Global Courant
Oslo is the fourth best municipality in Norway in terms of climate and environment. The capital is performing well in a rating by consultancy firm PWC.
Published: Published:Straight away
Copy linkCopy linkShare on FacebookShare on FacebookShare via emailShare via email“Think globally, act locally!”
This has long been both a message and a slogan in climate policy. In the Sustainability 356 report, consultancy firm PWC investigated the state of local action in the field of climate and the environment.
With traffic, pollution, light in millions of windows and emissions of all kinds, you might expect Oslo to end up far down the list.
That’s not how it is.
Oslo comes in fourth place. Only Rauma, Bokn and Molde come above the largest municipality in Norway.
In Oslo people live close to each other. The number of inhabitants per square kilometer is more than twice as high as in the next densest municipality. The car is an asset and there is a good basis for public transport. People in apartment buildings use less electricity than people living in detached houses.
All this is good for the environment and the climate.
Oslo always does well
PWC looked at 16 indicators (see fact boxes) within the environment and climate for each municipality. They are derived from the UN sustainability goals.
The 16 are divided into three sub-areas: environmental health, energy consumption and climate and environmental change.
There are gaps in the data material as official data is missing for several municipalities, but PWC has sufficient data to rank 269 of Norway’s 356 municipalities within the sub-areas.
This is how Oslo does it:
Rank 90 of 309 municipalities with data within the concept of environmental health. Keywords are air quality, water, waste and green transport.11th place out of 346 municipalities in the use of electricity and energy. This is the energy consumption per household and energy consumption per square meter in municipal buildings.15th place out of 336 municipalities in the field of environment and climate change. Keywords are emission reductions, municipal planning and land use.The combination is enough to assert themselves at the top.
Climate and environment in municipalities
PWC has obtained or produced figures for 16 environmental and climate indicators for each of Norway’s 356 municipalities. These indicators cover three sub-areas:
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH:
The concentration of particulate matter in the air. Beiarn and Kåfjord are the best, Porsgrunn is the worst. Source: Norwegian Institute of Public Health (FHI). Andel has renovated the municipal water network over the past three years. Utsira is the best, 69 municipalities indicate that they have not renewed anything. Source: Statistics Norway (SSB).The part of the water supply that leaks. Tolga is the best, Eidskog is the worst. Source: Statistics Norway.Estimated household water consumption per inhabitant. Nærøysund uses the least, Fjord the most. Source: Statistics Norway. Share of household waste offered for recycling. Sandefjord is the best, three municipalities have zero. Source: Statistics Norway. Household waste in kilograms per inhabitant. Flesberg has the least, Røst the most. Source: Statistics Norway.Hazardous waste supplied in kilograms per inhabitant. There are 10 municipalities on the list with zero, Nordre Land supplies the most. Source: Statistics Norway.Share of municipal roads adapted for cyclists. Randaberg and Kvitsøy have the most, 31 municipalities have zero. Source: Statistics Norway.Share of zero-emission vehicles. Askøy has the highest, Gamvik has the lowest. Source: Statistics Norway.ENERGY:
Power consumption per household. Oslo uses the least, Bindal uses the most, Source: Statistics Norway.Energy consumption per square meter in municipal buildings. Frogn uses the least (except for three extremely low municipalities), Karlsøy the most. Source: Statistics Norway.CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES:
Climate adaptation in municipal planning. Ranked 0–3, with 3 being the best and meaning “to a large extent”. Source: Directorate of Safety and Emergency Preparedness (DSB)Change in CO₂ equivalent emissions 2020–2021 in percentages. 267 municipalities have increased emissions, 89 municipalities have unchanged or reduced emissions. Source: Norwegian Environment Agency.Risk and vulnerability analysis (ROS) carried out for serious natural events in municipal planning. Ranked 0–2, with 2 being best and meaning “2019 or later”. Source: DSB.Change in undeveloped area 2022 −2023. Hadsel has decreased the most, Flekkefjord increased the most (apart from one extreme observation). Source: Statistics Norway. Share of protected land area. Zero is given for Masfjorden and Kåfjord, Lesja has the highest percentage. Source: Statistics Norway.Figures for the various variables come from the last year available in the statistics. There are gaps in the data material because there are not public data for all sixteen indicators for all municipalities. That is why a number of municipalities are missing.
Source: PWC.
view moreThe great ones spread out
Oslo is not at the top in any of the three areas, but does so well overall that it takes fourth place. It is the air quality in Oslo that is dragging the country down.
By comparison, the winning municipality of Rauma in Møre og Romsdal is considerably more spread out. It is at the top of the environment and climate change sub-area, but ends far at the bottom of the list when it comes to the energy use sub-area.
However, it is not the case that big is always good for the climate and the environment. Norway’s ten largest municipalities are spread out in the rankings. Five of them place themselves in the top 50. Bærum follows Oslo as one of the largest.
The remaining five of the ten are roughly divided between places 100–200.
– So the picture is not clear in our ranking. But if the large municipalities accelerate the green shift, it will mean a lot for the environment and climate, says partner Geir Are Nyeng of PWC. He leads the company’s work with the municipal sector.
The method
All indicators are measurable quantities. For some of these, the municipalities are rated good or bad and numbered on a scale. All basic figures come from Statistics Norway (SSB) or other public sources.The starting point is the best and worst value for each indicator in each municipality. The distance above and below gives each municipality a value for the indicator. Each indicator is then weighted together by PWC. The value of the general indicator indicates the position in the ranking of all municipalities of the country. view moreStricter requirements for large
Nyeng says it is time to distinguish between small and large municipalities in local work on the environment and climate.
– With the greatest challenge of our time, the state must impose higher demands on the large municipalities than on the small ones. They have the resources and expertise, most people live here and this is where the measures will have the greatest effect, he says.
Some indicators simply reflect characteristics of municipalities or parts of the country. A municipality with a large cornerstone company in the industry will generally do poorly in emissions and air quality. The municipality can do little about it.
Nyeng gives another example: it makes little sense to have cycle paths everywhere in a municipality with few inhabitants and long distances. It is therefore possible that such a municipality poorly regulates bicycle facilities.
– Many climate and environmental measures make the most sense in large municipalities with densely built-up areas. That’s why we need to concentrate our resources and efforts here, Nyeng says.
Large specimens have bad air
None of the very largest municipalities reach the top in the field of environmental health. Of the cities of a certain size, Bodø is the best. Utsira is the smallest municipality in Norway and tops this list. Small district municipalities have better air than cities.
But the big ones are better at sorting waste and arranging environmentally friendly transport.
In general, large municipalities score well in keeping energy consumption low. There are also regional differences. It is colder in the north than in the south.
– But this only partly explains the high consumption in the north, he says.
In Oslo people live close to each other. It is good for the climate and the environment. –E24
World News,Next Big Thing in Public Knowledg
#Oslo #people #live #close #good #climate #environment #E24
