SIEMENS

The facts speak for themselves: Half of the world’s population lives in cities, and in Europe, where urbanization is even further advanced, 72 percent of the population are citydwellers. This situation has significant environmental consequences because urban centers account for 75 percent of global energy consumption and 80 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity. Cities thus offer the potential of playing a greater role than ever in the battle against climate change. How are cities dealing with this responsibility? The question gives us ample reason to take a closer look at Europe’s major cities. What efforts are they making to conserve resources? How are they trying to prevent environmental damage, reduce CO₂ emissions, and maintain urban areas as places worth living in? What exemplary environmental protection projects are they carrying out?
To answer these questions, Siemens commissioned the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), an independent research and consulting firm, to compare the environmental performance of 30 major cities in 30 European countries. From Athens to Zagreb, from Ljubljana to Istanbul, and from Oslo to Kiev, the study targeted the largest cities in the countries in question, in most cases their capitals. In order to illustrate their environmental and climate protection performance and objectives, each of the cities was assessed on the basis of 30 indicators divided into eight categories: CO₂ Emissions, Energy, Buildings, Transportation, Water, Air, Waste/Land Use, and Environmental Governance. The methodology for the study was developed by the EIU in cooperation with independent urban experts and Siemens. "The result is the European Green City Index - a ranking of the most important European cities that is unique in terms of its broad scope," says James Watson, managing editor of the study. "The European Green City Index provides insights into the strengths and weaknesses of each city," says Stefan Denig, project manager at Siemens. "In this manner, it supports the efforts of these cities to develop more effective climate protection measures, and it also helps with prioritization of environmental activities." Most important, however, is the fact that the study allows the cities to learn from each other, something that is well worth the effort. Whether it’s Europe’s largest biomass power plant in Vienna, the continent’s most modern offshore wind power facility in Denmark, the recycling lottery system in Ljubljana, free rental bikes in Paris, landfills with methane production facilities in Istanbul, or buses equipped with systems that cause traffic lights to turn green faster in Tallinn, the study focuses attention on interesting projects in each city that can serve as models for the others.

Some Key Findings from the Study:
Copenhagen (see article "Wind, Wood & Two Wheels") is the greenest city in Europe. The host city of the 15th UN Climate Change Conference held in December 2009 performs very well in all eight categories. Second place in the overall rankings is Stockholm, and Oslo (see article "Green Milestones") finishes third, followed by Vienna and Amsterdam.
In general, the Scandinavian cities earn the highest rankings in the index, which should come as no surprise, given that environmental protection has been a popular cause in the region for many years. The fact that Scandinavian countries are very affluent helps as well, and cities in the region thus make the most of their financial power to promote investments in environmental protection measures. Energy-saving buildings, extensive public transport networks, and energy production from renewable sources, especially wind and water, are widespread throughout the region.
Eastern European cities are generally rated below average in the Green Cities Index, with the highest-ranked city, Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, finishing in 13th place in the overall index. This result is in part due to the relatively low gross domestic product in the region and its history - after all, environmental protection was considered unimportant for the most part during the Communist era. The latter fact is reflected in the region’s high energy consumption, particularly by buildings and other outdated infrastructures. But Eastern European cities generally perform above average when it comes to local public transport. The percentage of people who use public transport to get to work in Kiev, for example, which took 30th place in the index, is the highest among all the cities studied.
The top-ranked city in the CO₂ Emissions and Energy categories is Oslo. The Norwegian capital benefits here from its use of hydroelectric power to generate energy. Overall, renewable sources already account for 65 percent of the energy consumed in Oslo, which is also pursuing the very ambitious goal of reducing CO₂ emissions by 50 percent by 2030. In addition, the city is encouraging more extensive use of district heating systems and hybrid and electric vehicles. Oslo also operates a climate and energy fund financed by means of a local electricity tax. The fund has been used to support a large number of energy efficiency projects over the last 20 years.
First place in the Buildings category is shared by Berlin and Stockholm. Following German reunification, Berlin modernized a large share of its buildings in line with stringent energy efficiency guidelines. The result is CO₂ savings of between one and 1.5 metric tons per year in modernized buildings. Berlin also launched a public-private energy partnership program for its public buildings, with companies including Siemens. The private firms in these partnerships assume the modernization costs and pay back their up-front investments based on the energy savings achieved. Stockholm stands out by virtue of its exemplary energy-efficiency guidelines and construction of houses and residential areas that use very little energy. These houses have a total energy consumption of less than 2,000 kilowatt-hours per year, despite the city’s cold climate.