If most of us are going to live in an urban environment, we need to ask: what makes a city

sustainable? And the answer I will give is in two parts. The first is that such a city must be green.
Green in the literal sense, where parks, public places and open areas are combined into a single
whole. But also green in the sense that its economic impact on the environment and its ecological
footprint are limited. The second aspect of a sustainable city is that it must be viable. Why
viable? Because in the era of the Anthropocene, in the era of planetary boundaries, whether we
like it or not, we will experience more upheaval as a result of man-made climate change. Know
that many blows will fall on the cities. If cities are located on the coasts, and sea levels are rising,
then the threat of storm waves, stronger cyclones and other disasters and emergencies is
inevitable. And therefore, cities must be prepared for such emergencies. Not only to unexpected
disasters, but, rather, even to known threats. You need to be carefully prepared for the
predictable and unpredictable. So what makes a city resilient? Let's note a few important points
that need to be considered. First, let's look at the power supply system. Is the city a major source
of greenhouse gas emissions? Yes, especially through energy use, but also through waste dumps
that emit methane, problematic industrial processes that emit nitrogen oxide. Or the city could be
energy efficient and based on a clean, low-carbon energy system. What about transport? Cities
are places of congestion, smog, long waits, traffic jams and, of course, huge carbon dioxide
emissions from all those internal combustion engines burning gasoline and diesel. But cities can
also be places of highly efficient transport through well-designed integration of pedestrian zones,
bicycle zones, and various modes of public transport, thus taking much of the burden off cars.
Thus, the proper organization of urban transport is a decisive factor in the sustainability of the
city. The city's infrastructure, its water and sewerage services, waste management, ability to
recycle industrial waste and control industrial pollution are major factors in the city's
sustainability. As a city, effectively planning and preparing for the future is critical. Not the
energy system, not the transport system, not waste management, not recycling, not green open
spaces, not disaster resilience, etc. will not take care of themselves and will not solve themselves
with the help of a market economy. Certainly not with the help of a market economy left to the
mercy of fate. Urban vitality and efficiency, as well as a reduced ecological footprint and limited
impact on the natural environment, are essential aspects of city life that require planning. What
constitutes an unsustainable city? For starters, it is vulnerable to emergencies of various kinds.
Again, it may seem that emergencies arise out of nowhere, but in fact it is possible to calculate, if
not the exact time of their occurrence, then at least their probability. Cyclones, droughts,
earthquakes, floods, storm surges, landslides, and in some cities even volcanoes threaten lives,
livelihoods, and economies. And mitigating those threats, anticipating risks, making cities more
resilient, more able to withstand such shocks, is certainly a fundamental part of resilience and a
fundamental signal of unsustainability when these measures are not taken. Air and water
pollution, which unfortunately plagues dozens of Chinese cities after 30 years of rapid industrial
growth, and lack of attention to the effects of pollution, is causing many cities to become
dangerous for their populations. The air people breathe and the water they drink can significantly
shorten their life expectancy. Cities are unsustainable when the water supply is not properly
prepared. Every city in the world must do a great job of forecasting water needs and ensuring
proper water, sanitation and waste management. And there are so many ways that you can do
this, and I want to show you how it's done in New York because New York does a great job of
supplying a population of over 8 million people and a much larger metropolitan area. Thanks to
quality planning, the water here is safe and the price is relatively low. Cities are unsustainable
when they are unproductive due to people spending long hours in traffic every day, breathing
polluted air, losing productivity. Poor health and social inequality deprive a huge part of the
population of participation in the city's economy, which hinders its productivity. Also, cities are
unsustainable when their populations suffer from massive increases in disability. When the
obesity epidemic from unsafe food is combined with a sedentary lifestyle, lack of places to walk,
bike, and exercise, people start getting sick. Many of them receive disabled status. Because of
this, they lose their jobs and, of course, suffer from serious obstacles to well-being. So these are
the main options for urban development, and we know a lot about what determines whether a
city has a high or low environmental impact. It doesn't matter whether a city's CO2 emissions per
capita are high or low. It does not matter whether the city functions in a way that ensures the
economic productivity of the population. Let me focus for a few minutes on one key factor that
characterizes cities: population density. Densely populated cities, if properly managed, can be
economically developed and have lower greenhouse gas emissions than settlements with lower
population densities. This may seem surprising. High density means that a large number of
people are concentrated in one area, but it also means the possibility of a more efficient transport
system, the ability to locate objects within walking distance. And thus, places with high
population densities tend to have lower environmental impacts, especially lower per capita
greenhouse gas emissions. Let me tell you about your city, New York, as an example. If we take
into account the entire urban area, the entire metropolitan area, it is the most densely populated
urban area in the United States, with a population density of about 33,000 people per square
mile. Compare this figure, for example, with Los Angeles, where the population density is
12,000 people per square meter. mile. A huge difference is obvious - about 3 times. And it is not
surprising that Los Angeles is a city of cars, and New York is not. Population density makes this
difference. Other US cities, Atlanta for example, which is truly a city of cars, has a population
density of only one fifteenth that of New York - about 2,000 people per square mile. Of course,
these comparisons largely depend on where the city's boundaries are drawn. I don't want to
overstate the accuracy of the comparison, but I would emphasize that differences in population
density make a huge difference in how people move through urban areas, and therefore how they
affect the environment. Let's take a look at New York City, for example, at the amount of travel
between two points done on foot. It is estimated that in New York City, about 36% of all
movements are made by public transport or on foot. People either take the bus, the metro, or
walk. Compare this to a “motorized” city, say Atlanta or Los Angeles. In Los Angeles, instead of
36%, this figure is only 8%. People get to most places by car. In Atlanta, about 5% of travel is by
public transport or on foot. In more detail, this pie chart shows how New Yorkers commute to
work. Pretty interesting. More than 40% of people get to work by metro or rail, the other 12% by
bus. Only 28% of the population use cars. 23% travel alone, and 5% travel with someone. This is
quite unusual. In fact, one might say that this is a unique or almost unique case among American
cities. It is a joy for me to live in Manhattan - in this densely populated area. I get great pleasure
from walking to work, walking to the UN building, walking to the university. And walk through
all the shops in the area without ever getting into the car. My joy is that I don't have a car. When
I lived in the Boston suburbs, we traveled everywhere by car. In New York, because of the much
higher density, I'm very happy, believe me, to be able to walk to work. Not everyone can afford
such pleasure. But not having a car is the fate of a much larger share of New Yorkers than
residents of other US cities. And the result of all this is that New York is much more carbon-
friendly than the rest of the country. In other words, New York's impact on human-caused
climate change is something New York can be proud of in relative terms. In the US, the average
American emits about 20 tons of CO2 per person per year. In New York, this figure is about a
third of the average, about 6 tons of CO2 per capita. In this chart, you can see that New York has
one of the lowest emissions of any American city. People use energy-efficient subways or
energy-efficient buses, or walk. Nowadays, the number of cyclists is also growing. And as a
result of all this, emissions from the transport sector are very, very low. Due to the high
population density, emissions from buildings are also quite low. his is because the houses are
built in a line, next to each other, forming townhouses, as they are called in New York, rather
than standing alone. They have less surface area to radiate heat. They make it easier to maintain
the temperature in winter. And they are better insulated simply by virtue of their location in the
dense rows of houses that characterize New York. This is another reason for the very low
emissions per capita. On the contrary, urbanization as it currently occurs opens up new
possibilities if cities are smart about the energy and transport networks they create. And in
matters of zoning, which leads to high-density settlements, where people live close to the shops
and other amenities they need. Such urbanization offers a real chance of reducing our ecological
footprint and achieving levels of carbon emissions per person that are better suited to the needs
of the planet if we are to prevent even worse climate change. In order to get the best from cities
that they have to offer in terms of reducing their environmental footprint, combined with high
productivity, ease of travel and little congestion, with low time wasted in traffic jams and other
inconveniences, we must consider how cities how infrastructure is invested and how decisions
are made. This is our next topic.