Life after carbon: The next global transformation of cities
Children riding bikes in Oakland, California. (Credit: Thomas Hawk/flickr)

Life after carbon: The next global transformation of cities

Building resilience in cities means preparing for nature's power—but also addressing the social vulnerability of specific people due to climate changes.

In response to climate change, cities are cultivating the capacity of their inhabitants and core systems to adapt successfully to the future's new requirements.


This idea—we call it Adaptive Futures, one of four transformational ideas reshaping cities—recognizes that cities cannot simply create whatever future they want. Now they have to plan a future that fully takes into account the uncertainties and risks of a changing climate.

This upends conventional approaches to planning, because it emphasizes preparing for and adapting to nature's power. Urban adaptation involves designing a city's physical infrastructure so it can change as climatic conditions change (e.g., moveable sea barriers).

But, just as important, it also means addressing in new ways the "social vulnerability" of specific groups, communities, of people in the city due to climate changes.

Tackling the root cause of social vulnerability — discrimination 

North Carolina National Guard assists residents of Old Dock, North Carolina, after flooding forced them from their homes in September 2018 (Credit: The National Guard)

In Boston, for instance, it was projected that a three-foot rise in sea level would flood 12,000 buildings, 25 subway stations, and four neighborhoods—and this would impact an estimated 104,000 children, 60,000 elderly people, 327,000 people of color, and others with low incomes, disabilities, chronic and acute illnesses, and limited English proficiency.

These people are not just in the way of the water; they likely have less resilience, less physical, social, and economic capacity, to bounce back from disasters.

They may live in housing that is less able to withstand inundation. They may have chronic health problems, such as asthma, which make them more susceptible to extreme heat.

They may have fewer resources—insufficient wealth, technology, education, institutional services, information, and social connections to neighbors and other potential support—to prepare sufficiently for climate changes and recover from climate disasters.

They are at a disadvantage, and often this is because of a city's historic patterns of discrimination against low-income, minority, immigrant, ethnic, and religious populations.

Cities that decide to boost the resilience of vulnerable groups usually seek to engage their members in planning processes to decide what to do. This often starts with an acknowledgment that traditional planning has marginalized the voices, knowledge, and interests of these populations.

Cities try to establish a dialogue with vulnerable communities, to codevelop understandings of the climate-change problem and potential actions.

In a few cities, engagement extends to empowering vulnerable communities to develop and implement actions themselves, by providing funding to participate in planning and the authority to make some decisions.

Sooner or later, though, the city has to decide whether or not to prioritize resilience building for vulnerable communities and how to design and implement actions for specific vulnerabilities, such as limiting cost increases of essential services, providing early warning alerts, improving local health services, and increasing access to training, education, and transportation for local jobs resulting from resilience investments.

A "racial equity" guide released in 2017 by the Urban Sustainability Directors Network, with more than 150 North American cities and counties, contained examples of these planning processes and actions drawn from Boulder, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, DC, and other cities.

In some cities, innovators have recognized they could do more than seeking to reduce social vulnerability to climate-change impacts. They could put tackling the root cause of social vulnerability—discrimination—at the core of their efforts to strengthen the city's resilience.

Bouncing forward

Oakland, California. (Credit: Thomas Hawk/flickr)

"Our first crime against nature was a crime against ourselves," says Taj James, cofounder of the Oakland, California-based nonprofit Movement Strategy Center, which supports movements for justice and equity and is one of many emerging advocates for resilience-through-equity.

"Resilience is about the relationships of human beings to each other," he explains. "The organizing principle is about repairing the harm that humanity has done to itself."

James's analysis is readily translated to the task of making a city's future: the way it's been done in the past has deliberately excluded and deeply injured certain populations, and this cannot be the way to a resilient future.

"To effectively build resilience," says a publication he coedited, "frontline communities—including low-income communities and communities of color that are most vulnerable to climate impacts—must be at the center of policy and practice … Our vision of climate resilience is not about 'bouncing back.' Instead, it is about bouncing forward to eradicate the inequities and unsustainable resource use at the heart of the climate crisis."

The idea of bouncing forward offers cities an important insight. It recognizes that city making is a collective exercise in economic, social, and political power. One way that power is used is through urban planning, which, says University of North British Columbia professor of environmental planning David Connell, "is the representation of a collective, public interest in the use of the power."

When cities plan their long-term climate resilience, will power be available to those who have mostly been excluded from it in the past? In other words, who is the "collective" that decides the city's future?

This is not just a technical question, James points out. It's ultimately a matter of a city's values and identity: "We cannot technocratically transition; we have to transition our values and worldview."

If we want to "construct an identity in which we are not separate from nature," he concludes, then we have to repair and end the "domination and extraction" that have been inflicted on some populations.

This idea also poses a challenge for city leaders: how they will define resilience? Is it about bouncing back, maintaining a city's basic functions and structures in the face of disruption and change? Or is it about bouncing forward, changing a city's functions and structures—intentionally disrupting economic, social, and political arrangements—so it can build a different resilience than it has had in the past?

Social and economic tensions 

Climate justice rally at the Chevron Oil Refinery in Richmond, California. (Credit: planet a./flickr)

The Rockefeller Foundation chose the bounce-forward approach when it launched 100 Resilient Cities, whose members contain 500 million residents—to develop "the capacity," as then foundation president Judith Rodin puts it, "to create and take advantage of new personal, social, and economic opportunities."

The bounce-back- or-forward distinction may be more or less relevant in different cities, depending on their history, degree of inequity, and type of political system for making decisions.

City leaders may choose to pursue a mix of both approaches based on the opportunities for change they perceive.

But any city that is planning its way to a resilient future has to reckon with the role that planning now plays in how the future is made.

The "postmodern" purpose of planning, says Connell, is to make "the future visible in a socially acceptable way."

What will be socially acceptable, given the uncertainties driven by climate change and the social and economic divisions and tensions at the heart of modern cities, is still being formed in most cities.

"In cities," reports Dutch urban planner and Special Envoy for International Water Affairs, Henk Ovink, "you see an emerging capacity: coalitions of the willing that link institutions and individuals to work on the challenges and get to transformative solutions."

Peter Plastrik and John Cleveland are cofounders of the Innovation Network for Communities. They were founding consultants to the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance and the Urban Sustainability Directors Network (USDN), coauthors of several INC reports about cities and climate change, and coauthors of Connecting to Change the World: Harnessing the Power of Networks for Social Impact.

Peter was manager of USDN's Innovation Fund. John serves as executive director of the Boston Green Ribbon Commission.

Their new book Life After Carbon: The Next Global Transformation of Cities has just been published by Island Press.

a row of flags in front of a building.
Credit: Mmoka/Unsplash

World climate talks resume without U.S. as global negotiators assess new path forward

The United States skipped a major round of United Nations climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany this week, leaving other nations and U.S. civil society groups to navigate the talks without the world's largest fossil fuel producer at the table.

Bob Berwyn reports for Inside Climate News.

Keep reading...Show less
Smoke billows from an industrial chimney at sunset near several homes.

Judge rules EPA overstepped in cutting pollution grants

A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from canceling $600 million in environmental justice grants aimed at helping underserved communities reduce pollution.

Rachel Frazin reports forThe Hill.

In short:

  • The grants stem from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which set aside $3 billion for environmental justice programs.
  • The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under President Biden had planned to distribute the $600 million through regional groups, which would fund local efforts, before the Trump EPA terminated the grants earlier this year.
  • Judge Adam Abelson ruled the EPA's cancellation exceeded its authority “precisely because they are ‘environmental justice’ programs."

Key quote:
The move included a “lack of any reasoned decision-making, or reasoned explanation.”

— Judge Adam Abelson, U.S. District Court

Why this matters:
Underserved communities often face the greatest environmental health risks and climate impacts. These grants were designed to help local groups respond to long-standing environmental harms and health risks, and canceling them would have cut off vital support just as cleanup efforts were beginning to gain traction. The Trump administration has also attempted to cancel a similar $20 billion program that would fund climate-friendly projects.

coffee mug near open folder with tax withholding paper.

Senate Republicans move to cut clean energy tax credits despite bipartisan benefits

Congressional Republicans are advancing a tax plan that would slash incentives for clean energy and electric vehicles, drawing criticism from advocates and some GOP members whose districts benefit from green investments.

Alexa St. John reports for The Associated Press.

Keep reading...Show less
A stream running through green forested hills.

Brazil moves to auction vast oil blocks despite climate and Indigenous concerns

Brazil is set to auction off oil and gas exploration rights in a massive offshore and Amazon region sale, prompting backlash from Indigenous groups and environmental advocates just months before it hosts the Cop30 climate summit.

Constance Malleret reports for The Guardian.

Keep reading...Show less
An image showing a downpour with a caution sign.

New research links stalled jet stream to rising summer weather extremes

The number of extreme summer weather events driven by trapped atmospheric waves has tripled since 1950 due to climate change, new research shows.

Seth Borenstein reports for The Associated Press.

Keep reading...Show less
Farm machinery helping harvest turnips.

How agribusiness lobbying boosts corporate control over food and climate policy

Industrial agriculture companies spent hundreds of millions lobbying Congress ahead of the stalled farm bill debate, further distancing everyday Americans from decisions shaping the nation’s food systems and climate future.

Brian Calvert reports for Civil Eats.

Keep reading...Show less
Steel mill under a cloudy sky.
Credit: Michi/Pixabay

Steelmaker retreats from clean energy plans as hydrogen costs and politics shift

Cleveland-Cliffs is scaling back plans to build the nation's first green steel plant in Ohio, pivoting away from hydrogen and back to fossil fuels as federal incentives face repeal and political winds change in Washington.

Alexander C. Kaufman reports for Canary Media.

Keep reading...Show less
From our Newsroom
Multiple Houston-area oil and gas facilities that have violated pollution laws are seeking permit renewals

Multiple Houston-area oil and gas facilities that have violated pollution laws are seeking permit renewals

One facility has emitted cancer-causing chemicals into waterways at levels up to 520% higher than legal limits.

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

Regulators are underestimating health impacts from air pollution: Study

"The reality is, we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.”

Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro speaks with the state flag and American flag behind him.

Two years into his term, has Gov. Shapiro kept his promises to regulate Pennsylvania’s fracking industry?

A new report assesses the administration’s progress and makes new recommendations

silhouette of people holding hands by a lake at sunset

An open letter from EPA staff to the American public

“We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable.”

wildfire retardants being sprayed by plane

New evidence links heavy metal pollution with wildfire retardants

“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.

Stay informed: sign up for The Daily Climate newsletter
Top news on climate impacts, solutions, politics, drivers. Delivered to your inbox week days.