China to Build a Zero-Carbon Green City 620
gormanw writes "Just outside Shanghai, there is an island about the size of Manhattan. China is going to build its first-ever 'green city', complete with no gasoline/diesel powered vehicles, 100% renewable energy, green roofs, and recycling everything. The city is called Dongtan and it should house about 5,000 people by the end of 2010, with estimates of 500,000 by 2050. The goal is to build a livable city that is energy efficient, non-polluting, and protects the wildlife in the area."
That would be interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of me says there's a pervasive attitude of "if a little is good, an enormous lot more must be better" when approaching the use of say, pesticides or other chemical intrusions into the local environment.
Classical education doesn't help this attitude much yet, but an excellent and well publicised example community might just make the difference.
Um, Earth to China... (Score:3, Interesting)
coalplants (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd settle for them stopping the construction of coal plants which has made them the largest co2 polluter on the planet.
Re:Good Luck... (Score:5, Interesting)
So basically the solution is to live close to an urban center. Unfortunately, housing is generally prohibitively expensive close to most urban centers (except for the ones that are so far gone with blight that there are no real jobs there anyway).
The American city (especially in the west) is built around personal automobiles. The affordable houses are well outside of walking or biking distance to most of the jobs, and are too chaotically arranged to allow for efficient mass transit.
Individual choice is part of the equation, but sane urban planning is also a big part of it. Cities and counties need to start doing more to encourage high density housing near urban centers and discourage the building of yet more suburbs and exurbs. Unfortunately, most local governments are too far in the pockets of developers to ever enforce strict zoning of that nature. Most of the new development I've seen near urban centers has also tended to be of the million-dollar-condo variety as well, which doesn't do a whole lot to solve the problem either.
A great plan and I hope it works! (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope this project works, because let's face it, an environmental friendly city that functions and coexist with nature is exactly what is required. I find it amazing that we are so worried about money.
Money is really not the issue. If this works, it becomes a goal for any countries' economy. It's idealistic to think this way, I know, but in a way, it's also very practical.
Our economies are skewed right now, our countries don't have any real goals, tangible goals. Building environmentally friendly cities (converting actually), are concrete, positive goals. All will benefit "economically" from such goals.
This is the ultimate job creation idea on a long term basis I would believe!
Yeah, I know, it's sounds simple but anything that gives people work, gives them purpose and makes the money move, which is really what the economy should be about anyways.
"Keep things simple, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein
Image is everything, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey it worked for Toyota -- have more models of SUV than any other car manufacturer on planet, but come out with one "green" car and you're a "green" car company, no matter the 8 independent lines of SUV and largest/least full efficient main-line pickups on the market. Likewise -- produce more polution than any other country on the planet, but come out with one "green" city and you're a "green" country, no matter the literal 50% of population having no access to clean drinking water and #1 cause of death in nation being air pollution.
Credit to the Chinese (Score:3, Interesting)
It makes me wonder if such nationalized industry as China contains might actually be good for massive innovation. Surely no corporation would undertake an initiative like this, especially on this scale, as the profits would be far too long term and unlikely.
Re:OMFG FASHION MELTDOWN (Score:5, Interesting)
If the internet has taught us anything it's that the Infinite Monkeys Corollary is more important than the Infinite Monkeys Theorem. The corollary reminds us that it doesn't matter whether the monkeys turn out Hamlet, because you'll need to read through an infinity of worthless crap before you find it.
Re:Good Luck... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah, but riding a bike to work, if you don't live in an area where it is common, is unusual. You're becoming unusual by trying to be more green than the rest of the population around you. Why would becoming a vegan be different?
For the record, i'm a meat-eater. Just like to present other sides. ;)
Ahh, China... (Score:2, Interesting)
"Dongtan ... is being built on a major wetland site that was formerly used for small-scale agriculture and by migrating water birds." - Wikipedia
The only place where "eco-city" means millions of dead migratory birds...
"Compestation" anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
They've got a lot of bad press for their pollution. So, like any bureaucracy, they come up with an idiotic solution.
"Do we clean up our country?" No. "Well, what do we do?" Ok, we make a big press release, about a city we will do which will be greener than all. "Sweet."
Greensburg, KS to become first US "green city" (Score:3, Interesting)
... ok "green" is sort of ambiguous but oh what the hell. The city of Greensburg, Kansas [greensburgks.org] is attempting to become the first city in the US to meet Platinum LEED certification [wikipedia.org]. What's interesting is that the city was given a chance to become this green city because a huge tornado took out 95% of the city in 2007.
Re:Um, Earth to China... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this might actually be some sort of bizarro prison. You know you get things like 'Arctic Prison Island' or 'Desert Prison Island', this'll be 'Renewable Energy Green Prison Island', from which there is no escape for criminal scum. Because they're justice neutral.
Re:Um, Earth to China... (Score:3, Interesting)
I have an even greener idea for China: How about not building the city at all, and greenify an existing city?
Here's another, halfway between the announcement and your post:
If they're going to build a Green City, how about building it in a valley or plateau, like Beijing? On coastal cities, smog propagates into the ocean, therefore air quality remains fairly decent, so what's the point of building said city on an island?
Let the Chinese government try it where topographical circumstances allow for no leeway and false proclamations of success, where there's no handicap in their favor. If they do it this way, they'll be more likely to truly push technologies and methods of greenifying existing cities. Otherwise, it sounds like yet another propaganda stunt to me, another white elephant in the name of the Party... I mean People (coughs).
Re:Oh my, where is the spirit of building things? (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in the western world, but to believe that there is no corruption or evil in this society is not only naive, it's just pure ignorance. Shows us exactly why western society is rapidly devolving.
Re:"Compestation" anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
You've got to give them credit for trying SOMETHING. Over here, california tries to raise fuel efficiency standards and gets slapped down by the Bush administration. Did they even bother trying to spin that one?
Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the finished product is green or just green by comparison. Put a landfill next to a radioactive waste site and the landfill suddenly looks pretty eco-friendly.
Re:Good Luck... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good Luck... (Score:5, Interesting)
Massive car parks at major commuter hubs are very often a bad idea. They seem good, but they actually serve to reduce public transport use.
If people have to get into their cars to drive, they'll drive the whole way unless that's impossible (e.g. because a million people need to go to the city in the morning). This means that public transport will have much less than its potential return on investment; anyone who's not travelling in the peak direction might as well drive. If you're from Melbourne you might know about the recurrent Doncaster line proposals; although I am an advocate of public transport investment, I hope that never gets build. Instead, a subway should be built to replace the 48 tram (and be extended all the way to Doncaster); in this way, the train stations will always be within walking distance of shops and houses and schools and other places people might want to go and the system will be used all day by people who don't have to use the train, but by the same token don't have to use their car.
Also, if there's a massive car park around the train station, it makes the station feel less safe and less useful. If you've got a ten or twenty minute wait before the train, you might want to go to shops to have something to do. If you've got to cross the car park, you'll be less likely to do this, you'll get bored, and you'll be more reluctant to catch the train next time. The optimum train station design has ground-level access directly to the street and the surrounding shops.
Also-also, car parks are massively expensive. It's basically dead land, no-one makes any money from them and you hope no-one's living in them. And there's not just the space inside the carpark, but the surrounding roads as well. Instead of having space for one hundred cars, you could put relatively dense housing and commercial development (relatively --- compared to the surrounding area, not compared to the whole city). In fact, a lot of stations which current have masses of car parking would be excellent candidates for the distributed CBDs (e.g. Dandenong in Melbourne).
Add in a decent bus or tram system (depending on the area) collecting people. This satisfies the problem of inefficient public transport; it's only inefficient because currently buses are treated as if they're welfare, whereas they should be treated as if they're a service. Instead of having four bus routes in each suburb running once every hour on different back roads so that no-one knows when they have to be where to take a bus, just run one route on the major roads. Make sure they're neat and tidy, and have schools run 10-4 instead of 9-3 to keep students off the buses when business folk are on them (and to improve concentration in the first period). Essentially treat buses like trams that run on liquefied dead creatures instead of petrified ones.
But cars are not the solution to public transport, cars are never a solution to greenhouse gases. If you try to accommodate cars you will end up having more cars.
In other news (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone believe that China will do something that hasn't got anything to do with 'face' anymore?
Re:Good Luck... (Score:1, Interesting)
Good beef is grass-fed, and that is still a large percentage of it.
Umm, McDonald's doesn't serve grass-fed beef, so by definition a large percentage of beef isn't grass-fed. For a more typical picture of how cattle is raised see Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler [nytimes.com].
Quote:
To put the energy-using demand of meat production into easy-to-understand terms, Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan - a Camry, say - to the ultra-efficient Prius.
Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
And:
The world's total meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961. In 2007, it was estimated to be 284 million tons. Per capita consumption has more than doubled over that period. (In the developing world, it rose twice as fast, doubling in the last 20 years.) World meat consumption is expected to double again by 2050, which one expert, Henning Steinfeld of the United Nations, says is resulting in a "relentless growth in livestock production."
Re:Good Luck... (Score:3, Interesting)
Eco-Fascism (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, this goes to show one thing: That democracy as-we-do-it is a dead end and will lead is straight into self-destruction. Evil dictatorship, on the other hand (China hasn't been a pure communist country for years) can get things done.
Face it: The west is in a dead-lock. We want to save the world, but we can't, because our focus on self-interest and "the market will solve it" very efficiently prevents any common-interest solutions. It's the tragedy of the commons all over again, just on a global scale.
The next step, I fear, will be eco-facism. The system can't heal itself because it's dead-locked. Someone will exploit the situation, promise salvation, and take control. By then, only drastic measures will do, so we will accept them, without further debate because there isn't time for debate. Welcome to facism (again, for some).
Re:Good Luck... (Score:3, Interesting)
Cities are unsustainable. Not farms.
Don't be idiotic. If we want to support a growing human population, cities are the only way we can achieve it. The concentration of human life means food, water, electricity, and other resources, don't need to be distributed across large geographic ranges, which means *less* energy consumption. Plus, having people closer to their places of work, school, etc, means people themselves travel less, which also means less consumption.
As proof, look up the stats on Manhattan. You may be shocked to discover that, *gasp*, per capita it's one of the most energy efficient places in the world. No, the real inefficiencies are in the ridiculous suburban and ex-urban cultures of the United States, which represent the epitome of selfish, inefficient lifestyles.
Re:Good Luck... (Score:4, Interesting)
I have no doubt that many will consider me despicable, but I have a feeling that I am not alone in saying that I will not give up meat voluntarily.
It must either be priced out beyond the reach of my disposable income or an alternative must be proposed that is tastier or cheaper than the meat we have right now. Perhaps vat grown meat, perhaps soy meat(It's quite tasty, but not easy to come by). In any case, I will eat meat.
I believe I am not alone in this because wishful thinking only goes so far in changing behavior. Sure we don't need laws if everbody is willing to act properly, but the simple fact is that many people don't behave unless you make it the best strategy. People can cut gas consumption, it's obvious that we can because we already have during the recent gas price jump. The world didn't end. Why didn't we do it earlier? Because the high price wasn't there to force us to use less gas. Republicans want to open up artic drilling as if that was a good thing, but really, our best insurance against Peak Oil is moderately high oil prices to drive alternative energy investment. Talking about it isn't enough, people need to feel pressure in their practical day-to-day lives.
A smug sense of self-righteousness might be a satisfactory replacement for a steak to some people, but not for me. I'll just eat my steak and be happy. If you want people like me to stop, it must be taken from me.
No justification here, I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.