Blockading urban sprawl may not be the answer either. Allowing for the same population growth without urbanization might have even more severe environmental consequences, as subsistence farming expands, enmeshing residents in chronic and crippling poverty. If urbanization fails in developing regions, whether in Africa or the Indian subcontinent, the world could see continued migrations to London, Los Angeles and other developed world megacities, suggests physicist Luis Bettencourt of the Sante Fe Institute, who studies urbanization issues. Indeed, Seto and her colleague's modeling suggests that cities in North America will nearly double their real estate by 2030.
The next 20 years or so represent a window of opportunity to learn how to grow. Seto, for her part, suggests more research is needed on "what types of urbanization minimize negative environmental and social impacts and how do they emerge?" Her group plans to continue its work by projecting global density of population—a key metric for minimizing environmental impacts. In addition, the world will need to avoid the kind of infrastructure lock-in—from coal-fired power plants that produce cheap electricity but also pollute to living and working areas separated by vast distances requiring energy-intensive commutes—that has characterized the first century of rapid urbanization. Some estimates suggest that as much as $30 trillion in infrastructure investments will be made to support such urbanization by 2030.
Of course, as Bettencourt observes: "Cities were never formed and have never grown with the objective of saving energy or protecting the environment." Yet, cities often serve that purpose by default. One of the defining features of slums is densely packed inhabitants, and more developed city areas often boast high land values that then encourage tall buildings also densely packed with people and businesses, which further encourage walking or mass transit. "This is how larger cities manage to do more with less," he adds, suggesting that such opportunities should be "consciously and systematically seized as development happens."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentHuh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore urbanization means LESS impact on the environment. Cities across the world know that higher density means less use of water, energy, infrastructure, etc.
Rural people use more resources per capita than those in mega cities.
to geojellyroll - yeah density may be more efficient - except for the fact that the most fertile lands tend to be first overbuilt by urban expansion - viz. Orange County in California - as populations naturally gravitate to relatively flat waterside locations, they increasingly occupy the best arable land, requiring more expensive and risky resource-intensive shipping of food grown in more distant locations, with I submit increasing waste, where the average household nows throws out at least $1kpa worth of wasted food. The trend to urban community gardens is an attempt to re-establish the proximity of home and garden.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead page 2...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisto geojellyroll: Cognitive bias is present here. Yes, larger cities may be more efficient. Efficiency is not the appropriate metric. Higher populations living in larger and larger cities require more energy use to transport food to markets, create much larger problems in dealing with waste, and the like. Building cities requires a long-term investment in resources that is not recycled in short- to medium terms. Pollution endemic to large cities takes its toll on the health of human and animal populations, potentially reducing the quality of life. To use only one measure to evaluate the impact larger and larger cities have is more than misleading; it is almost criminal in the way it confuses those people who are still working on developing their critical thinking skills, with the resulting complacency about negative aspects of change or buy-in to untenable and destructive policies. This is deliberate misdirection. Shame on you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"10 sauropods would have contributed 7.6 tons (6.9 tonnes) of methane every year, researchers end up with more than 550 million tons (500 million tonnes) of methane produced every year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Cows produce 55 to 110 million tons (50 to 100 million tonnes) of methane each year)"
above DiscoveryNews.
So, were does that leave us. No were! We have a lot of poop to go around...
I am wondering how much of these projections into the future have incorporated the ever-present earth anomalies that will ultimately occur in some major and minor size and duration. We have no real way of predicting with much accuracy the asteroid that is headed our way and by the numbers there is at least one if not more on their way. How is our sun going to behave in the future and will we be able to respond with any real viability? Have these unknown variables been factored into this "gigalopolis" projection? What about just plain old human social interaction that could initiate a massive global reduction in population and resources? If we take all of our past history of civilizations growing into oblivion and factor in that potential, will we have our current civilization destroy itself prior to "megalopolis" even being realized? I think that being prepared for some potential future is wise and yet so many variables must factor into this projection into the future that we leave ourselves playing a never ending guessing game. Futuring, as a very new science, is really doing nothing more than some rather sophisticated speculation that must remain open to moment by moment change with regard to the speculated outcome. Just as taking scientific findings regarding carbon, and projecting mankind's ability to create excessive global warming and then finding that we have left so much other factual data out that our projections are flawed in favor of creating wealth rather than health. Something worth pondering with a little more skepticism as I see it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like cheese.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne must ask, what is its footprint?
cities will make great targets for the coming nuclear war.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe probably won't have to wait that long - some avian virus will more likely wipe out all the poor souls crammed into all those little spaces...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot in the poor developing world. Yes in the USA those rural folks with their V8 pick ups and frequent trips to Dairy Queen and the hardware store rack up CO2. Then of course there's the use of HVAC and with the door being opened by the dogs 200 times a day etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut not in the developing world where the growth will be.