从全球百余城市低碳发展水平异同看中国城市低碳发展之道.pdf

1从全球百余城市低碳发展水平异同看中国城市低碳发展之道WRI.ORG.CN邱诗永 林嘉颖 刘岱宗 蒋洪强 曹东 王媛 张鸿宇 李勃 梁晨从全球百余城市低碳发展水平异同看中国城市低碳发展之道LOW-CARBON CITY DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA:EVALUATION RESULTS FOR MORE THAN 100 CITIES AROUND THE WORLDI从全球百余城市低碳发展水平异同看中国城市低碳发展之道目录III 执行摘要VII Executive Summary1 研究背景1 全球气候变化呼吁城市低碳发展1 开展全球城市低碳发展评价对指导中国城市低碳发展具有重要意义2 研究目的和范围5 方法和数据5 城市选择6 分析方法9 数据来源9 研究局限性11 评价结果12 中国城市的低碳发展已经取得积极进展13 中国城市在低碳消费方面表现更为出色17 低碳先锋城市多位于温暖带和冷温带地区18 服务型城市整体低碳表现更为优秀21 案例分析22 以上海为代表的超大型城市应加大在生产和消费方面的低碳投入，起引领带头作用23 以桂林为代表的服务型城市应结合地方资源禀赋，升级优化产业结构，发展适合的低碳经济模式24 以唐山为代表的工业型城市应利用经济发展的上行周期动力进行绿色产业转型25 以武威为代表的农业型城市应在深化第一产业产业链的同时，积极促进第三产业的发展27 结论与建议27 超大型城市应从低碳发展规划、产业内部结构优化和能源结构调整三方面推进绿色低碳高质量发展28 服务型城市应因地制宜，制定气候行动目标和方案，发展适合的低碳经济模式，以积极推动城市和经济高质量低碳发展29 工业型城市可以通过数字化手段提升“两高”行业绿色化程度，并增加智力投资，推进绿色产业转型30 农业型城市可以整合农村资源优势，在优化第一产业结构的同时，大力发展第三产业，助力低碳发展33 附录一 评价城市清单36 注释36 参考文献III从全球百余城市低碳发展水平异同看中国城市低碳发展之道执行摘要亮点 本研究构建了包含低碳生产、低碳消费、低碳环境、低碳进程在内的城市低碳发展评价指标体系，是首个针对全球上百个城市开展统一口径下的城市低碳发展评价。评价结果显示，中国城市在低碳发展方面取得积极进展，排名前三的城市均为中国城市，其中深圳排名第一。超大型城市应从低碳发展规划、产业内部结构优化和能源结构调整三方面推进绿色低碳高质量发展。服务型城市应因地制宜，制定气候行动目标和方案，发展适合的低碳经济模式，以积极推动城市和经济高质量低碳发展。工业型城市可以通过数字化手段提升“两高”行业绿色化程度，并增加智力投资，推进绿色产业转型。农业型城市可以整合农村资源优势，在优化第一产业结构的同时，大力发展第三产业，助力低碳发展。IVWRI背景全球气候变化需要城市积极探索低碳转型。人口和经济的高度集聚，使得城市成为气候变化的高度敏感和脆弱区。但同时，城市贡献了全球70%的碳排放，是全球实现温室气体净零排放的关键区域。推动城市低碳发展还可以产生积极的经济效益：一系列现有可行的低碳措施不仅可使城市主要部门到2050年减少近90%的碳排放，而且至少可获得总净现值高达169.8万亿元的回报（CUT 2019）。开展全球城市低碳发展评价，对国内城市低碳建设有重要的指导意义。现有研究缺少对国内外城市低碳发展的综合比较研究：国内研究大多关注中国城市之间的低碳发展评价，较少涉及国际同类城市的比较研究；一些研究进行了国内外城市的低碳发展对比，但只局限在少数国际大城市，代表性有限；一些研究虽然覆盖了较多国内外城市，但分类及可比性不足，难以针对性地指导国内城市低碳政策制定。因此，开展对国内外典型城市低碳发展的综合比较研究，有助于从全球视野衡量地区低碳发展的现状和水平，总结城市低碳发展经验，为不同类型城市的低碳政策制定和实践创新提供借鉴参考和技术支持。关于本报告本报告由世界资源研究所和生态环境部环境规划院共同完成，从城市绿色低碳的角度构建了包含低碳生产、低碳消费、低碳环境、低碳进程的指标评价体系，创新性地选取低碳信息指数、第二产业碳生产力等11个典型指标，针对全球102个城市（国际城市43个，国内城市59个）开展了统一口径下的城市低碳发展评价。其中，低碳生产用于表征城市在生产过程中的低碳表现，低碳消费用于衡量一个城市居民的低碳消费行为，低碳环境用于表征城市与自然、生态环境和谐共生的程度，低碳进程则更多强调城市低碳行为取得的一些发展成效。指标权重采用“主观”+“客观”赋权相结合的方式，“主观”赋权法邀请行业内顶尖研究学者打分评估，“客观”方式采用熵权法，确保了指标权重的权威性与科学性。同时，为进一步探讨不同类型城市的低碳发展方向和路径，本研究按柯本气候分类法以及城市的产业结构将城市进行划分，便于更好地比较分析，为中国城市低碳发展提供借鉴。报告的最终结果会在由世界资源研究所联合多家机构共同搭建的“城市气候圈”平台（C）上同步展示。“城市气候圈”是一个综合展示与评估全球城市的气候目标、政策、低碳进展的可视化平台，致力于推动城市实现气候雄心，加速城市低碳转型。关键结论分析从整体评价结果来看，将中国城市置于国际背景下，发现中国城市在低碳发展方面已经取得积极进展，排名前十的城市中，中国城市位居前三。其中，中国城市在低碳V从全球百余城市低碳发展水平异同看中国城市低碳发展之道消费方面进入前十的数量较多，在形成绿色低碳的生活方式和消费模式方面，已取得了不错的成效，但在低碳生产、低碳环境和低碳进程方面还需进一步提高。从气候类型来看，四个分类指标下不同气候区城市的表现呈现异质性，其中温暖带和冷温带由于气候适宜，城市优先发展，发达城市相对集中，涌现不少低碳先锋城市，排名前25%的城市大部分位于这两个气候区。从城市类型来看，服务型城市在低碳发展方面远远领先于工业型城市和农业型城市，特别是在低碳生产和低碳进程两个方面，反映了城市的产业升级对于低碳发展的正面影响。政策建议为促进中国城市低碳发展，促进实现双碳目标，结合上述评价结果，及国际国内典型城市低碳发展案例和对比分析，本研究提出以下政策建议。针对超大型城市，如上海，与国际城市如新加坡相比，在第二产业碳生产力、可再生能源消费、绿色消费等方面相对落后，建议上海做好低碳发展规划并倡导绿色消费，一方面合理规划产业布局，有序引导人才引进，为城市低碳发展谋好局，另一方面，营造低碳出行和消费环境，开展各类环保低碳行动；优化、调整第二产业内部结构，减少对高耗能产业的依赖，朝着新兴产业和高端制造业方向发展；持续优化能源结构，加大对可再生能源的投资与研发，提高绿色能源消费占比。针对服务型城市，如广西桂林，与国际城市如澳大利亚布里斯班和英国伦敦相比，在第三产业增加值占比、第二产业碳生产力、城市低碳关注度等方面表现欠佳，建议桂林结合地方资源禀赋，升级优化产业结构，例如通过整合旅游资源和结合游客需求，开发多样化、独特的旅游文化产品，完善相关产业链建设；同时做好城市低碳发展规划，将交通、建筑、减污降碳协同、产业、国土空间等规划有效衔接，提出切实有效的气候变化目标与行动。针对工业型城市，如河北唐山，与国际城市如美国匹兹堡相比，唐山的经济发展方式仍以资源消耗为主，绿色低碳属性欠佳，对于化石燃料依赖程度较高。唐山提高低碳发展水平的核心是产业转型，建议唐山根据城市定位，找准产业转型路径，淘汰高耗能落后技术，提高生产过程中绿色化、低碳化水平，并增加智力投资，提高工人的就业技能和企业的科研能力，朝着高、精、尖等行业发展。针对农业型城市，如甘肃武威，和澳大利亚布里斯班相比，在经济发展、产业结构和第二产业碳生产力等方面落后较多，建议武威一方面通过发展农业加工业，提高农产品附加值，促进第一产业结构优化；另一方面结合乡村振兴，整合农村资源优势，打造特色农村休闲旅游业，在帮助农民提高收入的同时，实现绿色低碳发展。VIWRIVII从全球百余城市低碳发展水平异同看中国城市低碳发展之道EXECUTIVE SUMMARYHIGHLIGHTS This study constructs an indicator evaluation system containing four areaslow-carbon production,low-carbon consumption,low-carbon environment,and low-carbon progressand evaluates the low-carbon development of 102 cities around the world.The evaluation results show that the overall performance of low-carbon development in Chinese cities has achieved progress.Of the 102 cities studied,the top three were in China,and Shenzhen ranked first.Megacities should promote green,low-carbon,and high-quality development from three aspects:low-carbon development planning,optimization of internal industrial structure,and adjustment of energy structure.Service-oriented cities should formulate climate action plans according to local conditions,and develop suitable low-carbon economic models,to actively promote high-quality and low-carbon development.Industrial cities can use digital means to improve the greening degree of the two high industries,increase intellectual investment,and promote the transformation of green industries.Agriculture-oriented cities can integrate the advantages of rural resources,optimize the structure of the primary industry,and vigorously develop the tertiary industry to promote low-carbon development.VIIIWRIBackgroundGlobal climate change requires cities to actively explore low-carbon transformation.The high concentration of population and economy makes cities highly sensitive and vulnerable to climate change.But at the same time,cities contribute 70 percent of global carbon emissions and play a key role in achieving net zero emissions globally.Promoting low-carbon urban development can also have positive economic benefits:a batch of existing and feasible low-carbon measures could not only reduce carbon emissions in major urban sectors by nearly 90 percent by 2050 but also yield a total net present value return of up to 169.8 trillion(CUT 2019).Global low-carbon city development evaluations provide important guidance for low-carbon development in Chinese cities.Existing studies either focus on Chinese cities only or apply to a few large international cities,failing to consider the applicability and comparability of a large number of international cities(i.e.,more than 100).Therefore,conducting comprehensive low-carbon development evaluation research for multiple world cities can help assess the cities low-carbon development status from a global perspective,facilitate learning between cities toward early peaking and carbon neutrality,and thus guide the low-carbon development of different types of cities.About this reportThis report is jointly completed by World Resources Institute(WRI)and the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning of the Ministry of Ecology and Environment.It constructs an indicator evaluation system from the perspective of low-carbon production,low-carbon consumption,low-carbon environment,and low-carbon progress.We innovatively select 11 typical indicators,such as the low-carbon information index and carbon productivity,and evaluate the low-carbon development of 102 cities around the world(43 international cities and 59 domestic cities).Specifically,low-carbon production is used to represent the citys low-carbon performance in the production process,low-carbon consumption measures the low-carbon consumption behavior of city residents,low-carbon environment is used to characterize the degree of harmonious coexistence between the city and the natural and ecological environment,and low-carbon progress is used to highlight some of the low-carbon development progress of cities.The evaluation of low-carbon city development was carried out under a unified standard.The weighting of the indicators is based on a combination of subjective and objective approacheswith the subjective approach based on the scores of top research scholars in the related fields and the objective approach based on the entropy weighting methodto ensure the authority and science of the indicator weights.Meanwhile,to further explore the low-carbon development direction and path of different types of cities,cities are classified into different categories based on the Kppen climate classification and the industrial structure and international status of the cities;this facilitates better comparative analysis and provides a reference for the low-carbon development of Chinese cities.The final results of the report will be posted on the Citysphere platform,which is developed by WRI and other partner organizations.Citysphere is a visualization platform that showcases and evaluates cities climate goals,policies,low-carbon progress,and so forth to drive cities to achieve climate ambitions and accelerate the low-carbon transition.Key findingsFrom the evaluation results,the overall performance of low-carbon development in Chinese cities has achieved progress.Of the 102 cities studied,the top three were located in China.Chinese cities have performed better in terms of low-carbon consumption,which indicates that they have achieved some success in promoting a green,low-carbon lifestyle and consumption mode.However,they need further improvement in terms of low-carbon production,low-carbon environment,and low-carbon progress.From the perspective of different climate zones,the performance of cities under the four areas is heterogeneous.More low-carbon development occurs in pioneer cities in the warm temperate zone and the continental zone,where most of the top 25 percent of cities are located.In terms of city types,service-oriented cities perform better than industrial and agricultural cities for low-carbon development,especially in the areas of low-carbon production and low-carbon progress,IX从全球百余城市低碳发展水平异同看中国城市低碳发展之道reflecting the positive impacts of urban industrial upgrading on low-carbon development.Policy recommendationsTo promote low-carbon development in Chinese cities and realize the goals of carbon peaking and carbon neutrality,this study proposes the following policy recommendations for different city types in China.When compared with international cities such as Singapore,megacities such as Shanghai are relatively backward in terms of the secondary sectors carbon productivity,renewable energy consumption,and green consumption.It is recommended that Shanghai improve its low-carbon planning and advocacy of green consumption.On the one hand,Shanghai should plan its industrial layout more reasonably for future sustainable development.On the other hand,Shanghai should create a low-carbon travel and consumption environment and carry out various environmental protection and low-carbon actions.Meanwhile,Shanghai should optimize and adjust the internal structure of the secondary industry,reduce dependence on high energy-consuming industries,and develop emerging industries and high-end manufacturing.In addition,it is recommended that Shanghai continue to optimize the energy structure,increase investment in the research and development of renewable energy,and increase the proportion of green energy consumption.Service-oriented cities such as Guilin,Guangxi,compare poorly with international cities such as Brisbane and London in terms of the added value of the tertiary industry,carbon productivity,and policy focus on low-carbon development.It is recommended that Guilin upgrade and optimize its industrial structure based on its local resources.For example,it could integrate tourism resources and combine tourist needs,develop diversified and unique tourism cultural products,and improve the construction of related industrial chains.Meanwhile,Guilin should focus on its urban low-carbon development plan;coordinate with its transportation,buildings,pollution-reduction,industrial planning,and land-use plans;and develop effective climate change goals and actions.When compared with international cities such as Pittsburgh,the economic development mode for industrial cities such as Tangshan,Hebei,is still dominated by resource consumption.These industrial cities have very limited green,low-carbon attributes and are highly dependent on fossil fuels.The core of Tangshans low-carbon development is focused on industrial transformation.It is recommended that Tangshan identify its path of industrial transformation based on the citys positioning.It should eliminate high energy-consuming and outdated technologies and improve the level of green and low-carbon production in the production process.Tangshan should also increase intellectual investment to improve workers productivity,focusing on high-end,high-quality,and cutting-edge industries.Agricultural cities such as Wuwei,Gansu,compare poorly with Brisbane in terms of the economic development,industrial structure,and carbon productivity of the secondary sector.It is suggested that Wuwei develop the agricultural processing industry to increase the added value of agricultural products and also promote the structure optimization of the primary industry.Wuwei should also integrate the advantages of rural resources to create a characteristic rural leisure tourism industry and help farmers increase their income while achieving green,low-carbon development.userid:520426,docid:163755,date:2024-06-01,XWRI1从全球百余城市低碳发展水平异同看中国城市低碳发展之道研究背景第一章城市是赢得碳中和战役的重要主体。城市贡献了全球70%的碳排放，集聚了全球57%的人口，预计到2050年还将新增22.7亿城镇居民，即届时全球将有68%的人口在城市生活(United Nations Population Division 2018)。根据世界资源研究所领导的城市转型联盟（Coalition for Urban Transitions,CUT）的研究，一系列现有可行的低碳措施可使城市主要部门（如建筑、交通、材料使用和废弃物防治利用等）到2050年减少近90%的碳排放；这些措施具有积极的经济和就业效益，到2030年可为城市创造绿色就业岗位8700万个，到2050年至少可获得总净现值高达169.8万亿元的回报，如果考虑能源价格上涨和技术更新速度加快，这些措施的净现值可增加到271.3万亿元，这些数字还不包括低碳发展带来的公众健康改善等更广泛的效益（城市转型联盟 2019）。因此，推动城市低碳发展势在必行。1.2 开展全球城市低碳发展评价对指导中国城市低碳发展具有重要意义自从中国于2010年开展国家低碳城市试点工作以来，许多国内城市积极开展低碳发展的实践与探索，众多机构与学者也就城市低碳发展评价指标体系进行探索构建、案例研究及城市排名，如中国社会科学院的中国低碳城市评价指标体系、黄伟光和汪军主编的中国低碳城市建设报告、21世纪经济研究院碳中和课题1.1 全球气候变化呼吁城市低碳发展气候变化已经并将继续加剧对全球和中国的影响。IPCC报告显示，全球地表平均温度较工业化前高出约1摄氏度，人类活动的影响已造成大气、海洋和陆地变暖（IPCC 2022）。中国地区高温、强降水等极端天气气候事件趋多、趋强(中国气象局气候变化中心 2022)。过去十年，各种自然灾害造成中国平均每年1.94亿人次受灾，直接经济损失3708.1亿元1。一项针对全球百万人口以上沿海大城市的研究显示，如果不立刻采取气候行动，2050年全球沿海洪灾损失最严重的20个城市中，有5个是中国城市，其中广州损失最为严重，每年因洪水造成的经济损失预计将达924亿元，居全球沿海城市首位，是排名第二的印度孟买的两倍多(Hallegatte,et al.2013)。此外，华北平原可能自2070年起反复遭受高温高湿热浪袭击，变得不再适宜生存(Kang and Eltahir 2018)。为避免此类灾难的发生，控制全球升温不超过1.5，政府间气候变化专门委员会（IPCC）提出，全球必须在2050年左右实现温室气体净零排放(IPCC 2018)，并强调了城市在减排中的重要作用(Dodman,et al.2022)。2019年12月，欧盟委员会推出“绿色新政”，宣布到2050年，欧洲将成为全球首个“碳中和”的大洲；截至2022年10月底，全球已有近140个国家设立了碳中和目标(Lang,et al.2022)，其中，中国承诺将努力争取2060年前实现碳中和。2WRI组撰写的中国净零碳城市发展报告（2022），以及中国环境科学研究院和公众环境研究中心共同开发的城市碳达峰碳中和指数等，旨在通过客观评估和测评中国不同地区、不同发展阶段的城市低碳建设成效，挖掘城市低碳发展存在的问题，为城市低碳建设提供参考和建议。但是，这些评价只集中于中国城市，并未涉及国际同类城市的比较研究，无法使国内城市了解自己在全球低碳发展中所处的位置，也因此缺少积极开展低碳行动的激励。同时，国际发达城市开展低碳建设较早，也拥有很多可供中国城市参考和借鉴的经验，对国内外城市开展低碳发展评价对国内城市的低碳建设有重要的指导意义。意识到对全球城市进行低碳发展评估的重要意义后，有些研究已经开始进行相关探索（Tan,et al.2016；Azizalrahman,Hasyimi 2018），但只局限在包括伦敦、圣保罗、斯德哥尔摩、温哥华、约翰内斯堡、东京、悉尼、墨西哥城、纽约和北京在内的十个国际大都市，对于处于其他发展阶段的中国城市借鉴意义有限；另外一些研究则覆盖了国内外多城市，如全球城市实力指数（Global Power City Index）、全球城市指数（Global Cities Index）、城市可持续发展指数（Sustainable Cities Index），但这些研究的低碳比重较小，无法很好地指导低碳政策制定。因此，开展对国内外多城市低碳发展的综合比较研究，有助于衡量城市低碳发展水平，总结城市低碳发展经验，从而指导不同类型城市的低碳政策制定。1.3 研究目的和范围鉴于现有研究缺少对国内外多城市低碳发展的综合比较研究，世界资源研究所联合生态环境部环境规划院，基于现有各类低碳城市评价指标体系，结合国内外城市的数据可用性和可比性，构建具有代表性、适用于全球不同类型城市的低碳评价指标体系，对全球102个城市的低碳发展水平进行评估，并选取典型案例，深入探讨不同类型城市低碳发展现状和路径，以期对中国城市和国际同类城市的低碳发展现状和努力程度进行客观评价，为不同类型的城市推进低碳建设提供研究参考和决策依据。1.3.1 低碳城市的内涵开展城市低碳发展评价需要首先明确“低碳城市”的概念。低碳城市的概念源于低碳经济，最早由英国政府于2003年提出，主张通过技术创新、制度创新、产业转型、新能源开发等多种手段，以更少的自然资源消耗获得更多的经济产出，减少温室气体和环境污染排放，实现经济繁荣和民生改善(郑云明 2012)。随着国内对低碳经济研究和讨论的深入，低碳城市的概念也被提出。近年来，中国也通过探索模式创新、制度创新、技术创新和工程创新，以制度建立、能源优化利用、产业转型、城乡建设和管理、技术研发应用和低碳消费等为重点，开展低碳城市建设工作（国3从全球百余城市低碳发展水平异同看中国城市低碳发展之道家发展改革委 2017）。综合学者们的研究（夏堃堡 2008；付允，刘怡君，汪云林 2010；辛玲 2011；谈琦 2