Cities are where all the action is! Whether it be jobs or amenities or 'development' cities take the big piece of the cake. Naturally, city-seekers are on the rise.
In a rapidly urbanizing there will be 8 bn people living in cities by mid-century. There are 171 cities in China that currently have more than 1 million inhabitants, and that number is expected to rise to 219 by 2025. Where will all the energy needed for this number come from??
How can cities be sutainable? Do terrace gardens and lush lawns make for 'green cities'? Not unless there is more than meets the eye.
At TED's annual meet, it was Alex Steffen who touched upon how cities can become sustainable, and not 'steal from the future, to sell in the present and call it GDP!"
Evey city, he said, is an opportunity to look at ways in which to reduce emissions and live sustainably. It could be in dense communitues that share spaces and ensure surplus capacities of gadgets and services. It could be as simple as Passivhaus effects achieved by using the wind to cool or the sun shine to heat a room!
Energy use can drop as much as 90 pc!
There already are examples of this new thinking set in action. Since 1998, Bogotá, Colombia has built more than 300 kilometers of protected bikeways. While in Belgium,a public-private consortium consisting of Belgian rail management company Infrabel and solar developer Enfinity has installed 16,000 solar panels on the roof of a 3.4 km (2.1 miles) long tunnel between Antwerp and the Dutch border, creating enough electricity to power 4,000 trains a year. Electricity becomes 30 percent cheaper for the user!
Often, as we have been saying, simple solutions abound. We just need to pop them out of our heads. It shouldn't need more global warming to pop them out!
Showing posts with label sustainable cities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainable cities. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
The major culprits are big nations
When researchers looked at cities in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, they found low
emissions per person across the board. "This paper reminds us that it is the world's wealthiest cities and their wealthiest inhabitants that cause unsustainable levels of greenhouse gas emissions, not cities in general," said editor David Satterthwaite, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development.
Most cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have low emissions per person. The challenge for them is to keep these emissions low even as their wealth grows.
Researchers examined data from 100 cities in 33 nations for clues about which were the biggest polluters and why, according to the report in the peer-reviewed journal Environment and Urbanization.
While cities across the world were to blame for around 71 percent of the world's
greenhouse-gas emissions, urban dwellers who can use public transportation rather than drive helped to lower per capita emissions in some cities.
For instance, the sprawling western U.S. city of Denver's per capita emissions were nearly double those in New York City, home to 8 million inhabitants and a heavily used subway system. This is mainly attributable to New York's greater density and much lower reliance on the automobile for commuting.
Time for thought.
emissions per person across the board. "This paper reminds us that it is the world's wealthiest cities and their wealthiest inhabitants that cause unsustainable levels of greenhouse gas emissions, not cities in general," said editor David Satterthwaite, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development.
Most cities in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have low emissions per person. The challenge for them is to keep these emissions low even as their wealth grows.
Researchers examined data from 100 cities in 33 nations for clues about which were the biggest polluters and why, according to the report in the peer-reviewed journal Environment and Urbanization.
While cities across the world were to blame for around 71 percent of the world's
greenhouse-gas emissions, urban dwellers who can use public transportation rather than drive helped to lower per capita emissions in some cities.
For instance, the sprawling western U.S. city of Denver's per capita emissions were nearly double those in New York City, home to 8 million inhabitants and a heavily used subway system. This is mainly attributable to New York's greater density and much lower reliance on the automobile for commuting.
Time for thought.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
1.2 bn and still counting - the vehicles!
Spare a moment to think this - where are our cities headed to in the coming decades? Especially in the context of transportation needs.
Urban areas already account for about two-thirds of world energy use, and they'll hit 73 percent by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. The cities of the future will be bigger, and there will be more of them.
According to the United Nations, there were 21 "megacities" in 2009 -- urban agglomerations whose population exceeds 10 million. By 2025, there will be 29 -- and they'll hold one-tenth of humanity. Unless someone guides cities' development, they could lock in a high-carbon infrastructure that makes it far tougher to fight climate change.
A big chunk of this carbon will come from transportation and its infrastructure needs. In 2010, the world holds some 1.2 billion cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles.
A think-tank, Forum for the Future, recently released "Megacities on the Move," a thought exercise about where the world's cities are headed -- toward infinite sprawl and traffic, or hyper-computerized commutes marching by each other in a synchronized flow? Will they adjust by cutting carbon and pollution, or could these become permanent scourges of urban life?
Will it be Sprawlville where the personal car triumphs, at the cost of gridlock? Or Planned-opolis where computerized lives reign supreme? Or the low carbon Renewabad, where public transit takes over, or Communi-city where neighbourhoods become independent centres of innovation?
Interesting scenarios are examined. What will work may not be exactly what is pleasant, especially if we compare cities as they are now. At least model cities! For sure, the world of tomorrow will be very different. But unless we wish for chaos, and irreversible climate scenarios, it is time we started planning for sustainable cities. Not simply looking at managing the vehicles!
Urban areas already account for about two-thirds of world energy use, and they'll hit 73 percent by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. The cities of the future will be bigger, and there will be more of them.
According to the United Nations, there were 21 "megacities" in 2009 -- urban agglomerations whose population exceeds 10 million. By 2025, there will be 29 -- and they'll hold one-tenth of humanity. Unless someone guides cities' development, they could lock in a high-carbon infrastructure that makes it far tougher to fight climate change.
A big chunk of this carbon will come from transportation and its infrastructure needs. In 2010, the world holds some 1.2 billion cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles.
A think-tank, Forum for the Future, recently released "Megacities on the Move," a thought exercise about where the world's cities are headed -- toward infinite sprawl and traffic, or hyper-computerized commutes marching by each other in a synchronized flow? Will they adjust by cutting carbon and pollution, or could these become permanent scourges of urban life?
Will it be Sprawlville where the personal car triumphs, at the cost of gridlock? Or Planned-opolis where computerized lives reign supreme? Or the low carbon Renewabad, where public transit takes over, or Communi-city where neighbourhoods become independent centres of innovation?
Interesting scenarios are examined. What will work may not be exactly what is pleasant, especially if we compare cities as they are now. At least model cities! For sure, the world of tomorrow will be very different. But unless we wish for chaos, and irreversible climate scenarios, it is time we started planning for sustainable cities. Not simply looking at managing the vehicles!
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Cities - for people or for vehicles?
Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute has some ideas for transforming our cities from traffic-laden, polluted regions to sustainable places.
Every city has been adding people by ten-fold in less than a decade. Quality of living naturally suffers. In many cities of the developing world, 'the air is so polluted that breathing is equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day'. Jam-packed streets mean commuters spend hours sitting in traffic-congested streets, raising stress levels. Conservative estimates say that traffic congestion in and around New York city costs the region more than $13 billion a year in lost time and productivity, wasted fuel, and lost business revenue.
How many of our cities can do what Bogota did under mayor Enrique Peñalosa? 'Under his leadership, the city created or renovated 1,200 parks, introduced a highly successful bus-based rapid transit system, built hundreds of kilometers of bicycle paths and pedestrian streets, reduced rush hour traffic by 40 percent, planted 100,000 trees, and involved local citizens directly in the improvement of their neighborhoods. In doing this, he created a sense of civic pride among the city’s 8 million residents, making the streets of Bogotá in this strife-torn country safer than those in Washington, D.C.'
'When 95 percent of a city’s workers depend on cars for commuting, as in Atlanta, Georgia, the city is in trouble. By contrast, in Amsterdam 35 percent of all residents bike or walk to work, while one fourth use public transit and 40 percent drive... Even though these European cities are older, often with narrow streets, they have far less congestion than Atlanta.'
Brown suggests some ways like imposing parking fees, encouraging cycling, etc to curb the traffic, while also talking of developing new cities from the scratch instead of straining the existing ones. Cities need to be redesigned for people rather than for vehicles, notes Brown.
Time our city planners took note when hacking trees and widening roads for vehicles. For instance, we need around 20 trees per eprson for oxygen needs. We have right now around 40, and that number is drastically falling!
Every city has been adding people by ten-fold in less than a decade. Quality of living naturally suffers. In many cities of the developing world, 'the air is so polluted that breathing is equivalent to smoking two packs of cigarettes a day'. Jam-packed streets mean commuters spend hours sitting in traffic-congested streets, raising stress levels. Conservative estimates say that traffic congestion in and around New York city costs the region more than $13 billion a year in lost time and productivity, wasted fuel, and lost business revenue.
How many of our cities can do what Bogota did under mayor Enrique Peñalosa? 'Under his leadership, the city created or renovated 1,200 parks, introduced a highly successful bus-based rapid transit system, built hundreds of kilometers of bicycle paths and pedestrian streets, reduced rush hour traffic by 40 percent, planted 100,000 trees, and involved local citizens directly in the improvement of their neighborhoods. In doing this, he created a sense of civic pride among the city’s 8 million residents, making the streets of Bogotá in this strife-torn country safer than those in Washington, D.C.'
'When 95 percent of a city’s workers depend on cars for commuting, as in Atlanta, Georgia, the city is in trouble. By contrast, in Amsterdam 35 percent of all residents bike or walk to work, while one fourth use public transit and 40 percent drive... Even though these European cities are older, often with narrow streets, they have far less congestion than Atlanta.'
Brown suggests some ways like imposing parking fees, encouraging cycling, etc to curb the traffic, while also talking of developing new cities from the scratch instead of straining the existing ones. Cities need to be redesigned for people rather than for vehicles, notes Brown.
Time our city planners took note when hacking trees and widening roads for vehicles. For instance, we need around 20 trees per eprson for oxygen needs. We have right now around 40, and that number is drastically falling!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
