Talk:Climate change policies in Helsinki

Memos of the meetings with Siemens / UEF / Helsinki Env. Centre

Notes

Building data:

• What does it mean: "Buildings with wall insulation"

Memo of 25.4.2015

• The data collection continues and the students go through the material and try to find correct parametres.
• HSL Helsinki regional transport organisation is needed to produce most of transportation data and the rest we will get from the City planning Department (if they are willing to contribute).
• The energy producer not willing to contribute so far. We can get most of the data without them and if we need more we will ask specific questions from them.
• The students fill in tables in Opasnet, and the fields are the same as in Excel.Building_stock_in_Helsinki
• The documentation should be done more thoroughly by the students than it has been done by now.
• Helsingin ympäristötilasto has some of the parametres we need for the scenarios http://www.helsinginymparistotilasto.fi/
• Jouni is busy until 8.5. and will after that go through the data more in detail.
• The closing seminar of the course is 11.5. and 12.5. There will still be some more work (including polishing the documentation) to be done after that and the students have time until 20.5.
• 20.5. Jouni will present the work the students have done and preliminary results he has gotten using the building stock and energy models.

Building data: http://en.opasnet.org/w/Climate_change_policies_in_Helsinki#Dependencies

Next meetings: 11.5. at 13-14 (EET) only transportation and 20.5. at 14-15 (EET)

Memo of 15.4.2015

8.4.2015 at 14.30-15.30 EET / Trond, Petteri, Florian, Jouni, Sonja

We agreed that by Thursday 23.4. Jouni needs a list of building categories and contact persons for students to start the work.

Building categories will be the same as in Copenhagen:

• residential
• public & administration
• industrial
• other non-residential

Contact persons:

• Building registry (building stock) / Rakennuskantatiedot (Rakvv/Pirjo Pekkarinen)--#: we try to get Jukka Puttonen from Env Centre to help as Pirjo said she can´t help right now --Signatiu (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Public & administrational buildings (building stock, energy consumption) / Julkiset palvelurakennukset rakennuskantatiedot ja energiatiedot (HKR/Katri Kuusinen)
• Energy production / Energiantuotantotiedot (Helen/Rauno -> Petteri will be the contact person.)
• Emission coefficients and calculation method / Päästökertoimet ja laskentamenetelmät (HSY/Johannes)
• Population data and climate targets / Väestö ja ilmastotavoitteet (YMK/Petteri, 30 % selvitys)
• Street lighting and lighting in general / Katuvalaistus ja muut valaistusasiat (HKR/Juhani Sandström)
• Electricity used in others than public & admin. buildings / Muiden kuin julkisten rakennusten sähkön jakauma (Helen/Rauno ja Motiva xx?)
• Heat losses and U values / Lämpöhävikit ja U-arvot (Rakvv Pirjo Pekkarinen) --# : we try to get Jukka Puttonen from Env Centre to help as Pirjo said she can´t help right now --Signatiu (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
• Cooling of buildings / Rakennusten jäähdytys (Helen/Rauno -> Petteri will be the contact person.)
• Transport data, modal split / Liikennetiedot ja kulkutavat (HSL Natalia Berezina, KSV Tuija Hellman, HSL Helena Suomela)

The data on buildings owned by City of Helsinki are likely to be more accurate than the ones from other sources.

Trond presented what the model needs for the transport section. The data must represent the transport within city borders. NB. aviation is not included. Accurate data on taxis can be difficult to get but it is not a big share of the cars in Helsinki. I will not go through different variables for transport but it would be good if Trond could sent the presentation or upload it here. The gathering of transport data will not be done by students but by Env. Centre.

The memos of the meetings will be gathered in this open Opasnet page as long as there is no confidential information. Anyone of us is free to fill in the text.

Next meeting on 24.4. at 13-14 EET We will discuss following points:

• follow-up of the work
• some contact persons didn´t agree on helping at this short notice -> how to deal with missing data
• what next.

--Signatiu (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Memo of 8.4.2015

8.4.2015 at 12 EET / Markku, Trond, Petteri, Florian, Jouni, Sonja

Jouni presented a summary of data variables based on the excel sheet and Trond´s presentation. We discussed how to further proceed with data gathering and what are the relevant things we need to decide at this stage.

There are 10 categories of buildings presented in CyPT

• Three main categories for Helsinki: Residential, Government & public administration, Non-Residential
• Of the non-residential buildings the Env. Centre needs to specify what sub-categories should be taken into account.
• Petteri suggested two more separate categories: industrial buildings, shopping malls & stores
• The categories can be merged to larger ones afterwards but now we need to specify of which categories we need detailed data.
• In Copenhagen four or five categories were used.

Data of Copenhagen would be very useful for Helsinki for comparison, since the properties will be probably quite similar. Siemens will provide us with data of Copenhagen. The data of Helsinki will be free to use by anybody.

Floor areas and energy consumption (also per use type, at least roughly) will be available but there is likely to be problems with finding data of the oh-so-horrifying lamp types (but luckily it is only priority 3).

Jouni´s students will only concentrate on the building data. Energy data and transport data are supposed to be easier to find. People at Env. Centre need to decide who will collect this data. N.B. transport data should only include transportation inside the city borders -> this we need to ask HSL authorities about.

Good documentation is crucial especially now that there are many different people gathering the data. This has to be planned well in advance to have clear principles for everyone. Who has found the data, who was contacted and description of the parameter.

To be discussed in next meeting:

• impressions of the students & how they found the task
• how to gather the transport and energy data
• can the excel and power point Trond sent us be published in Opasnet + how much of the model can be explained to the students and made public
• documentation

Next meeting on 15.4.2015 at 14.30 (EET). --Signatiu (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussions about climate change policies in Helsinki

Possible topics:

• City level climate change mitigation is useless because success depends on international treaties.
• Climate change policies should consider health impacts and other collateral impacts as they may be significant.
• Climate change adaptation is more important than mitigation on city level.
• Citizens have a key role in implementing city climate policies.
• Food issues are underrepresented in climate discussions although food is a major emission source.
• District heating by nuclear energy should be considered in Helsinki.
• The CO₂ emission factors of biofuels should be reconsidered: the assumption of zero emissions is not true.

How to read discussions

Statements: City level climate change mitigation is useless because success depends on international treaties. Resolution: Tentatively not accepted. City level mitigation is not useless. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation: ⇤# : I think Europe union's decisions has pretty affect on the city and mamber states dicision making, but that does not mean that the city level climate changes are useless. --Mohammad Shahidehnia (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC) ←# : its quite important to encourage city level mitigation actions because that's the only way the climate change problems can be manage to prevent large-scale disasters --Oluwatobi Abayomi Badejo (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC) --# : Climate change and air quality are strongly interconnected, and two major health hazards tropospheric ozone and particular matter are highly affected by local emissions, which can be reduced solely by city level mitigation actions. --Paula Maatela (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

How to read discussions

Statements: Climate change adaptation is more important than mitigation on city level. Resolution: Not accepted. Climate change adaptation not seen to be more important than mitigation (Resolved, i.e., the resolution has been updated to the main page.)

Argumentation: ⇤# : To say that climate change adaptation is more important than mitigation is an overstatement because health benefits have been associated with climate change mitigation processes as a result of reductions in urban air pollution in the city level [7] --Michael Osei Assibey (talk) --# : To just clarify, is to mean from your statement that a reduction in urban air pollution alone was enough to consider the health benefits in relation to these mitigation policies or could several factors be at play here? --Michael Osei Assibey (talk) ←# It is true they are much better than adaptation strategies because mitigation policies have helped to see a decrease in city target emissions of green house gases in US states where there are mitigation policies as compared to those that do rely on adaptation strategies in their cities [8] --Michael Osei Assibey (talk) ⇤# : Please although you have stated facts, as a citizen I must say that it cannot be convincing enough to depend on results of mitigation policies that have been successful without having concrete comparison with adaptation strategies elsewhere in order to clarify the above statement --Michael Osei Assibey (talk) ←# : The concern shown above is true and speaking from a Municipal point of view from Ireland, it would be well noted that there are benefits as well with the application of adaptation policies as evident in the infrastructure adaptation to climate change and would be wrong to use an overriding statement of mitigation being more important than adaptation [9] --Michael Osei Assibey (talk) --# : This is correct considering that adaptation strategies as in the case of the infrastructure changes in Ireland are indicative of the saving cost for Energy companies but also to help in reducing further damage to the climate --Michael Osei Assibey (talk) →#: These statements would indicate a change in policy making on the national scale and thus a more realistic approach would be to find a balance between the two (adaptation and mitigation) I think the statement should be that both mitigation and adaptation to climate changes are both equally needed on a city level. --Michael Osei Assibey (talk) ←# : As an urban planner, the idea of trying to find a balance between mitigation and adaptation to climate change is what I agree to be the solution to city levels as evident in the study in the USA and Australia which found simultaneous achievement between adaptation and mitigation [10] --Michael Osei Assibey (talk) --# : Considering that these are all good ideas backed by factual information it would also be good to see if these principles and methods used in the USA and Australia could be applied to developing countries that are struggling to cope with various climate change issues in terms of adaptation and mitigation --Michael Osei Assibey (talk)

How to read discussions

Statements: Citizens have a key role in implementing city climate policies. Resolution: Tentatively accepted. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation: ←# : I think citizens do play an important part in city climate policies for example in Accra, Ghana many of the residents refused to change their old refrigerators concerning the emission of CFCs and thus the policy by the authorities of using new refrigerators to help reduce CFCs was not beneficial --Michael Osei Assibey (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC) ←# : I support the notion that citizens are key players in implementing climate policies. Example is using energy from fossil fuels more efficiently in homes where fossil fuels are the main source of heat and electricity, choosing energy efficient appliances, reduction in number of miles being driven by cycling, biking, taking mass transit and so on. All these are some of the ways in which citizens can help in reducing climate change, they make up the community and thus, their roles have a high influence on the climate status. Government can make laws, however if citizens do not implement to support them, then the effort may be futile --Aishat Bukola Ayelotan (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

How to read discussions

Statements: The CO2 emission factors of biofuels should be reconsidered: the assumption of zero emissions is not true. Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation: ←# Biomass combustion can release more GHGs per produced energy unit than is released fossil fuels. It can take decades for growing biomass to capture the same amount of CO2 that is released when utilizing biofuel --Anni Hartikainen (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ⇤# : If forest management is done correctly, regrowing forests can in the end act as carbon sinks. --Anni Hartikainen (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC) ←# : The REDD and REDD+ programs set up by the UN concerning the reduction of emissions of C02 through reafforestation processes by developed countries in third world countries is serving the purpose of carbon stocks for these nations as well --Michael Osei Assibey (talk)

How to read discussions

Statements: Food issues are underrepresented in climate discussions although food is a major emission source. Resolution: Accepted. (Resolved, i.e., the resolution has been updated to the main page.)

Argumentation: ←# : Particular policy attention should be paid to the health and environmental risks posed by the rapid worldwide growth in meat consumption. The current global average meat consumption is 100g/person/day, while 90g per day (not more than 50g from red meat) is proposed as a working global target. [11] --Mari Malinen (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC) ←# : Even though importance of food issues is noted, not enough measures are taken to reduce them. In Finland a goal was set to reduce emissions by 13 % (0,75 MT CO2) by 2020 from the 2005 level. However, by 2008 emissions increased by 0,6 %. --Anni Hartikainen (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC) --# : Food accounted for 9 % of total GHG emissions and 21% of the GHG emissions of household consumption in Finland in 2002. --Anni Hartikainen (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC) --# : Meats in diets cause more greenhouse gases to spew in the atmosphere than industries and transportation (UN FAO, 2006). The meats contribute between 14-22% of the CO2 equivalent green house gases of the world's yearly production --Aishat Bukola Ayelotan (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

How to read discussions

Statements: District heating by nuclear energy should be considered in Helsinki. Resolution: Resolution not yet found. (A stable resolution, when found, should be updated to the main page.)

Argumentation: ⇤# Nuclear power should not be used as energy source to the district heating in Helsinki, because it is not sustainable way to produce energy: quarrying of uranium pollutes environment, nuclear waste is dangerously radioactive for thousands of years, and safety of final disposal is not infallible. --Paula Maatela (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC) ⇤# : If this argument was accepted, it would mean that all nuclear energy should be stopped. But it has high environmental benefits if it replaces fossil fuels, which is the case in Helsinki. --Jouni (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC) ←# : Utilizing nuclear energy in district heating has great impact on carbon dioxide emission, and while in the city of Helsinki the share of district heating is over 90%, it remarkably decreases the quantity of carbon dioxide in the air. It has been estimated that present district heating plants run on coal (Hanasaari) and natural gas (Vuosaari) produce 5-7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year. --Paula Maatela (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC) --# : Compairing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions estimated from natural gas, coal-fired and from nuclear fuel ran electricity plants reveals that nuclear power produces much less carbon dioxide than natural gas or coal: estimated lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions for natural gas, coal and for nuclear power are 443, 1001 and 16 g CO2 per kWh (50th percentile), respectively. --Paula Maatela (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC) --# : Like to add that radioactive emissions like tritium (beta emitter) from nuclear power plants in function can also cause harm to the environment and animals living near the plants. Tritium replace hydrogen from water molecule, and thus spread everywhere in the body, where organically bound tritium can be formed and potentially accumulated. Nuclear power plants act as a point source of tritium. --Paula Maatela (talk) 13:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)