[Graeme]

How to Achieve Ambitious Sustainability Goals at the City Level

Have you ever wondered about how sustainability plans develop within local government? Michael Freedman-Schnapp, director of the New York City Council’s Policy & Innovation Division, recently spoke with students about this topic at a Sustainable Development Speaker Series event. Freedman-Schnapp guided undergraduate and graduate students through the city’s various plans to achieve its ambitious sustainable development goal. He explained how strategic planning plays a critical role in ensuring the success of a city’s sustainability efforts, and how, thanks in part to the replacement of coal-based power plants with natural gas-based ones, a 19 percent reduction in carbon emissions has been achieved. This accomplishment is well ahead of the previous goal to reach a 30 percent reduction by 2030. The goal has been updated to an 80 percent reduction by 2050.

Freedman-Schnapp talked about an energy efficiency component of PlaNYC—called “Greener, Greater Buildings“—which has helped the city to proactively identify energy waste in its existing structures, many of which are unique to New York City. “We have a whole bunch of buildings that just don’t exist elsewhere, some with a million square feet of space, including lots of high density residential buildings,” Freedman-Schnapp said.

He also discussed some of the strategies that can help to mitigate climate change impacts at the local level, but explained that action must also be taken on a global scale. Some examples of actions that can be taken on the local level include redefining land use, updating building codes to include more adequate insulation factors, refurbishing windows, etc. Since transportation is an important sustainability driver, particularly in cities, encouraging biking and mass transit use can also generate a positive environmental impact. Focusing on strategies at the local level means municipalities can address issues that otherwise wouldn’t be addressed at the state or federal level.

ecowatch

[dohboi]

"City-based agriculture produces 15 to 20 percent of food globally. In the U.S., its benefits go far beyond nutrition."

I was surprised to hear that it was this high.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015- ... ally-yield

[Keith_McClary]

Megacity study shows energy and resource use for largest urban areas
Apr 28, 2015

as of 2010, 6.7 percent of all human beings lived in a megacity
...
Among their findings was that megacities produce approximately 15 percent of the world's GDP, 13 percent of the world's trash and consume 10 percent of the gasoline that is produced. These numbers suggest that megacities, on average, are not quite as efficient as some have espoused, considering the still relatively small slice of people that live in them. The data also shows the reason for some of the inefficiency, people commuting to work was but one example. Not surprisingly, the researchers found vast differences between megacities in developed countries versus those in less developed places, particularly those in third world countries. Some of the numbers actually showed some third world megacities as being more efficient, but a closer look revealed that it was most often the result of fewer people having access to resources, such as electricity.
The team also found that electrical energy use in megacities was strongly correlated with building floor space—other correlations were revealed as well, such as heating and other fuel use, energy used to move ground vehicles, water and waste, economic activity and of course population growth—many are growing at a very rapid pace; fortunately, for the people living in most of them, GDP was growing even faster.

[Rod_Cloutier]

Every time I watch my favorite Russian dash cam show of Russian car accidents I remember that even though the USSR collapsed there was still a recovery and life went on occurring. You can see in the Russian video's all the old Soviet era apartment buildings everywhere, still in use, along side newer Western style buildings.

https://youtu.be/epDTdduJbF8

Cities survive an economic collapse even if the people don't. Capital infrastructure declines, it doesn't just disappear. There's always more hope in a city than having a gun and roaming around by yourself living in a shack in the woods. Even if the economy totally collapsed cities still have scavenging potential should you personally survive the event.

[Tanada]

Repent says, "Cities survive an economic collapse even if the people don't. Capital infrastructure declines, it doesn't just disappear. "

Much of that infrastructure capital (steel, copper, concrete chips, glass, wood) may be re-used and re-purposed. A lot of energy from petroleum, coal etc. went into mining and refining the minerals and ores. That is not lost, just slightly reduced. Things are not so bad.

Clearly you have never been through Detroit.

[onlooker]

In fact in some of the rich countries is not their a movement to relocate back to cities. It does seem so. Less transportation expenses, more healthy lifestyle ie. walking, biking etc. Also suburbs themselves are becoming less attractive as people realize they are not sustainable in the long or even short term. This has to do also with the sizes of dwellings being so big and draining in terms of energy expenses. Finally, I think some people get bored with the long commute. James Howard Kunstler has some insights into this topic.

[Tanada]

Repent says, "Cities survive an economic collapse even if the people don't. Capital infrastructure declines, it doesn't just disappear. "

Much of that infrastructure capital (steel, copper, concrete chips, glass, wood) may be re-used and re-purposed. A lot of energy from petroleum, coal etc. went into mining and refining the minerals and ores. That is not lost, just slightly reduced. Things are not so bad.

Clearly you have never been through Detroit.

Part of the reason our inner cities deteriorated is we had somewhere else to go. You know . . . white flight and all that. All you had to do was build a brand-new suburb and so there was little reason to take care of the old stuff. I see that attitude changing as energy and materials become more dear.

It is not 'inner city' Detroit that decayed, the whole things crumbled. There are hundreds of square blocks of housing no different that the surrounding suburbs in age or home quality that were abandoned by the residents. There are scores of factories and businesses close to the city center in the same condition. White flight is an excuse and an epithet thrown at the people of all races who chose to leave rather than vote for better leadership.

A lot of the people who left Detroit didn't go to the surrounding suburbs, the population of the state has barely budged in the last 40 years. The population didn't stabilize because everyone started practicing sound birth control either. During the 1970's and beyond a large percentage of the children reaching adulthood moved to California, Arizona, Nevada. They didn't go to the 'right to work south' they went to the desert where they could earn great pay for doing skilled work. Companies like GM/Ford/Chrysler lead the way by moving factories to where they had incentives to build and away from places where disincentives ruled the day. Toyota and Honda both looked at Detroit for their first American built factories but they put their operations in Ohio and Tennessee because those states held the door open and welcomed them with open arms. Ohio and Indiana are both doing much better that Michigan and Illinois and it is not because of the climate weather wise, it is because of the climate politically for the citizens and businesses they work at.

There was an old saying I used to hear from time to time in Michigan, If it isn't Compulsory, it is forbidden. In other words if you exceed the rules and innovate you get slapped down for making waves. State laws and regulations have become a nightmare of internal contradictions, many times if you comply with regulation A from one agency you get fined by a different agency for violating regulation B in the process. This leads to hundreds of office hours needed to make sure you navigate your way through the red tape before you can put any plan into action. In the mean time progress is slowed to a snails pace, if it progresses at all.

[Newfie]

The thing that annoys me about this thread is that it sort of assumes one answer for all cities and that answer will not change.

Earths human population is going through a maturation process. As it evolves, and it will evolve very unevenly, things will change for the Bette and work, here and there. The problems and issues will change along with human attitudes and reactions. Each location and population will have to find the best answer foor that current moment and constantly recalculate to stay in the swee spot.

There is NO RIGHT answer. The best you can hope to do is to be able to adjust adequately and in the correct manner. Life will become more like a video game. Constantly evolving challenges always requiring new solutions. Or you die. Game over.

[Graeme]

Singapore: Concrete jungle or greenest city?

It's a small, dense, island nation where 100% of the population is urbanized.

And yet, the city-state of Singapore is the greenest city in Asia, according to the Green City Index, and arguably has few competitors in the rest of the world.

As Singapore's population and economy grew, so did its green cover: it was about 36% in the 1980s and it now stands at 47%, according to the Center for Liveable cities.

And while the word "green" can take on a variety of connotations, Singapore appears to encompass them all -- lush environments, renewable energy and future sustainability.

"We take steps to ensure our self-sufficiency," says Yvonne Soh, General Manager of the Singapore Green Buildings Council. "In Singapore we have a lot of initiatives to promote sustainability."

That's crucial, as the city-state lacks any form of natural resource. Half of the nation's water supplies are imported from neighbouring Malaysia, with the rest sourced from desalinization plants, efficient catchment of rainwater and recycling of sewage.

Fuel is also imported to meet energy needs, making alternative energy a national priority.

But greenery in the literal sense is also prioritized.

"If you build a new development, you have to replace the same greenery you replaced," says Yoh.

Singapore is only country to incorporate green building requirements into its legislation, according to Soh.

"Environmental protection was not assumed to be at odds with economic development," says Khoo Teng Chye, Executive director of the Centre for Liveable Cities. "The government saw that it was an integral part of city planning," he says.

abc17news

5 ideas every city could steal from Singapore

[dohboi]

I heard that they grow about 40% of the vegetables that they consume inside the city.

[Graeme]

Singapore imports 90% of it's food products (see executive summary, 4th paragraph).

[dohboi]

Not surprising. Actually, it is surprising that they produce 10% of their food stuffs in the city. I wonder how many other cities do? And that jibes with my figure pretty well, since for most people vegetables are only a relatively small fraction of the total mass of their diet.

[Graeme]

This is a very interesting article, which reflects what I have been trying to promote. But you need to register with NS in order to read all of it. The author argues not for total isolation but partial integration in areas we have already touched.

A green divide to keeps us and nature apart would harm, not heal

HOW can we best protect nature in an increasingly crowded world? Should we strive to live amidst it, sustainably and in harmony with it? Or should we embrace those technologies that would allow us to retreat to cities and let nature get on without us?

Most environmentalists favour the former, rejecting many interventions that could reduce the amount of land we need to occupy. But a new ecomodernist manifesto says our salvation lies in nuclear power rather than landscapes covered in wind farms; intensive agriculture supported by genetic engineering rather than organic farming with its lower yields; and urban living rather than rural idyll.

So saving nature requires wearing polyester rather than cotton, eating farmed fish rather than trawling the oceans, and living at high densities so nature can prosper beyond the city limits. By doing this we will occupy less space and can give much of it back to what one guru of ecomodernism, Jesse Ausubel of Rockefeller University in New York, calls the "great restoration" of land and ocean.

The new manifesto is the brainchild of US environmental activists Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. Written with others at their think tank, the Breakthrough Institute in California, it is a blueprint for thriving in the Anthropocene, the era of modern human activity. The theme of the institute's annual conference this week is the "good Anthropocene", which seeks to "reject the idea that human societies must harmonise with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse".

newscientist

[onlooker]

I do not think it really is about living in crowded cities or living among nature in self-sufficient communities. What it is about is an acknowledgment that we need Nature, that their is not substitute for nature and that we could not ever replicate all of the services nature provides for us. We can augment nature with our own innovations and such but we cannot replace it. Breathable air, fresh clean water, a viable climate are just some of the services we cannot duplicate. I think it is the height of Hubris that we do not need nature and can retreat to some artificial haven in which we can provide for all we need and want.

[dohboi]

If people aren't living in nature, I'm not sure many people will be advocating for it.

G's article reminds me of early efforts do drive all the inhabitants out of areas in Africa that people wanted to make into nature parks, since the locals would certainly hunt the animals in the park.

But it turns out that the parks where traditional residents WEREN'T excluded had much more vibrant and thriving natural communities than did those where they WERE.

I could go into more detail, but the take away is that it is not always the case that 'presence of (settled) humans = bad; lack thereof = good'; It depends much more on how humans interact with those surroundings.

And if these guys are so into genetic engineering, why don't they propose genetically engineering people to be much tinier, to be able to live on nothing but mushrooms, to have a lot of trouble reproducing, and to have a deep abhorrence toward conspicuous consumption and excessive energy use.

Now THAT would be some GMO that I could get behind!!!

[onlooker]

those same folk in favor of GMO probably are also in favor of Geo-Engineering. Careful what you wish for you just might get it.

[dohboi]

Really, if humans are going to genetically modify anything, it should be themselves. If doing so seems absolutely abhorrent to someone, then they should ask themselves why its ok to use on other species, but not on us.

We are the only organism on the planet in dire and immediate need of deep reprogramming.

[onlooker]

Really, if humans are going to genetically modify anything, it should be themselves. If doing so seems absolutely abhorrent to someone, then they should ask themselves why its ok to use on other species, but not on us.

We are the only organism on the planet in dire and immediate need of deep reprogramming.

Amen to that morsel of wisdom D. At some point the mad scientist must realize he is mad.