Cities 1.5
Cities 1.5
Brick by Brick: Cities and the future of clean construction
The building and construction sector is responsible for a mind-boggling 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The kinds of construction materials we use - and the building sector generally - are also responsible for almost a third of global resource consumption. Shifting to cleaner methods of construction is the only way to minimize the damage we are causing to the planet, while still providing homes, workplaces and vital infrastructure for all.
Featured guests:
Henrique Goes, Clean Construction Manager at C40
Vivek Parekh, Fossil Fuels Program Manager at InfluenceMap
Links:
The building and construction sector’s share in global greenhouse gas emissions - World Economic Forum
UN prediction for rural to urban migration - Our World in Data
Premature deaths from household air pollution - World Health Organization
Clean Construction Programme - C40 Cities
Report on clean construction and green job opportunities - C40 Cities
International Gas Union’s Climate Strategy - Influence Map
Electrification as the clearest pathway for decarbonising buildings - IPCC report
State of Victoria’s Gas Substitution Roadmap - Victoria State Government
EU’s Energy Performance of Buildings Directive - European Commission
Overturned gas ban in the City of Berkley - The Guardian
If you want to learn more about the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy, please visit our website: https://jccpe.utpjournals.press/
Cities 1.5 is produced by the University of Toronto Press and Cities 1.5 is supported by C40 Cities and the C40 Centre for City Climate Policy and Economy. You can sign up to the Centre newsletter here. https://thecentre.substack.com/
Our executive producers are Calli Elipoulos and Peggy Whitfield.
Produced by Jess Schmidt: https://jessdoespodcasting.com/
Edited by Morgane Chambrin: https://www.morganechambrin.com/
Music is by Lorna Gilfedder: https://origamipodcastservices.com/
[Cities 1.5 theme music]
David 00:01
I am David Miller and you’re listening to Cities 1.5, a podcast exploring how cities are leading global change through local climate action. [music ends]
[whimsical music] Where are you listening to this podcast? Are you doing household chores like washing the dishes? Or maybe taking a walk through the city? Or perhaps you’re on the train commuting into your workplace? Whatever you’re doing, take a look outside. What do you see? Chances are you’ll see housing, offices, and shops. In other words, buildings. We’re so used to being surrounded by the built environment that we don’t usually notice it, unless it’s run-down, ugly, or maybe noisy. [construction tools thudding] And unless you work in the climate area, you may have not considered the impact that the buildings all around you have on the health of this planet, and of you and your loved ones. [music ends]
[slow rhythmic music] You might be surprised to hear that the building and construction sector is responsible for a mind-boggling 37% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The buildings that make up the cities of the C40 network, the buildings that we live and work in, pump out nearly 60% of emissions on average in those cities, in some cases ranging up to 80%. These urban emissions come from the energy used to power, heat, and cool the buildings. But the kinds of construction materials we use, and the way we build buildings, are also responsible for about a third of global resource consumption. [music ends]
[upbeat music] Rural-to-urban migration is only intensifying. The United Nations predicts that by 2050, 68% of the world’s population will live in cities, which means the need for more buildings and infrastructure will continue to grow. About 60% of buildings that are predicted to exist by 2050 haven’t even been built yet. To visualize what this means, this is like constructing a city the size of Stockholm or Milan every week until 2050, or a city the size of Singapore or New York every month. The case for clean construction and building electrification couldn’t be clearer. Who wouldn’t want quieter, cleaner construction, which helps save our world and builds healthier homes, quite literally saving lives, especially those of the most vulnerable? Well, the fossil fuel industry wants to protect its profits at all costs. They’re actively fighting against the shift towards cleaner homes and healthier lives, and doing everything in their power to halt the progress that’s being made. [music ends]
[fast rhythmic music] In this week’s episode of Cities 1.5, we’ll be hearing from Vivek Parekh, program manager and lead on the oil and gas industry lobbying work stream at the climate think-tank InfluenceMap, about the nefarious tactics the fossil fuel industry is using to stop building electrification, and damaging human health in the process. But first, we’ll be hearing more about how clean construction is helping the planet, and creating good green jobs from one of C40’s subject matter specialists. [music ends]
Henrique Góes 03:57
[phone rings] [whooshing] My name is Henrique Góes, or Henrique. I work at C40 Cities as the clean construction manager, and I’m calling from São Paulo, Brazil. [handset clicks]
David 04:11
Henrique, welcome to Cities 1.5.
Henrique Góes 04:14
Thanks so much for having me, David. I’ve been following the podcast since the beginning, so it’s just thrilling to be here.
David 04:20
Well, thanks, and thanks for following the podcast. We’re equally thrilled to have you here to talk about clean construction. So, I guess I need to start with, first of all, can you just introduce yourself and tell the listeners a little bit about who you are and what you do, but then, secondly, explain what clean construction is?
Henrique Góes 04:41
Of course. So, as I mentioned, I’m Henrique, I’m based in Brazil and currently I’m the clean construction manager at C40 Cities. In this role, I support the cities from our clean construction program in identifying, understanding, and implementing public policies for clean construction. But other than that, I also conduct research on the socio-economic benefits and the effects of adopting sustainable construction in cities.
I have a background in public policy and economic development, and before C40, I worked mostly for the City Hall of São Paulo here in Brazil, supporting the improvement of public policies and urban planning. When we’re talking about climate change, David, we must talk about the built environment, right? The built environment is not something that we tend to think about that much, we take it as granted, because it comprises basically everything that is surrounding us, right? Our homes, our schools, offices, streets, pipelines, and so on. The big villains here in construction are especially cement and steel, which account, respectively, for 8% and 7% of all of the emissions for global greenhouse gases, and again, we tend not to think that much about them. If you look at the whole life cycle of a building, from the day it begins to being constructed to the very end of a building, when it’s going to be destroyed, maybe decades after that, the part of it that is construction accounts from 20% to 50% of all of the emissions of a building, so it’s a very relevant topic.
In this scenario, I’m thinking that in the future, we’re going to continue to build new buildings. You know, more and more people are moving to cities, we’re going to have over 2.5 billion more people living in cities by 2050. We propose in C40 the concept of clean construction. So, of course, this is not only a C40 agenda, but something that has been discussed for decades now in different cities, organizations, institutions, and so on. But for us at C40 Cities, clean construction is, really, about changing the way that we build things, changing the construction system to promote a decarbonized, resource-efficient, resilient, and socially just construction system. I know this is a mouthful, but in other words, maybe to explain it a bit easier, we’re talking about changing the whole construction ecosystem to make sure that first, it is as close as possible to net zero carbon, second, that build places, homes, offices in a way that they are resilient and adapted to the new climate reality that we have, and third, that those new places that are being built help people to have healthy and prosperous and sustainable lives. So, we want people to have access to a built environment that allows them to have this thriving and more sustainable life, and that cares about also the workers and the whole community that is involved in the construction process.
David 07:36
So, it’s about how and with whom we build the buildings as opposed to how you operate them. Is that a fair way to put it?
Henrique Góes 07:45
Mm-hmm, exactly.
David 07:46
As you said, it’s really at the heart of the global fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Can you talk a bit about the construction sector itself today and under the principles of clean construction, including ensuring people have a decent living and involved in the industry, how does that differ from how construction might be approached today?
Henrique Góes 08:15
The construction sector nowadays is mostly very carbon-intensive construction, right? So, we’re thinking about the typical cement and steel buildings. 80% of the people on the planet live in a building using those two materials, which I mentioned before, are the big [responsibles 08:32] for a lot of the emissions.
So, this is the status quo, right? This is business as usual. And the jobs in the sector are not the best jobs, right? Most workers in the sector nowadays are submitted to harsh conditions, both in terms of their legal and contracting frameworks, but also in terms of the actual dangers and challenges of the work, such as the exposure to natural hazards and things like that.
And what we are proposing here is a new vision for that and a new project for that, which is clean construction. And in order to give more specific examples, we have organized something that we called the Clean Construction Hierarchy. Clean construction is a very broad term. There are many ways to approach it. There are many ways to decarbonize or to reduce your embodied carbon emissions related to your built environment. And therefore, we have organized all of those actions into this clean construction hierarchy that provides cities with a sort of step by step of what they can look at. And this hierarchy has basically four steps that I think are good to bring forward to sort of exemplify some of the actions the cities can take.
The first step on that hierarchy is to maximize the use of what you already have. So we know that in cities there are a lot of buildings that are being underutilized, spaces in the cities that are abandoned and so on, and the best way to create new offices or new public spaces or new homes without generating carbon is to first focus on the things that are already built. So we’re talking about doing retrofits, repurposing of buildings, reducing the abandonment and empty buildings. So that’s the first step.
The second step is that, well, sometimes even if you use everything that you already have, you’re still going to have to build new. For example, Bogotá is experiencing a very sharp increase in their population, so they’re going to need to build new eventually. If you need to do that, you must do it in the most efficient way possible and with low carbon alternatives. So, there are tons of low carbon alternatives that can replace cement and steel, ranging from recycled and low carbon versions of cement and steel, but also timber, bamboo. There are different techniques that you can use to reduce your carbon footprint, like industrialized or modular construction and so on.
The third step is that how you plan your buildings impact their future emissions. So if you’re thinking about circularity in the sector or if you’re thinking about how do you design your buildings so that they’re easy to deconstruct in the future and easy to have their materials recycled, for example, those are important steps to the future.
And finally, the fourth and last step of our hierarchy is about the construction site. This is the place where maybe we as citizens see the disruption of construction more often. We see the noise pollution, the air pollution, the soil pollution and so on that comes from construction sites, and thinking about how decarbonizing them, for example, using electrical machinery for construction, is also a final important step to reducing emissions in the sector.
David 11:36
I understand that you’re one of the authors of a recent C40 report, Building Greener Cities: Green Job Opportunities in Clean Construction. Can you talk a bit about the report and maybe address some of the conclusions that you’ve just outlined in a bit more depth that will help us all understand what the next steps are in cities that are really interested in cleaning the construction sector and ensuring that it’s conducted in a fair and equitable way from an employment perspective?
Henrique Góes 12:11
So, this research is, really, the first major piece of work that analyzes the potential of clean construction to the city’s workforce and to the whole economics of the sector, right? So we’re basically asking ourselves, “What would change in those cities if we adopt clean construction in terms of their workforce and those economic parameters?”
[rousing music] And we did this with seven cities, Seattle, Bogotá, Mexico City, Madrid, Oslo, London and Nairobi, and we did this with a mix of different methods. So we did interviews with stakeholders, we did literature review, and we did economic modeling around that. And all of that gave us a clear idea of the advantages between continuing things in the future in the business as usual versus implementing gradually more clean construction. And with that, we could provide cities with the analysis on some of the policy and financial levers that they can have to accelerate the transition in a just way. The objective of this, and this is what our cities have been asking us, is to really prepare the cities or give them evidence that will help them make informed decisions and prepare for the challenges and opportunities that they’re going to have in the future. So here are some of the main results that we got from this research. [music fades out]
The first and perhaps the most important one is that adopting clean construction in the cities that we have analyzed can generate more jobs than continuing with business as usual. And that is primarily because adopting clean construction also means increasing the maintenance and repair of buildings and the retrofitting of buildings, which are very job intensive activities and that happen throughout the whole city. So, over the course of 25 years, which is the range of the research that we have looked at, a lot of buildings are going to need to go through retrofitting and maintenance, and therefore those areas would create a lot of jobs while maximizing the use of what we already have, which was the point that I was telling you before. Those jobs will be created mostly within the physical boundaries of the city, so around 70% of jobs in the clean construction scenario will be created within the cities.
David 14:20
That’s a very interesting and powerful point, that the construction industry done right is a local job creator that helps ensure local prosperity. And I think perhaps sometimes parts of climate action that really support local prosperity and good jobs are neglected a bit in the conversation.
Henrique Góes 14:44
Yeah, for sure. We’re not only talking about creating jobs, but creating good local jobs. That’s a crucial point. And, of course, the different types of jobs that we’re going to create depend on which different strategies that the cities want to support, and we have more details on the reports. I think the second important result that I wanted to highlight is that built environment policies must embed a just transition approach to make sure that we’re improving equity, diversity and inclusion in the sector. So, the main point here is that clean construction presents a critical opportunity to improve all of that, the EDI and the working conditions in the sector, but this won’t happen automatically. So, as I was mentioning before, nowadays the working conditions in the construction sector are, frankly, terrible for most workers. And what we have seen is that if government doesn’t step up and doesn’t step in and regulate, engage and support the private sector, the private sector is just going to reproduce the poor practices that we see nowadays.
The opportunity here is that, because in most cities clean construction is still emerging, there are few companies, few stakeholders, government has a unique opportunity to regulate and engage them from the outset, shaping that sector into a more inclusive—into a sector that really has better working conditions and that respects workers’ rights. Other than that, the clean construction by itself also can provide better—good jobs. If we’re thinking about jobs with timber construction or with modular construction, they tend to be less dangerous than regular construction jobs, for example.
David 16:26
You looked at several cities for the study. Can you give some examples of cities who are already implementing clean construction policies and any job creation impacts they’ve had?
Henrique Góes 16:39
For sure. It’s interesting to see that there are multiple examples all around the world of cities who have already identified this as an opportunity. And in fact, one of the other results—one of the other findings that we have from this report is that the key policy levers that we need to achieve a just transition, they largely already exist at the city level.
So we have, for example, Madrid with the TándEM pilot. They have done a pilot to upskill construction workers, especially the most vulnerable construction workers, which in their case are migrant workers that tend to not, you know, be very well familiar with the legislation in the country, the language and so on. So they did a specific training for them [connected 17:19] to working opportunities in green jobs, including clean construction. You have in Oslo as well, a great example from the Oslo model that, really, has been applied to the construction sector to make sure that workers’ rights are better guaranteed in all of their new endeavors in clean construction, ranging from timber construction to low carbon construction sites and so on. And in Bogotá, we had a program a couple of years ago called Mujeres que Construyen, or Women That Build, that basically helped women—in the context of the pandemic, help women to reallocate and get into new positions in construction by training them to be part of this job market that is mostly male at this point.
David 18:02
That’s very interesting. There’s a similar initiative in the province of British Columbia in Canada where they use public projects, like, for example, the construction of a bridge or light rail or a subway, to deliberately give opportunities to women to get their certifications, called a Red Seal here, once you’re a certified tradesperson. So that’s—it’s very interesting to me that program in Bogotá and the potentially significantly positive impacts of it.
So, that’s some good examples. What are the obstacles and challenges involved in moving to this clean construction model where you minimize greenhouse gases and create good local jobs for workers that are safe and properly paid and protected?
Henrique Góes 18:59
I would highlight three main challenges. The first and the one that is perhaps the most relevant is that construction is not—as it is right now, construction is not even perceived as a problem for most people as an issue that contributes to climate change. So most politicians, citizens, you know, civil servants and so on, they still don’t realize the role that regular construction plays into climate change, and, therefore, we don’t identify it and we don’t give the mandate for politicians to treat it as an actual issue.
So different then with the oil industry, for example, where a lot of us already acknowledge the role that those companies have in fueling climate change. We don’t still have that very well established for the construction sector. We don’t see the concrete or the steel companies as part of the problem and they are very well aware of that and often are already rebranding themselves into a more greener sort of brand to try to continue, let’s say, in the shadows, right? Under the radar to avoid it.
David 20:08
They may brand green, but very few of them, if any, are actually walking the walk.
Henrique Góes 20:14
Precisely. Precisely. They’re basically greenwashing their products and claiming that they’re taking their part while they’re mostly still selling the high carbon products. So that’s the first challenge. The second challenge, I think, is that there is a big perceived risk around clean construction. So, technically and academically we already know very well the benefits and the technology that is needed, it’s not like we need to invent a lot of new things from scratch, but still, in many countries, those new forms of building things have not been applied widely. So there’s still some fear and skepticism around that. A part of that is well-intentioned fear. So governments are still to understand better the challenges, the opportunities and so on and that’s why organizations like C40 Cities exist; to support them. But there are also some bad intentions, skepticism around it coming from—mostly from the private sector that fears any changes to their value chains or to their profits and so on and don’t realize that, “Well, this is something crucial for society where if we don’t act now, the impacts of climate change will generate much higher costs in the future so, of course, we need to make sure that we invest in those changes right now.”
And finally, one last challenge I wanted to talk about is around the jobs that we need. So we know that clean construction is going to generate more jobs, but we need to prepare people for these new jobs. Right now the situation in the sector in most countries is, as I mentioned, bad jobs, a lot of informality and a lot of labor shortages. So we’re already missing workers in the construction sector in most countries, so in order to change that, we need to make the sector more attractive with better working conditions, better jobs and jobs that have more purpose and climate policy can help with that. But we also need to make sure that we train those new workers so that we make sure—we train and involve those workers so that we make sure that no one is left behind, right? So we’re talking about training, upskilling, reskilling and bringing opportunities to everyone in the sector.
David 22:27
If people want to say who’s getting it right, who’s really advancing the clean construction agenda, is there one city people should look to or is it a combination of several who are all doing parts of it like Bogotá’s program about women in the trades?
Henrique Góes 22:46
I think there’s a combination of many of them advancing in different stages and—or in different approaches. I would strongly recommend looking at what Oslo is doing. Oslo is investing in many fronts at the same time, guaranteeing good working conditions while doing zero carbon construction sites and also investing in things like retrofits and timber construction. London also has some great examples. Seattle has some great examples. And in Bogotá, working with much—let’s say, much more challenging conditions is also doing great strives to create new incentives to clean construction and new pilot projects and so on. So I would recommend taking a look at those cities.
David 23:32
In the context of the conversation we’ve just had, if you could wave a magic wand and make one global systems change to better support the shift to clean construction and the green jobs that flow from it, what would it be?
Henrique Góes 23:48
I think two things. First is I would like that all of the politicians, public servants, you know, citizens, contractors, everyone that is involved with the built environment would know about all of the benefits and the prosperity that clean construction can bring to a city. So, I think if people understood clearly that clean construction reduces GHG emissions, you know, improve living conditions, improve adaptability and resilience, create good green jobs, you know, all of the different benefits that you have from it and all of the different technology that is out there, if people knew about that and definitely understand that in depth, for sure we would have way more initiatives going on. That’s the first thing.
And the second is that I think if we could—So, the issue nowadays is that the companies that are building things in high carbon ways, they don’t need to incorporate the cost of the damage that they are creating in the future, right? So they’re polluting a lot nowadays, but the damage from that is being burdened by someone else elsewhere or in another time in the future. If we could incorporate that cost of that damage to the construction that is been done nowadays, I’m sure the business as usual construction will be extremely expensive and that everyone would be shifting to low carbon alternatives, you know. So, yeah, that would be the second thing I would do, I think.
David 25:15
The second one, possibly quite challenging for elected officials, but showing leadership using the city’s procurement powers and—like Oslo has, and ensuring that the trades are open to people of all backgrounds, like Bogotá has, all sound like steps that are very possible today everywhere. Henrique, where can people find C40’s report if they want to learn more?
Henrique Góes 25:42
[slow rhythmic music] So, you can find our report in C40’s Knowledge Hub under that title that you mentioned, Green Job Opportunities in Clean Construction. Over there, you can find our global summary, a super short report, but also the more detailed city reports if you want to take a look and understand more in the context of each city. And we also have a promotional video featuring some of the mayors of the cities that have joined this research, which also talks and explains a bit more what we have found.
David 26:13
Terrific. Henrique, thanks so much for being with us today, but more importantly, for your ongoing work on this really important part of how the world needs to address climate change and dramatically lower our greenhouse gas emissions, which is how and by whom we build buildings. Thanks so much.
Henrique Góes 26:31
Thank you. Thank you very much. [music continues then ends]
David 26:34
[upbeat music] This episode of Cities 1.5 is produced by University of Toronto Press, with generous support from C40 Cities. Want more access to current research on how city leaders are approaching climate action? We also publish the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy. Our mission is to publish timely evidence-based research that contributes to the urban climate agenda and supports governmental policy towards an equitable and resilient world. The journal serves as a platform for dynamic content that highlights ambitious near-term climate action, with a particular focus on human-centered solutions to today’s most pressing climate challenges. To read the latest issue, visit jccpe.utpjournals.press or click on our link in the show notes. [music ends]
Vivek Parekh 27:33
[phone rings] [whooshing] It’s Vivek Parekh and I’m a program manager at InfluenceMap and I’m reporting from Nottingham in the UK today. [handset clicks]
David 27:45
Vivek, thanks so much for joining us on Cities 1.5 today.
Vivek Parekh 27:50
Thanks for having me.
David 27:51
So, can you just introduce yourself and tell us a bit more about your background? And our listeners know a bit about InfluenceMap, but I think it wouldn’t hurt to refresh their memories.
Vivek Parekh 28:03
Yeah, of course. So yeah, I’m a program manager at InfluenceMap. I’ve worked here for almost five years now and I lead our work stream that focuses on oil and gas industry lobbying. Yeah. So, for some background on InfluenceMap, we’re an independent climate think tank that tracks and analyzes how the corporate sector influences climate policy globally. We were formed in 2015 post-Paris Agreement to hold the corporate sector accountable to the major climate commitment that was agreed then.
David 28:29
And can you talk a bit about how InfluenceMap does that? Like, how do you track corporate activity and the upholding of the Paris Agreement?
Vivek Parekh 28:40
So, we have a LobbyMap program which has a database of over 600 companies and 300 industry associations globally, and what we do is we identify publicly available evidence of where companies and industry associations are engaging with the topic of climate or climate policy. And then we then analyze this evidence to assess whether entities are being supportive of science-aligned policies to limit warming to 1.5 degrees or taking positions to weaken or obstruct it altogether, and this includes like submitting Freedom of Information requests in jurisdictions where data transparency can be challenging to ensure we try and get the full picture of advocacy. And I think two things are pretty clear about mitigating climate change, and one is that we need government policy to address this and the second is that one of the biggest barriers to tackling climate change is the opposition from vested interests, particularly those from the fossil fuel industry value chain. And lobbying as an activity is pretty opaque here and there was limited transparency around the issue, so we decided to really look into this and now we maintain the world’s leading database, LobbyMap, as I mentioned, on corporate climate policy engagement, which brings data transparency and accountability to the issue of climate lobbying.
David 29:51
[rousing music] A really important source of information for anyone who cares about this issue, which, you know, the good news is the vast majority of people globally do. We spoke to your colleague Faye Holder last year about another report, The International Gas Union’s Climate Strategy, which analyzed how the fossil gas industry was trying to promote its interests in the context of increasing concerns about climate change. You’ve been the lead on a recently released new report on building electrification. First of all, why did InfluenceMap focus on building electrification as a follow-on from the work on the fossil gas industry? [music ends]
Vivek Parekh 30:38
That report was hugely successful, really, as it showcased how the fossil fuel industry is coordinated in its lobbying, and it comes prepared with communication strategies and regionally nuanced narratives to prolong the role of fossil gas globally. And that report’s really been critical to our analysis. It’s enabled us to utilize the industry playbook as a foundation, and then really deepen our understanding and apply it to a specific context, so in this case the building sector. And why—potentially, you might wonder why the building sector is so important. Well, I think we know for a starter that there’s a growing body of research on the public health implications of fossil fuel use in buildings. The World Health Organization currently estimates 3.2 million people die prematurely from household air pollution every year.
[whimsical music] And so, as I mentioned, InfluenceMap is constantly tracking how industry companies are engaging with the various topics of climate policy, and we really wanted to keep an eye out on this playbook idea and understand what patterns were emerging. And one thing that we saw was, across our country are teams with similar efforts in different regions on attempt to delay electrification in buildings, so we decided to put a team together and really understand and see what was going on on this topic.
David 31:53
Just to explore that a little bit, when you talk about an industry playbook and collaboration, are you talking about global collaboration of the vested interests of the fossil fuel and gas industries?
Vivek Parekh 32:08
Yeah. So, maybe I’ll take a step back first and kind of explain how we come to these conclusions and how our methodology enables this. So, what we do at InfluenceMap is we first kind of assess evidence pieces against objective science-based benchmarks. So, in this case, we take findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, and compare what companies and industry associations are saying on a certain topic, let’s say in this case the role of fossil gas, and then we compare the statements from the IPCC on what they say the role of gas should be in scenarios that attempt to limit warming to 1.5 degrees with what the companies and industry associations are advocating for. That enables us to really understand how an industry association or a company is coming to this conclusion that this specific technology, in this case gas, is required and how in this case it will be misaligned with what the IPCC’s findings suggest.
David 33:00
What do the IPCC’s findings essentially say about gas and buildings?
Vivek Parekh 33:05
That’s kind of the main crux of the point here. And what we see is the IPCC are very clear. [music ends]
Electrification is highlighted by them as the clearest pathway for decarbonizing buildings, and in doing that health, economic and climate benefits can be achieved. So we really wanted to understand why policy efforts that were being proposed by governments and policymakers around the world were facing significant pushback from the industry if these findings are so clear.
David 33:32
Why and how, I think, because the how is fascinating here, to me at least, that there is coordination at a global scale. You know, C40, where I work, is an organization that’s local but coordinated globally, and it’s very interesting to our mayors and the residents of our cities to understand how this is working.
Vivek Parekh 33:57
So in terms of our database what we try and do is capture any way a company or an industry association will advocate on a specific policy or topic, so in this case building electrification, and we will take any publicly available materials such as social media corporate statements on their websites and statements by their CEOs, and also more technical ways in which they interact with governments. So in this case we’re looking at consultations, when a government puts out a policy proposal they ask for stakeholder feedback, so we want to see exactly what the companies are saying directly to the governments. And also in some cases where we struggle to find this publicly available information, we would try and use Freedom of Information requests to get this information.
And then following that we specifically decided in this case to draw evidence from our LobbyMap database of obstructive corporate engagement from the oil and gas and utility industries on recent building policies in Australia, the EU and the United States. So the policies that we were interested in were, in Australia the government in the state of Victoria recently announced the Gas Substitution Roadmap in July 2022 and that contained a specific commitment to phase out gas connections in buildings. In the EU in February 2021 we saw the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive propose a range of measures to increase building energy standards and phase out fossil fuel heating technologies. And finally in the US we saw the now overturned gas ban in the city of Berkeley, California jumpstart similar local policies to ban the use of gas in new buildings such as the county level all-electric building standards in Maryland. So we’ve identified these three key regions with building electrification policies that were facing significant industry opposition and really wanted to deep dive into this to understand how and why the industry was doing this.
David 35:43
So you chose those particular geographies because you saw policies that were relevant and in line with the IPCC and industry pushback? Is that sort of the layman’s version of why you picked those places or how did you make those choices?
Vivek Parekh 36:03
Yeah, no, exactly that. It was a combination of we saw policies attempting to really progress building electrification but also a lot of industry opposition, so that’s why we chose to deep dive on them. And, you know, with new policies expected to be announced in cities, states and countries around the world, it’s really important that these misleading narratives are challenged once they’re identified.
David 36:25
What did you see in those three geographies?
Vivek Parekh 36:28
We found advocacy from the oil and gas and utility companies that aim to prolong gas use in buildings and block building electrification policy, and many of these were using similar narratives as part of their playbook even across continents. So what we found was a common playbook which was broken down—which we broke down into a three-step approach to target policymakers and the public, and the broader influence in strategy sees companies and industry associations use a wide range of tactics to foster mistrust in building electrification.
So the first step in this was the industries would actively invest in narrative setting for the public discourse on building electrification policies. So this would involve nuanced messaging through social media and public statements to tie the concept of building electrification to relatively negative impacts facing the public such as high energy prices or freedom restrictions. Step two of this was the industry was then involved in setting up various campaigns and front groups, often with broad sounding names. We saw some of these called Rural Futures, New Yorkers for Affordable Energy and these really aim to reset the policy agenda. They wanted to focus on issues that conflicted the public health environmental economic benefits with building electrification. And often despite presenting themselves as grass groups campaigns, they had significant influence over the policy agenda, leveraging ads and deep involvement in the policymaking process, all while they were being funded by large corporations. For example the American Gas Association was particularly successful in spearheading the anti-electrification campaign in the US, particularly. And then finally step three of this was when companies and industry associations targeted building electrification policies through detailed engagement, through policy consultations and meetings with various policymakers, and these really attempted to reinforce the narratives that had gone on from the previous steps. And then the final step really included legal action as well, and we saw industry associations and companies involved with legal battles that challenged the authority of rule-making bodies and the legitimacy of building policies.
David 38:32
So, this is quite interesting because to me this sounds like a very sophisticated approach; creating narratives that appeal to people living in a particular place. And then, if I heard you correctly, the industry creating groups and funding them with public sounding names but were in fact—Was ‘fake’ a fair word?
Vivek Parekh 38:54
Well, I think—Yeah, that’s kind of part of the tactic we see. It is like, really, being able to drill in these narratives and the agenda to what the public and policymaker will then begin to trust, and that playbook was really used together with these geographically nuanced and misleading narratives to generate public support for the role of gas in buildings. And what we saw is we saw different—the narratives that were most prevalent differed by the regions, so all of them generally claimed the long-term dependence on fossil gas in buildings unlocked a series of positive outcomes. So, what we saw in Australia was the main narrative being energy security and affordability is under threat, in the US we saw them stating that consumer choice must be protected, whereas in Europe the narrative was, really, around policies being technology neutral. And as I mentioned before, these all really contrasted the IPCC which really emphasizes with high confidence the interlinking benefits including the improvements in job creation, energy poverty—tackling energy poverty and energy security, and the positive impacts on public health.
David 39:59
Getting gas out of buildings is critically important. And I’m not sure everybody is aware of how important indoor air quality is to public health, so can you speak a bit more to the affordability issue on the electrification side and the impacts on public health and why they matter?
Vivek Parekh 40:18
What we’ve seen is more and more studies, really, bringing about the interlinking of impacts on public health particularly around asthma and how it can harm children and young adults of having these gas appliances in homes. And then around affordability we’ve seen a real effort from the industry, and I think that was really highlighted in the international gas union report that we did, and an attempt to jump on a global energy security crisis to then tie the idea of prolonging the role of gas with energy security when in fact economies that are reliant on the role of gas, and particularly gas imports, are facing real fluctuations and high prices as a result of gas instead.
David 41:01
So, fair enough. And so, we have a situation where gas, actually, can be unreliable from a cost perspective but the industry is apparently successfully arguing the opposite. These kinds of narratives, including the choice narrative that you mentioned, seem to have been particularly successful in the United States. Do you have any insights over why it’s so? Well, the new administration seems set on trying to support the industry in this regard as well.
Vivek Parekh 41:33
What we saw is we saw different policy impacts as a result of the lobbying that took place. For example, in the EU the only minor concessions that we saw from the activities, such as hybrids being included that run on gas in the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. In Australia we saw gas cooktops being excluded from the policy in the end, which kind of followed the role of industry lobbying. But in the US, I think, we saw the most clear-cut example of following lobbying illegal battles where the City of Berkeley repealed its gas ban, and as a result of that we also saw at least 26 states in the US enact preemption laws, and these prevent local governments from enacting gas bans in the future as well. And yeah, to touch on the point of consumer choice, we’ve seen in the US emphasis on consumer choice really being embedded in different policy debates as well, and these often touch on the issue of personal freedom, so I think it’s very similar in the case of gun control and vaccines as well. So they appear to really tie these ideas of geographically nuanced narratives of what resonates in specific regions.
David 42:34
Do you have any insights into how mayors and cities and members of the general public, for that matter, can push back against those narratives?
Vivek Parekh 42:45
I think what one thing that we’ve really seen is the work that’s [gone on 42:49] from the fossil fuel industry, the ability to tailor arguments to real world impacts, and for the most part that’s been tying it to consumer choice freedoms, the ability to afford and rely on gas for energy security. So, I think to really successfully tackle these narratives it’s imperative for actors in the climate space to really provide compelling fact-based arguments that, one, prove industry narratives to be misleading, and two, focus on positive real world impacts such as clean air for health, cheaper energy prices for, you know, the economy, as well as meeting climate objectives, both of which, I think, it is really crucial that these are communicated in easy to access and understandable formats. I think the European context is slightly different because the technology neutral narrative that we saw was primarily aimed at policymakers.
David 43:35
What does technology neutral narrative mean, that the industry was using in Europe?
Vivek Parekh 43:43
Yeah. So, this was the most prevalent narrative that we saw across corporate advocacy in Europe, and it’s really been a trend we’ve seen across different climate policy themes. In Europe over the past few years and what the industry is really attempting to do here, is to prevent any specific technology support that government is giving to zero emission technologies and renewable technologies and to ensure that, really, the role of fossil fuels is still considered in some way. That’s particularly concerning because, I think, what the IPCC actually says on this is, it highlights the importance of technology-specific policy and says increasing this will really increase the uptake in clean and renewable technologies in the building and transport sector.
David 44:23
It’s endlessly fascinating to me that the gas lobby has such power given that it’s very clear that it’s a massive contributor to climate change that we have alternatives in buildings which are economically feasible, and given that indoor air quality literally physically harms people. It’s pretty extraordinary.
Vivek Parekh 44:46
Yeah, it really is. I mean, the way in which, I think, industries manage to really get a stranglehold on the energy sector policy is particularly concerning when we see so many prevalent findings around the role of gas and how it contributes to all these indoor public health impacts. The narrative has been prevalent across European climate policy areas as a means to prolong the role of fossil fuels, and here, I think, fact-based research indicating the benefits of decarbonisation and transition for the industry will be critical.
I also think there’s a role of positive actors and positive corporate actors to actually play a role in countering what we’re seeing from the fossil fuel industry in their advocacy. Our report identified several actors across regions demonstrating science-aligned positions on building electrification, and in some cases they even targeted misleading fossil fuel narratives to emphasize the wider benefits of gas phase-out in buildings. So currently those voices are being overwhelmed by negative advocacy, and I think it’s really important that we see positive and persistent voices from industry to really counterbalance the fossil fuel industry, which appears to be deploying significant resources towards policy delay.
David 45:56
Can you name names of some of the good actors?
Vivek Parekh 45:59
Yeah, definitely. I think our report goes into a lot of detail of what we’re seeing in each region. But, I think, specifically around utilities that play an important role, we saw Iberdrola in Europe and Schneider Electric come out positively calling and supporting targets for building electrification, and similarly groups like Advanced Energy United in the US have been proactive in their support for building electrification policy as well.
David 46:23
We’ve been talking about three very important significant countries—well, two countries in the European Union. Is the fossil fuel industry using the same kind of tactics and narratives outside of Global North countries, like Australia, the United States and the members of European Union, or does it have a different playbook?
Vivek Parekh 46:47
I think going back to that International Gas Union report, what we saw is arguments are being tailored to specific regions. So, in the case of the Global South, we’ve often seen the oil and gas industry coordinate specific narratives around prolonging the role of gas for economic development, tackling energy poverty or displacing coal for clean air in the Global South. What our previous report that looked at LNG advocacy in Europe and Africa showcased was that lobbying efforts by the European oil and gas sector, including often meetings with African elected officials and broader communications, emphasize the role of gas for economic development. However, what we showcased with a lot of the actual—the on the ground operations, more treated it in terms of the role of gas was then, really, for export to the European continent, so there was very limited role in that case of the advocacy leading to the development on the African continent.
David 47:42
It’s interesting, sort of a kind of colonialist result and mentality. I know you’re doing some work in India as well. When do you expect to see some results from that work and will InfluenceMap possibly be issuing a report about that country too?
Vivek Parekh 48:01
Yeah. So, we have a new tool that’s to launch later this year that looks, really, at how corporate actors in India are influencing the climate policy landscape and understanding where the blockages lie, but also where the more ambitious actors are being supportive of policy development, so we’re hoping from that we can identify positive actors that really push forward the potential for India to become a climate leader in that space.
David 48:26
I’m sure you’ve seen all sorts of things that the fossil fuel industry has said or claimed. What’s the most unbelievable messaging you’ve seen from lobbyists or from the fossil fuel industry more generally?
Vivek Parekh 48:41
Yeah, I mean, that’s a—We’ve probably seen a fair few amount of outlandish claims. [chuckles] Yeah.
David 48:47
[chuckles] Yeah. I’m giving you a big choice here.
Vivek Parekh 48:49
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, more recently we’ve often seen claims around the viability of renewable energy solutions stating that heat pumps don’t work in cold climates or electrification causes higher emissions than gas, and this really is what appears, for the gas industry, to be the most effective part of their playbook. But, really, what we think is the most kind of concerning is their ability to coordinate and repeat the same arguments over and over again. We released a report last year that showcased that the fossil fuel industry has been utilizing the same arguments to delay and obstruct climate policy since the 1960s. So, really, what we’re looking at is arguments that have been coming up for over 60 years, and even [as so much 49:27] of the world and we’ve seen so much more evidence of their contribution to climate change. They really have this staying power and a lack of capitulation after all this backlash to continue producing the same narratives over and over again, so I think it’s really important that we’re able to thoroughly investigate and challenge these narratives so they don’t get consumed by people that really, without enough time, look into these properly. Often we talk a lot about misinformation and disinformation around climate change at the moment, but it’s not a new thing, and the way in which they’ve been able to maintain this status quo is quite incredible.
David 50:01
Can you give one example of something that they’ve been arguing since the 60s that’s not—either blatantly false or not really true?
Vivek Parekh 50:10
Yeah, definitely. So, that report I mentioned looked into the industry associations from the US and Europe and how they’d been advocating for these same positions to kind of prevent and prolong the role of fossil fuels and prevent the energy transition, and then what we saw is they continued to mention around the impracticality and downplay the role of renewable energy solutions and zero emissions technologies. But also we saw their ability to kind of often call and open the field to neutral policies so that they wouldn’t specifically target or benefit zero emissions technologies, and these really enabled the industry to continue to play a role and develop a long-term stay for oil and gas. And that’s also kind of linked to the energy security and affordability narrative, so it links back to the real world impacts and how they can continue to convince the public and policy makers that it’s a role for fossil fuels in the future.
David 51:01
So we have a lot of work to do if we’re going to counter these narratives with the true facts?
Vivek Parekh 51:07
Yeah. I mean, I think, one really critical part of this is transparency, and our report, really, just attempts to show the tip of the iceberg in terms of obstructive industry association memberships and participation to front groups, which is really important in terms of educating policy makers and the public alike with what a relatively small collection of entities is doing to delay building electrification globally. I mean, in the US state governments have varying degrees of transparency around climate policy formation, and this really leads to significant data gaps in terms of corporate advocacy at the sub-federal level.
So what we want to see is improvements in transparency either through mandatory lobbying disclosure laws or accountability legislation that bans the use of ratepayer funds for political activities and would really help to shine a light on negative advocacy and expose the fossil fuel industries activities to prolong the role of gas.
David 52:00
That’s an interesting reform, about banning the use of ratepayers funds by utilities, like gas utilities and others. In that context and in the context of our whole conversation, if you had the ability to make one global systems change that would support the shift to building electrification and reduce the gas lobby’s ability to influence policy, what would that be?
Vivek Parekh 52:28
A really tough question, isn’t it? To be honest. [laughs] No, I think—Yeah, I think going back to the way in which kind of the corporate sector is able to get away with these activities, I think ensuring that what they’re putting forward in terms of these net zero transition plans and being able to really hold them to account on what they’re saying, because I think more transparency actually equals accountability. So if a company comes forward with this plan and puts it on paper, we really need to know exactly what regulatory change they want to see together and how they’re going to lobby on these activities. If they’re able to put that forward transparency we can begin to make steps to understand if the corporate sector can really be a valuable actor in achieving an energy systems change.
[fast rhythmic music] I think the European Commission recently began publishing minutes of meetings with lobbyists, and that is a really significant step. And if we saw other regions, you know, starting to do this, we would get more transparency on how governments and the private sector actually interact. And I think, really, this coupled with continued efforts to fact check misleading narratives are really necessary to demonstrate how the fossil fuel industry’s arguments are wearing thin, especially as costs continue to go up for people in their homes and people get sick from gas appliances as well.
David 53:40
You know, in the absence of that in a lot of places in the world, InfluenceMap is where people need to look to to see a level of transparency. Your work is incredibly important in that context and very much appreciated, so thank you for being with us today. Thank you for the ongoing work at InfluenceMap.
Vivek Parekh 54:02
Thank you so much, David. Thanks for having me and it’s been a pleasure to be here. [music continues then ends]
David 54:09
[rousing music] Cleaning and greening our urban landscapes and building in a planet and people-friendly way is critical if we’re to limit global heating and to protect ourselves and our world. Globally, cities are at the forefront of this push but our old foe, the fossil fuel industry, is using well-funded and effective campaigns to stop this progress and harming us all in the process. It’s vital that all orders of government unite to try to stop them and support a healthier and happier future for us all. [music ends]
[Cities 1.5 theme music] On the next episode of Cities 1.5, we wrap up season five with a special episode exploring how communication is one of the most vital tools aiding climate action and why information truly is power in the fight against climate breakdown, a message which is particularly resonant in this era of disinformation and pushback against climate action. I speak with two guests who specialize in data gathering and information dissemination. Katie Walsh, the head of climate finance for cities, states and regions and North America lead at the Carbon Disclosure Project, and Andrea Learned, a climate influence catalyst and fellow podcast host. You won’t want to miss it.
This has been Cities 1.5, leading global change through local climate action. I’m David Miller. I was the mayor of Toronto, Canada, and I know firsthand the role cities can play in solving the climate crisis. Currently, I’m the editor-in-chief of the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy, published by the University of Toronto Press in collaboration with the C40 Center for City Climate Policy and Economy, where I’m also the managing director. C40’s mission is to help its member cities halve their emissions within a decade while improving equity, building resilience, and creating the conditions for everyone everywhere to thrive.
Cities 1.5 is produced by University of Toronto Press in association with the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy and C40 Cities. This podcast is produced by Jessica Schmidt and edited by Morgane Chambrin. Our executive producers are Peggy Whitfield and Calli Elipoulos. Our music is by Lorna Gilfedder. The fight for an empowered world is closer than you think. To learn more, visit the show’s website linked in the episode notes. See you next time. [Cities 1.5 theme music continues then ends]
