Cities 1.5
Cities 1.5
Disinformation thrives in times of crisis
Efforts to address the climate crisis are under siege beneath a rising tide of mis- and disinformation, with smear campaigns often funded and coordinated by vested interests such as the fossil fuel industry, climate conspiracists looking for cash and clicks, and even national governments. We all have a part to play - we must take responsibility for the information we consume and share to ensure a prosperous, healthy future for ourselves…and our planet.
Photo by Andrew Neel on Unsplash
Featured in this episode: Xuemei Bai, distinguished professor for Urban Environment and Human Ecology at the Australian National University
Featured guests:
Jennie King is the Director of Climate Research and Policy at the Institute of Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and co-founder of the Climate Action Against Disinformation Coalition (CAAD). She has spearheaded investigations on climate denialism and ‘discourses of delay’ around the world, and has co-authored a number of ISD’s flagship reports on this issue.
Hélène Chartier is C40’s Director of Urban Planning and Design. She and her team develop programmes and activities that support cities to accelerate sustainable and resilient urban planning policies and design practices, including the C40 workstream on 15-minute cities.
Links
How climate change misinformation spreads online - Carbon Brief
The Nexus Between Green Backlash and Democratic Backsliding in Europe
CAAD Data Monitor Vol.1: 15-Minute Cities
The 15-minute city is transforming life for urban dwellers for the better - Mark Watts
15 minute cities: How they got caught in conspiracy theories - BBC News
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/
Cities 1.5 is hosted by David Miller, Managing Director of the C40 Centre and author of the book Solved. It's written and produced by Peggy Whitfield and Jess Schmidt: https://jessdoespodcasting.com/
Our executive producer is Chiara Morfeo.
Edited by Morgane Chambrin: https://www.morganechambrin.com/
Cities 1.5 music is by Lorna Gilfedder: https://origamipodcastservices.com/
02[Cities 1.5 main theme music plays] I'm David Miller and you're listening to Cities 1.5, a podcast about how climate leaders are driving global change through local action. In February 2022, the IPCC's Sixth Report announced a new and emerging threat, challenging climate science and potentially delaying the action required to avert climate breakdown. This report raises concern about the increasing threat that climate mis- and disinformation posed to climate action, indicated by rising levels of societal polarization and climate conspiracies, supercharged by social media and threatening to bubble into the mainstream. While the vast majority of people accept the evidence climate science offers, conspiratorial narratives muddy the waters.[upbeat music] Just two years on from the IPCC's quoted report, these warnings have proved well-founded. With climate disinformation finding fertile ground in a world still recovering from the global pandemic, disinformation and conspiracy theories around much-needed urban climate policies have multiplied like gremlins, with cities, mayors, and even C40 Cities itself coming under attack. Myths, distortions, and outright lies are bandied about. As a result, scientists, especially women, are attacked online, often coupled with alarming and credible references to violence and, in some cases, death threats.[sombre music] Efforts to address the climate crisis are under siege, with smear campaigns often funded and coordinated by vested interests such as the fossil fuel industry, climate conspiracists looking for cash and clicks, and even national governments. As these narratives make their way into the mainstream, it's understandable that the average person may be overwhelmed and may not have the time or resources to parse through the discourse to determine fact from fiction when it comes to the climate crisis and its impacts.[energetic, upbeat music] In a year where, across the globe, over 4 billion people are going to the polls, it's more important than ever to challenge and dispel climate disinformation campaigns from vested interests. The next electoral victors could decide the direction of national climate policy for the near future. Ultimately, climate disinformation which denies, deceives, and delays action, threatens the very survival of our planet. The stakes simply could not be higher.[upbeat, rhythmic music] Today, we'll be hearing from two guests who are deep in the trenches of the murky world of climate disinformation, including one of C40's own, who's become somewhat of an inadvertent disinformation specialist through her work on 15-minute cities. But first, let's speak to a purpose-built expert in disinformation.[music ends]
Jennie King 03:28[rotary dial telephone rings][clicks] My name is Jennie King. I am the Director of Climate Research and Policy at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, and I'm speaking to you today from London.[receiver chimes, replaced in cradle]
David 03:39 In her role at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, or ISD, Jennie leads the efforts to translate their digital research into frontline programming and response. Through ISD, she helped found Climate Action Against Disinformation, or CAAD, a coalition of over 50 organizations working to identify, analyze, and counter climate disinformation worldwide. Jennie has spearheaded investigations on climate denialism and discourses of delay in Canada, Central Europe, Germany, South Africa, the US, and the United Kingdom. She has also helped to design, leading over 15 partners to produce real-time monitoring of mis- and disinformation around climate summits.[music continues then ends] Jennie, thanks so much for taking the time to join us on Cities 1.5.
Jennie King 04:40 It's a real pleasure to be here and I'm very excited to engage your wide and global network on this important issue.
David 04:47 Well, as are we. For the benefit of our listeners, can you just give a bit more background about yourself and your work?
Jennie King 04:55 Absolutely. So, the organization that I work for, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, our broad mandate is really around the safeguarding of human rights and trying to reverse what has been this escalating trend in polarization, extremism, and disinformation around the world. And so, historically, we've researched evolving extremist ideologies, the ways that they manifest in violence, the erosion of democratic norms, and working on climate might feel a little bit left field if you knew about us 15 years ago, but the reason why our lens really became trained on this issue is because around five years ago, we noticed that a lot of the communities that we'd been steeped in and monitoring, and a lot of the trends that we saw impacting public life, were suddenly pivoting towards environmental themes and situating themselves within the conversation about climate change, and we began to suspect—and unfortunately this has come to bear—that climate was going to become the new axis in the so-called "culture wars" in a number of countries around the world, and we were very interested in interrogating not only what that meant for the prospects of climate action and achieving these vital agreements like Paris Agreement, but also what that meant for wider social cohesion, trust in institutions, and our ability to do policy-making and make vital decisions about our communities in general. And, my role at ISD is to coordinate research and investigations that try and look into that from a number of different perspectives. So, not only, "What are the narratives that are penetrating public life, and why do they seem to resonate? Who are they engaging? Where do they seem to have particular resonance?" but also, "Who are the actors behind that kind of content? And, how are they enabled by some of the vulnerabilities in, for example, social media platforms and the systems that we use online?"
David 07:00 That's a very powerful agenda. Who are these people? Why do they care about climate? How does it actually work?
Jennie King 07:10 I think what's really important to understand is a shift in who stands to benefit from spreading or engaging with climate mis- and disinformation. And, when a lot of people hear those terms, they have quite a narrow or potentially traditional understanding of this problem that relates exclusively to the fossil fuel industry. And that is still a very relevant and very important ecosystem and set of actors in this space. They are highly professionalized, they have a very honed tactical playbook, they're quite disciplined in their messaging, and they operate through a vast network of proxy entities so, you know, PR agencies, Facebook groups that seem to be citizen-led, traditional advertising, think tanks and sponsored academics, so they are very much still operating in this space, but they are by no means the only game in town, and part of that relates to this shift, where climate has suddenly become part of the so-called "culture wars".[driving music] And what I mean by that is that people who are opposing climate action are not only doing it for financial reasons, so because they have business interests that relate to the fossil fuel economy, but they're also now doing it for ideological reasons, based on the idea that somehow climate action is a symbol of government tyranny and state overreach and that, therefore, opposing climate action is also symbolic of resisting liberalism, resisting the so-called "woke elite", and establishing, you know, personal agency and power.[music fades out] And, as that shift has happened, the number of people that are flooding into this space and kind of weaponizing this particular moment in time has really broadened. So, if you think about your fossil-fuel actors on one side of the spectrum, I would also highlight three other vital actor groups that are relevant at this point in time. The first is hostile states. These are entities who have seen an opportunity to kind of create chaos and division in so-called "enemy countries", saying things like, "Your government cares more about fixing climate change than they do about your ability to pay your bills," or saying to countries in the global south, "The net zero agenda is a colonial, western, imperialist agenda. You shouldn't engage in processes like COP. This is all about recreating those historical realities and you should only work with us and you should let us extract your natural resources." So, there's one set of actors. The second are far-right political parties and they are operating in a slightly similar way where they have seen this as a point of entry to galvanize an audience. They understand that huge pockets of society now feel very disconnected from democracy. They don't think that that political system is yielding any benefits for them, personally. And there are lots of legitimate reasons why that's the case, right? Not all of those people are extremists or even conspiracists, but they have lived through this unique period of crisis and they don't have any faith in institutions, and the climate agenda, unfortunately, is very vulnerable to attacks from the far right because it is a problem that requires big, government solutions, whole-of-society approaches. It has been latched on to by a lot of these far-right movements as a symbol of everything that is wrong about society and all of the ways that people are being disempowered. And then, the third set of actors, which is really where ISD has done a lot of research in the past few years, is what I would call the outrage economy online or the attention economy. So, these are people who don't necessarily have any consistent or coherent views about the climate crisis or about climate action. What they care about is getting engagement online. They want to harvest your attention, your likes, your clicks, your comments, your shares, your hate retweets, your screenshots, your debates, and as a result, they are trying to post content that is as incendiary and divisive as possible, and they have unfortunately correctly identified that climate is now one of those topics that really whips people up into a frenzy, and quite often they are placing climate alongside other contentious issues like civil rights or sexual and reproductive health or electoral integrity, and they fit that into this very broad worldview about who holds power, who has agency, and who has the right to make decisions in society. And, all of these different actors are often operating in the same spaces online, and that creates a very messy state of affairs, not only for those who are trying to understand the nature of the threat, but also those who are trying to fight against it.
David 12:25[gentle, percussive music] Is there a difference between what people would call misinformation and disinformation? And, if so, is knowing that helpful to those who wish to communicate about positive efforts?
Jennie King 12:36 And this is really important for anyone who's trying to understand the nature of our information environments. Really, the big thing that distinguishes those two pieces of terminology is intent. So, misinformation and disinformation could actually be the same piece of content, but disinformation implies that there is a specific actor sitting behind that content who has a willful desire to mislead the reader or the audience.[music fades out] Misinformation – any of us can have shared, and probably will have shared, at some point in time, right? So, we are all engaging with enormous amounts of content on a day-to-day basis and often at rapid speeds. That makes it very difficult for us to interrogate the credibility of sources, but if you're going to use the term "disinformation", you need to be able to prove, in some form, or kind of substantiate that there is that willful intent behind it. So, we are very careful in applying that language and, quite often, it is difficult to draw a solid conclusion. In the case of the fossil fuel companies, I think most people would now feel quite comfortable using the term"disinformation" because there have been so many exposés and even hearings in U.S. Congress, for example, or other settings that have shown how much these companies knew, going back 50, 60 years, and how they actively sought not only to suppress the information that they themselves had commissioned, but then to counter that information and spread the exact opposite narratives among the general public. It's often easier to use the kind of umbrella term of "misinformation", because then you don't have to think about the actors behind it.
David 14:28 So, that's very helpful. Has your research shown how one might be able to craft a path through all of this disinformation in order to actually communicate the facts and the science and the necessity of action?
Jennie King 14:46 So, I think it is important to make two points on this. The first is that there are proactive interventions and I really don't want to create the impression amongst those listening to this that all is lost and that we should get kind of paralyzed in inaction as a result. At the same time, it is worth being aware that, in some cases, the deck is stacked against those who are trying to communicate climate science, or who are trying to broker conversations around climate action, and part of that is to do with the business model of the Internet as it currently stands. So, let me start with the kind of bad news and then segue into the good news. As I mentioned previously, at the moment, most of the digital platforms that we inhabit on a day-to-day basis are optimized for engagement. The reason why they are free at point of service is because you are the product. What companies like Meta or TikTok or YouTube or Telegram or WhatsApp are selling to people is advertising space and that is grounded in how much time you are spending browsing your news feeds and engaging with content. So, in order for that to be a successful model, they need to keep people online as much as possible. Coming back every day, spending significant proportions of their day doom scrolling on their news feeds. And, it doesn't actually matter whether people like the content or believe and agree with the content. What matters is that you are there spending time with it. And, over time≤ what that has created is this dynamic where the most hateful incendiary, clickbaity, unsubstantiated kind of information is constantly being prioritized by algorithms. And, just to give you one example, Meta, back in 2021—possibly even earlier than that—were making a a lot of kind of public communications and PR around the Climate Science Center, which was a hub of information that they had introduced to Facebook to try and steer people towards verified sources, and they were working with a number of very, very credible institutional partners in order to collate that kind of information and short circuit people who had genuine questions being able to find good and reliable answers to those questions. And, during COP 26, which was the climate summit hosted in Glasgow, we did quite a crude comparison, but we looked at the seven pages at the time hosted by the Climate Science Center and then a number of known pages on Facebook that have a history of spreading mis- and disinformation about climate change, and we just looked, during the two weeks of the summit, what kind of engagement were these respective groups of accounts getting on the platform? And we found at the time that the disinformation and misinformation actors had 12 times, on average, more engagement from users on Facebook, and that's compared to sources that Facebook is actively supposed to be promoting. So, it shows you that just kind of emphasizes the point that mis- and disinformation is constantly outperforming credible, evidence-based, factual content, and that is a structural problem that we need to solve through tech regulation, through a very different philosophy of how we want the Internet to operate and how we want social media to operate. So, that's kind of the bad news.
David 18:19[urgent music] On the point of communicating and how you cut through, is there good news?
Jennie King 18:25 I think that there is tentative good news. One of the avenues that is being explored a lot at the moment is the idea of inoculation, and that is a very similar principle to the idea of getting a vaccine or an immunization, which is that rather than tackling a piece of mis- or disinformation when it's already gone viral and it's hit a critical threshold of exposure amongst the general public, is that you are already preparing people for what they may come across, not only online but also offline, so that when they do, something is triggered in their brain that says, "Oh, maybe I should interrogate this further."[music fades out] It kind of inspires that critical thinking impulse, and you can do that through not only doing crisis communications, and I think that's where people often fall into the trap, is that they're acting too late and then they feel on the back foot. But instead, casting your mind ahead to say, "We are hoping to implement a new form of local policy," or, you know, "We have a big plan for a net-zero transition agenda and we need to do good forms of community outreach that already prepare people for the cynical and potentially falsified attacks that this kind of idea is going to get." And, some of the companies are actually working with the climate sector on those inoculation initiatives, and I would say they're a little bit too early stage to have strong evidence of whether or not they're successful, but broadly speaking, inoculation has yielded some very good results and it has shown that when people come across a very-- sometimes it's called a sticky piece of misinformation – misinformation that is constantly recurring however many times you fact check it or debunk it. A lot of people we speak to are quite overwhelmed because every day there is a new conspiracy, there is a new kind of ridiculous claim circulating online and they constantly feel like they don't have the resources to battle every single new absurd claim, and what I say to them is, "Don't view things always from that narrow content perspective, because you will always be on the back foot, and if you search for anything online, you will find it. What is much more important is to distill the core themes and the kind of connective tissue that runs between all of these conspiracies and pieces of mis- and disinformation." And, actually, those are quite consistent. The things that unite – climate lockdown and the great reset and the discrediting of renewables and pushback on the farming industry, they often come down to these unifying themes of power and agency and people having control over their lives and their future and feeling very disempowered. And, those should be absolutely central to any form of strategic communications that you are trying to do about decarbonization and the future of the net-zero agenda. Mis- and disinformation around climate and the actors that are spreading that kind of content have been incredibly successful at resting the narrative away from scientific expertise and making all of these themes part of the opposition platform, but actually they should be very easy arguments for the climate sector to make. You know, the climate justice agenda is absolutely one of redistributed power and enabling communities to thrive, and actually taking all of the benefits of a net-zero transition through to people's everyday lives in an economic sense, in a public health sense, in a well-being sense, and the kind of tragedy of the current situation for me is that this should be an easy fight for the climate sector, right? All of those kinds of narratives should be ones that climate policy-makers feel very confident in making, and yet, somehow, we've ended up in this very surreal situation where opposing the climate agenda is seen as a way of empowering individuals. And, if you look at the status quo of the carbon economy and the way that societies have run for the past 50 and 60 years with the kind of dependence on fossil fuels, the centralization of power, you know, the way that those financial gains have only benefited such a small sliver of society, it's ridiculous to kind of argue that climate action, as a whole, is not one of justice and of changing those structures. And yet, that communication goal, I think, really has not been achieved and has to be a priority, going forward. And, I would also say, the message here should not be that there is no debate necessary around the net-zero transition, right? There is a lot still to be figured out about the pace of the transition, the nature and scale, how it will manifest within individual communities and countries, [gentle music] and that public dialogue is completely essential in order to build a public mandate and to feel a sense of buy-in, not just from voters, but from all citizens, and for people to really feel motivated and enthusiastic and inspired by that. But, at the moment, we are not able to have any of those absolutely critical public debates because we're sort of stuck in the anti-chamber of conversation in fighting all of these wild and unsubstantiated claims... and that's the problem.[music fades out]
David 24:13 Jennie, we're in a year when something like two-thirds of the world are in elections. There's very significant elections coming up in Europe and, of course, the United States, and there are mayoral elections. Are we seeing any disinformation trends beginning to reveal themselves in this context of the world having a really critical democratic moment in 2024?
Jennie King 24:42 Absolutely, and this really is a pivotal juncture both for democracy and for climate and the way that those two things intersect. What I would say is that the four pillars of climate delayism, as it's referred to, are all going to rise to the fore this year. And, to summarize those, it's really redirecting responsibility, pushing non-transformative solutions, emphasizing the downsides or the so-called downsides of climate action, and claiming that there's nothing that we can do, so, you know, surrender or doomism. I think specific axes of those, one will be around trying to discredit renewable energies or claiming that they don't exist at the scale needed, or that, you know, people are going to freeze in their homes if we rely too much on wind and solar – classic arguments that have been made for years and are being actively pushed by the fossil fuel industry. But then, I also think that those wider ideological claims that we've talked about in this podcast, the idea that climate action, as a whole, regardless of the policy, is somehow a pretext for government tyranny and government overreach – that is going to be extremely common. We've already seen in the US that some of the Republican candidates are kind of going back to climate denialism even, or talking about climate action in those terms. We've also seen a number of parties in the European context anchoring their opposition in this idea that the EU Green Deal is being used to subjugate people. And so, I think that that is likely to be a central part of a lot of election campaigning, and potentially very resonant with the public, because it doesn't actually relate to any specifics or any policy. It kind of sits at a more top-line level in preying on people's genuine fears about their own lives and the future, and how precarious this current moment in time is.
David 26:37[urgent music] Very powerful advice, Jennie King, from an expert about disinformation. This has been a fascinating conversation. I could talk with you forever, I think. Your points are incredibly well-founded and massively helpful. Thank you for taking your time today, but thank you more importantly for the ongoing work to shed a light on some of the dark corners of the Internet and the information that's there. So, thank you very much indeed.
Jennie King 27:07 Thank you for having me.[music continues then ends]
David 27:14[light, driving music] This episode of Cities 1.5 is produced by University of Toronto Press with generous support from the C40 Centre for City Climate Policy and Economy. Want more access to current research on how city leaders are taking 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 toward an equitable and resilient world. The Journal serves as a platform for dynamic content that highlights ambitious, near-term climate action, focusing on human-centred solutions to today's most pressing climate challenges. To read the latest issue, visit JCCPE.utpjournals.press or find the link in the show notes.[rotary dial telephone rings][clicks] Hélène Chartier. I have been working at C40 for seven years. I'm Director of Urban Planning and Design.[receiver chimes, replaced in cradle]
David 28:21 Hélène's team at C40 develops programs and activities that support cities to accelerate sustainable and resilient urban planning policies and design practices. Her team leads the C40 Land Use Planning Network, which supports C40's work stream on 15-minute cities. Through her work, Hélène has had a front-row seat for many of the conspiracy theories and disinformation attacks targeting the 15-minute city policy, as well as the mayors and cities implementing urban planning policies in this area. It's important to note that, historically, many cities, especially in Europe, grew up organically to be 15-minute cities and are currently the envy of many around the world.[music ends] Hélène, welcome to Cities, 1.5.
Hélène Chartier 29:12 Thanks very much for inviting me.
David 29:17 Can you tell our listeners a little bit about your background and your role at C40 and what that role entails?
Hélène Chartier 29:25 I'm an engineer and my role at C40 is really to help cities to advance better, more sustainable event planning policies and design practices. For example, we are working with some cities to help them to institutionalize some of the objectives and actions that we identify in their CAP—in their Climate Action Plan—through the revision of their master plan, for example. The master plan is a very important document for cities because it's a way for the city to concretize some of the objectives they have identified.
David 29:58 I want to start with that connection between a city's climate plan and its master plan. Can you speak, at a high level, what's the importance of a master plan to a city, and what is the connection between the way we plan a city and think about its development and climate change?
Hélène Chartier 30:19 The recent IPCC report mentioned that, if cities adopt better urban planning, they could cut emissions by approximately 25% by 2050. So, really, it's a cost-cutting approach to reduce emissions so, for example, reduce emissions from transport. If you plan well a city, you can reduce the need of a long commute, car dependency, for example, and it also could reduce some emissions from the buildings and create a more climate-resilient environment. For example, the recent master plan of Paris has made it mandatory to integrate some of permeable soil, increase green space in every surface that the city will develop – that a private developer will develop. So, by this type of legally binding legislation, you can really plan the cities and design a city in a way that will be much more climate responsive. And, for us at C40, because we have been working with all of our 100 cities to develop their climate action plan, which is a very important document to set the objective, to identify the action, but now, the key challenge is really how we mainstream, how we go from this vision objective to implementation.
David 31:39 So, that master plan, by thinking about transportation, where we build our buildings, increasing density, contributes not only to building the city of the future; it helps the city's climate action plan become legally binding.
Hélène Chartier 31:58 Exactly, exactly. That's the difference between knowing what we must do, setting the objective and the action. In a city, you have approximately 30% of the land that is public space and 70% of the land that is privately-owned land. So, you need also to make sure to regulate to make sure that what will be developed in this 70% of land is well-designed and and includes some climate-responsive solutions.
David 32:25 There's been a lot of discussion in the media, in urban planning circles, on the Internet about a concept known as the 15-minute city. Can you speak to what that concept is? What does it mean in reality, on the ground, if a city is a 15-minute city? And, how does it relate to the point you're making about the importance of urban planning to climate action?
Hélène Chartier 32:50[driving music] The concept of the 15-minute city is very simple. It says that, in every neighbourhood, everyone should be able to find access to amenities, services, job opportunities, housing options, public transportation, parks, so all of the key ingredients that make city life agreeable and livable, they should be able to reach to this element within a 15-minute city walk or bike from their home. So, it's quite simple as a concept and it's not very new. Let's be totally honest here. There were a lot of urbanists in the'60s—Jane Jacobs, and more recently, Carlos Moreno – who have pushed this vision of cities that is based on proximity, but also where the public space is made for the people. So, public space is the living room of the neighbourhood, a place where people can walk and can meet others and everything, so this is really this vision. But, what is interesting with this, especially discussions around the 15-minute city, is it has really created a global momentum and a discussion on why this is so important to plan well, the cities. I think now, it's pretty clear for everyone that the model of cities that has been mainstream after World War II is not working anymore – not working for the people and it's not working for the planet. When, 70 years ago, the car has been introduced in cities, they have not only transformed our public spaces, so the car takes so much space in the public space, but it has also totally destructured our cities because people didn't need to be close to these amenities.[music fades out]
David 34:35 Perhaps the work that Carlos Moreno and others are doing on the 15-minute city now is revealing economic truths that a city built in a more dense form around walking and cycling can be more economically successful, as well as more environmentally successful.
Hélène Chartier 34:51 I totally agree with that and we see that a lot, for example, in North America, where a lot of North American cities are discussing about how they could reactivate their downtown [chuckles] and how they could diversify downtown. When people are not coming back, how do you transform this type of neighbourhood? And, I think, by creating livable neighbourhoods where there is job opportunities, in the middle of the other functions of the cities, I think it's very important, and a lot of cities are thinking that way now.
David 35:21 At a high level, perhaps for listeners who are still getting accustomed to this idea of the city as a more dense place where people live and work in close proximity, could you just speak about what C40 and what you are doing with the 15-minute city idea and the kinds of policies that a city could undertake to ensure that it grows in this modern way which, in a way, is a traditional way, as well?
Hélène Chartier 35:49 We've already created a task force called the Mayoral Recovery Task Force, where mayors are discussing about how they could recover from major crises, and the 15-minute city concept has been really intensively discussed between the mayors of our organization, and C40 has been the very first organization—early 2022—to endorse this model before it became very famous. So, I think we have been an organization who have really pushed this vision and making the case of better urban planning, a better vision urban model for cities, and I think, in that sense, we have been quite instrumental to accelerate this discussion.[gentle music] And, since then, we have been partnering with some organizations like urban partners like Novo Nordisk and others to create a program which is called Green and Thriving Neighbourhoods where we basically help the cities of our network to adopt this concept and to turn it, a little bit, into a reality. So, we are helping some cities to integrate this vision in their master plan, cities like Bogota for example, who have created a project called Vital Neighbourhoods, which is very interesting and it's really about creating around the school, public spaces that are more bike-friendly, more people-friendly, I would say, so that they are more safe to walk, but also they can play in the public spaces and they are also increasing the number of services, especially recreational services, health services, care services for the children and for the people who take care of the children, who are especially women.[music fades out]
David 37:31 Can you just outline for the listeners how this idea of 15-minute cities, cities built around neighbourhoods where people don't have to own a car and where their everyday daily needs can be met, to work, for education, for childcare, for shopping, and so forth? How does that idea contribute to the necessity, as the IPCC has shown, to halve overall emissions by between 2030 and 2035 and substantially move towards getting off fossil fuels by then?
Hélène Chartier 38:09 We have organized our cities in a way that was car-oriented. So, we basically created the city in a way that people need to use their car to access to these types of amenities to go to their job, to go to commercial areas. By doing this, people didn't win time, but we increased the distance to the different functions of the city. We increased long commutes so we decreased quality of life, but we also increased car dependency and the use of cars, and use of cars is use of fossil fuel and so it's contributing to GHG emissions. So, that's why the IPCC report has made this very strong evaluation and indicating that by adopting land-use planning and urban planning policies, based on the 15-minute city, cities could reduce their emissions by approximately 25% by 2050, which is very, very important. So, basically, it's this car dependency that we want to stop. That doesn't mean people cannot travel across the cities, of course, and C40, we are supporting the development of public transport and others. But this means, if they don't want to, they don't have to.
David 39:22 And are the results popular with the people who are living in the cities, as well?
Hélène Chartier 39:26 I think so. There is a poll which shows that people understand what is a 15-minute city. They can see what is a 15-minute city, and the idea is to create more livability in their own neighbourhood. For example, the Mayor of Paris, has been pushing this idea that she endorsed the 15-minute city. In her campaign for the reelection, she was pushing a lot of the agenda to transform the public spaces, to reduce the space occupied by car and provide more space for people, green spaces, playgrounds, and it was hard. It is a very complicated agenda. She really pushed this vision of the 15-minute city to explain that it was not an anti-car policy. It was a vision she had for the city of Paris and I think the Parisians understood more what she was trying to do and it was, in that sense, I think, very important.
David 40:19 It involves making cities not car dependent so people can shop and work and enjoy libraries and community centres and parks without having to drive. There's an attack on it that it's an attack on cars which, you know, I sort of understand from the political perspective, even though it's a bit absurd. It's providing people an alternative. But, that attack has morphed into some very strange things on the Internet– conspiracies that the city of Oxford wants to keep you in your neighbourhood and things, which are ludicrous but seem to gain a little bit of traction in this right-wing ecosystem and then occasionally get reported out in newspapers and other places that should know better. Can you explore that a bit with us, from your perspective as an advocate for building these denser, more livable, thriving cities that are economically more successful?
Hélène Chartier 41:20 I think, if you look—and there are a lot of studies who have tried to analyze where these attacks came from—if you look, it's very close to the anti-vaccine movement, so very close to the people who were against the vaccination during the COVID and everything, and they create this form of false parallel between the lockdown that we all had to live, and it was hard and violent for everyone during the health crisis, and this 15-minute city concept, and they basically said that the 15-minute city concept was about locking people within their neighbourhood, so they called it "a climate lockdown" so it's not anymore a health lockdown. It's a climate lockdown. And they showed some images that were totally disconnected from the 15-minute city, so they showed some images, for example, from cameras in the cities and ULEZ, all these types of things saying that they are controlling the local residents; they are not allowed to leave their neighbourhood. It's totally nonsense. There is not one city across the world that has done that. What is very problematic and concerning is that, as you mentioned, more recently, we have seen right wing, too, also fuel these conspiracy theories. But, I think it is interesting because there was a poll in the UK, asking people what they think and if they would like to live in a 15-minute neighbourhood, with this proximity to amenities and this specified public space, and I think it was 62% of the British that say that, "This looks like a nice neighbourhood to live in." Oxford, the mayor has received some threats and difficult pushback from this conspiracy theory, but he has been reelected. I think there is a little bit of disconnection between what happens on social media, pushed by a small tight wing, and the reality.
David 43:14[light, percussive music] We've heard this kind of really awful discourse on social media, and as you pointed out, Hélène, it's a minority, but it's loud. So, how do mayors respond to that and minimize the risk of that kind of conversation and kind of disinformation being utilized to block these ideas and ensure that city residents can actually benefit from this strong, neighbourhood-based approach to city building?
Hélène Chartier 43:40 I think it's very important that they show what the local community will win with this type of approach, not only saying that they are trying to develop that to fight climate change or things, but also showing what the local community will benefit from these actions, so showing that by reducing some spaces that are dedicated to cars, they can also create playgrounds, they can create more green space, they can increase the health of the local community and others, and show also some of the local events that could happen. We have seen a lot of very interesting events happening when this type of transformation happens.[music fades out] I also think it's important for them to measure, with a data-driven approach, the impact of that in terms of air pollution, in terms of impacts for the local businesses. We have seen a lot of these transformations of public spaces, for example, that some local businesses were a little bit concerned about this could reduce their economies, their work, but actually it's exactly the opposite that happened. It attracted more footfall and it really helped them to thrive even more. So, showing the full picture of this type and all of the benefits for the children and for the health and for the economy, I think it's very important. So, it's not a fight against cars. A car is a tool. It's a fight for a better local environment for everyone.
David 45:04 There are lots of criticisms about 15-minute cities. Many are bizarre and ludicrous and clearly false, but there is a thread that says, "Great. What you're doing is producing great cities that people want to live in, so that's pushing up the price of housing, it's creating challenges for low-income people, and really what it's doing is creating a place that is so desirable that only some can afford it." Can you speak to that criticism in particular in our cities, thinking about that issue of class and social justice? And how are they addressing it?
Hélène Chartier 45:39 First thing, when we say "complete neighbourhood", it's not just about the mixed-use access to amenities; it's also the mix of people, and that's really something that we push a lot. So, for example, one of the key ingredients of this complete neighbourhood is to have access to housing options. And, for example, we are seeing several cities I could mention—Johannesburg, Paris, and others—who are trying, for example, to have this 25% of social housing, not at the city level but at the neighbourhood level because-- and that's very important that, in every community, in every neighbourhood, you have these different typologies of housing for different social backgrounds, different profiles of families. I think that's very important. The second element, I would say, is that, again, I think what is important is to work on the neighbourhood where they don't have this type of quality of life, and I think it's where we should focus our efforts, and it's where mayors focus their efforts. The idea is not to focus on the city centre or the neighbourhoods that are already 15-minute cities. The idea is to focus on neighbourhoods where there they are underserved, they have no access to amenities and everything, they have none of this quality of public space that is so important for the quality of life. And develop a set of actions to improve the quality of life.
David 47:03 I think that's a really important point. In Toronto's case, we made it a priority for public investments to be invested in neighbourhoods where there was a high correlation between low incomes and a lack of public services. I think those actions are very aligned with what you're speaking to. You're one of the world's leading experts on this issue, plus you have the privilege of seeing this concept across cities in the global north and south. What do you think our cities are going to look like in 10 and 20 and 50 years?
Hélène Chartier 47:34 I hope we are living a turning point. I hope there is an appetite for more livable cities, more livable neighbourhoods. We want people to stay in cities because they love to live in cities.[urgent music] So, my vision is that we will develop this concept and make sure that everyone has access to what makes the life in cities desirable and livable, not only in the wealthy neighborhood or in the city centre, but for everyone in every neighbourhood – in the suburban area, in the peripheral area, as well, where it's really important to develop this concept.
David 48:13 Hélène, I share your optimism. We're in a worrying time, but let's hope you're right and that we can build these cities of the future where everyone has a part to play and everyone can live in a neighbourhood that allows them to thrive. Thank you so much for your time today, for being with us on Cities 1.5, but more importantly for your ongoing work helping cities around the world change in the way their residents want and hope.
Hélène Chartier 48:40 Merci.[music continues then ends]
David 48:47[pensive music] Despite the growing threat that disinformation poses to democracy, if policymakers continue to place community engagement at the heart of their initiatives, progress can be made. Professor Xuemei Bai, one of our guests from earlier this season, had this to say about disinformation...
Xuemei Bai 49:06 More vocal climate scientists, including many women and many of them are my colleagues and friends, they became the subject of vicious attacks on the Internet and some even received death threats. Even if one disagrees with one another, such behaviour of abusing and threatening is really, really unacceptable. People should know this by now, but I think it is important that our political leaders actually voice a clear voice in that, and I think they also need to be very, very careful not to really propel the misinformation and hatred in the society. The general public also has a role to play here, for example, shaping a very strong consensus as a society for which the silent majority probably need to step up a bit and voice their support for scientists who are trying to uncover the truth.
David 49:59[energetic, upbeat music] Well-designed plans can help stave off the most pernicious climate conspiracies, which we must continue to challenge and disprove. In fact, we all have a part to play. We must take responsibility for the information we consume and share by fact-checking, avoiding online echo chambers, challenging dishonest narratives, and countering them with hard science to ensure a prosperous, healthy future for ourselves and for our planet.[music continues then fades out] On the next episode of Cities 1.5, we shine a spotlight on funders who are working to make the green transition the world sorely needs economically viable, all while encouraging national, state, and city governments to foster evidence-based, innovative strategies in tackling climate change. Realdania's Jesper Nygaard and Cléa Daridann from Community Jameel offer vital insights into how organizations can support scientists, humanitarians, technologists, and creatives to understand and address pressing human needs and the challenges of the climate crisis. You won't want to miss it.[Cities 1.5 main theme music] 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. 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 Centre for City Climate Policy and Economy, where I'm also the Managing Director. C40's mission is to help our member cities halve their emissions within a decade, while improving equity, building resilience, and creating the conditions for everyone, everywhere to thrive.[music continues] 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 our executive producers are Peggy Whitfield and Dali Carmichael. Our music is by Lorna Gilfedder. The fight for an equitable and resilient world is closer than you think. To learn more, visit the show's website, linked in the episode notes. See you next time.[main theme music continues then ends]
