrastructure. Typical developments further include the emergence of socially divisive neighbourhoods in the form of gated communities, shopping centres and

business districts and, a significant increase in the level of informal development with large swathes of slum housing with no access to basic services, infrastructure and sanitation. At a general level, the rapid growth of many cities coupled with insufficient resources and poor management compromises fresh water and electricity supply, waste treatment, transport, and other infrastructure provision, affecting the urban poor most.

2.2 Opportunities

Structural capacity The environmental performance of cities is dependent on a combination of effective green strategies and physical structure – urban form, size, density and configuration. They can be designed, planned and managed to limit resource consumption and carbon emissions. Or, they can be allowed to become voracious, land-hungry, all- consuming systems that ultimately damage the delicate global energy equation.

More compact urban forms, reduced travel distances and investment in green transport modes lead to greater energy efficiency. Lower surface-to-volume ratios of denser building typologies can result in lower heating and cooling loads. Greater utilisation of energy efficient utilities can contribute to lower embedded energy

463 60,000 80,000 GDP PPP per capita in US$ 2008 Brazil Mexico City Cape Town Japan France Tokyo Paris

Germany UK

Hamburg Toronto London New York City

CO2

emissions (tonnes of CO2

equivalent per capita)