From CNNMoney.com:
It may seem strange that the emirate of Abu Dhabi, one of the planet's largest suppliers of oil, is planning to build the world's first carbon-neutral city.
But in fact, it makes a lot of financial sense. The 3.7-square-mile city, called Masdar, will cut its electricity bill by harnessing wind, solar, and geothermal energy, while a total ban on cars within city walls should reduce the long-term health costs associated with smog.
Masdar will be filled with shaded streets to encourage walking. A solar-powered transit system will take you to the airport.
Masdar is still on the drawing board -- construction begins in January, with a very tentative completion date of 2009 -- but the result will be watched closely around the world.
Maybe they read Car Free Cities by J.H. Crawford.
Stockton Williams on urban retrofits, Obama, and the sexiness of caulking guns
The social life of traffic
USDA to unveil “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” initiative
Comments
View as Threaded
Jessie Po Posted 2:29 am
09 Aug 2007
Sounds like more green-washing to me, but I'd love to hear otherwise.
We should be embarrassed that global corporations are actually getting credit for this.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:16 am
09 Aug 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:41 am
09 Aug 2007
Grant me absolute power, vast wealth, and "slaves" and I could probably build a green city from scratch as well. I'm not sure the results of this experiment will be easily replicated elsewhere in the world.
From the CIA World Factbook...
"United Arab Emirates is a destination country for men, women, and children trafficked from South and East Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and the Middle East for involuntary servitude and for sexual exploitation; an estimated 10,000 women from sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, South and East Asia, Iraq, Iran, and Morocco may be victims of sex trafficking in the UAE; women also migrate from Africa, and South and Southeast Asia to work as domestic servants, but may have their passports confiscated, be denied permission to leave the place of employment in the home, or face sexual or physical abuse by their employers; men from South Asia come to the UAE to work in the construction industry, but may be subjected to conditions of involuntary servitude as they are coerced to pay off recruitment and travel costs, sometimes having their wages denied for months at a time; victims of child camel jockey trafficking may still remain in the UAE, despite a July 2005 law banning the practice; while all identified victims were repatriated at the government's expense to their home countries, questions persist as to the effectiveness of the ban and the true number of victims."
Forward!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:43 am
09 Aug 2007
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:56 am
09 Aug 2007
Permalink
naturescene Posted 4:01 am
09 Aug 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:41 am
09 Aug 2007
OK, but what about the fact that we live in a finite world of naturally limited fresh water? Wouldn't we be better off if cities like LA were limited to their own supplies, rather than reaching into other states to steal theirs?
Maybe we should be questioning the entire premise of "continued economic and population growth," 'eh?
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
guade00 Posted 4:53 am
09 Aug 2007
And, despite the UAE's horrible human rights record, I don't think hordes of sex slaves will be forced to drag wind turbines through the desert, nor do I think child camel jockeys (in place of shiny SUVs) will be forced to transport corpulent sheiks to and fro.
Finally, corporations are signing up for this because, probably, the Clean Development Mechanism under Kyoto allows them or encourages them to do so.
Let's hope it works.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 5:09 am
09 Aug 2007
"reaching into other states to steal theirs"
This is absurd. There are issues with interbasin transfers, but most IBT's are negotiated previously. There is no stealing, but an exchange. You're implicity assuming that water belongs to the people that reside within the same political boundaries (imaginary lines) as the water. To play devil's advocate here, why should it?
But in the end, I didn't say it was a bad idea. I simply said I thought that the costs would be prohibitive.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:36 am
09 Aug 2007
Not that I'm defending them, but the closest we have to car-free cities is Disneyland, etc.
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:07 am
09 Aug 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 6:59 am
09 Aug 2007
On the other hand, I think, the demand is there for water, why not use it? We're really not in danger of using up the absolute amount of fresh water right now, but even if we were - we could adapt through methods like conservation, recycling, and desalination.
The hydrologic system is chaotic. Storm events happen due to the confluence of a large number of factors. The same is true for where rivers form, as it is also a function of geologic chance.
The human system is also chaotic - we have no choice over where we come into existence (and although some people have the resources to be able to move, not everyone does).
So our natural access to water is the result of thousands of factors and the chance that they all provide the right conditions together.
As far as IBT's go, I'd say you can't make a sweeping generalization - some are more harmful than others. We should seek to reduce our negative impact. For these reasons, I am also a fan of soft engineering over hard engineering.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:11 am
09 Aug 2007
naturscene wrote:
"On one hand, there seems to be an inherent ecological correctness or beauty in the idea that water shouldn't be transfered between watersheds - man shouldn't interfere with nature."
Not just ecological correctness or beauty. That implies aesthetics. It is really a matter of ecological survival. It is bad enough that we are moving vast quantities of carbon from natural sinks and returning it to the atmosphere. When you move water from one watershed to another, the result -- as far as where the water came from -- is lower water tables, loss of streams, loss of wetlands, loss of entire inland seas (google Aral Sea), influx of sea water into the ground water, collapse of the surface to form sink holes, negative effects on ecosystems, migratory birds, agriculture. Not a big deal, naturescene?
Someone else can describes what happens when excess water is added to a naturally arid environment.
naturescene also wrote:
"On the other hand, I think, the demand is there for water, why not use it? We're really not in danger of using up the absolute amount of fresh water right now, but even if we were - we could adapt through methods like conservation, recycling, and desalination."
Yes... and the oceans are so damn big they will absorb all the waste we can dump into them. Lake levels are falling in some areas. Are you saying it is okay to let the Great Lakes drop by tens of feet as long as the total amount of fresh water in the world remains the same?
If there is a demand for water, it should be used near and returned to the area it naturally accumulates. Go ahead and establish industry -- and jobs -- where the water is. Live where the water is. It is ridiculous to send water from one region to another to support an otherwise unsustainable economy. It leads to other environmental problems. Give people water where it is not found naturally and they waste it on lawns. It is an enabler. Why create new ag land in a desert when there is neglected ag land where there is already water? Why build new cities in deserts when there is urban decay right next to an enormous body of fresh water?
Just my 3 cents.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:13 am
09 Aug 2007
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:15 am
09 Aug 2007
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:27 am
09 Aug 2007
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.
Forward!
Permalink
naturescene Posted 8:46 am
09 Aug 2007
When you move water from one watershed to another, the result -- as far as where the water came from -- is lower water tables, loss of streams, loss of wetlands, loss of entire inland seas (google Aral Sea), influx of sea water into the ground water, collapse of the surface to form sink holes, negative effects on ecosystems, migratory birds, agriculture. Not a big deal, naturescene?
This is the problem with generalization rather than looking at individual projects, you come up with a long list of effects that might or might not occur with a given project. Believe it or not, water transfer can be done sustainably. Furthermore, not all water transfers send water to arid regions. Again, generalizations and not specifics.
Did I say it was no big deal? No, I said examine each situation and weigh the merits.
No, I'm not just saying "let's drain that lake, who gives a shit?" I'm saying weigh the costs and benefits.
Of course if we had a blank slate, we could just choose to move to where the water is and start society. But we're here in medias res. There are cities that don't have enough natural water supplies to support their growing economies and populations. I'm not talking about ideals here -- because I sure as hell wish that it wasn't the case -- I'm talking about practical matters. We live in a second-best world and we have to deal with it.
I'm wasn't giving a blanket endorsement of water transfers, but I believe you successfully spun it that way. On the same note, blanket opposition to them is just as naive.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:08 am
09 Aug 2007
"There are cities that don't have enough natural water supplies to support their growing economies and populations."
Well, perhaps they've reached their natural limits. At some point, some cities just can't grow further. Rather than trying to move large amounts of water to the cities, someone should figure out how to stabilize the economy for the current population, recycle the water they have (or create new fresh water via desalination), and help those who don't mind living somewhere else move.
If you are importing a sufficient amount of water to support a growing economy and population, you must be removing enough from somewhere else to affect someone elses economy. What will finally tell people that they've reached the limits of growth? Continue importing water and they'll behave as though there will always be more water from somewhere.
We've all become detached from natural feedback signals and behave as though there will always be more of everything. It is time to reconnect with the natural world and the limits to growth.
Most water should remain in its natural watershed.
Help people move to and rebuild deteriorating urban areas already near a supply of fresh water. Don't muck things up more than necessary.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:13 am
09 Aug 2007
"There are cities that don't have enough natural water supplies to support their growing economies and populations."
Please provide an example of an acceptable transfer of water from one watershed to another -- via human intervention -- that supports sustainable economic growth.
Will the transfer solve the problem or just create more problems that demand further transfer of water to the area?
Forward!
Permalink
naturescene Posted 10:35 am
09 Aug 2007
Both receiving government and those in the watershed from which water is drawn must submit population and economic growth projections.
There are a variety of environmental factors that must be met in order for the transfer to be allowed.
There is currently a movement to update these laws and include instream flow requirements and drought provisions.
Under the right institutional framework, in which the stakeholders are allowed an opportunity to provide input, transfers can be done without destroying ecosystems and other processes as you suggest.
Permalink
naturescene Posted 10:45 am
09 Aug 2007
IBT's must undergo environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, completed by environmental scientists.
If you take the time to look around, you'll see that IBT's aren't allowed haphazardly and must fit into the larger water supply plans.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:27 pm
09 Aug 2007
Those are very good examples of responsible and potentially successful strategies. Thank you for bringing them to my attention.
I allowed my remarks to be influenced by the desert southwest's interest in Great Lakes water. It seems like a very bad idea to move water over such great distances to support people living in an environment not reallly suitable for enormous cities and large-scale agriculture, especially when urban and rural areas are decaying all around the Great Lakes. I would like to see people, along with jobs, move to the water rather than moving the water to them.
The rule I refer to in the subjec heading...
I don't care for slippery slope arguments. Never-the-less, I tend to view acceptance of small transfers from one watershed to another as inevitably leading to larger transfers. And, eventually, those dependent on the other watershed will demand more water and actually claim they have a right to it. So rather than help people build sustainable economies, the transfer only creates larger problems that will be even more difficult to solve because so many more lives will be affected when the water finally has to stop moving from one watershed to another.
I'll try to revise my view.
Forward!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:38 pm
09 Aug 2007
Permalink
naturescene Posted 11:39 pm
09 Aug 2007
By all means, I think states can improve institutions that govern water transfers.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:51 pm
09 Aug 2007
The corporations involved WILL "get hefty carbon-credit bonuses, redeemable on the world's two major carbon exchanges"!!!
I don't know what to do with this information. Sounds very interesting and definitely a better carbon offset than planting trees or something similar. Probably cancels out most of my objections to carbon offsets. They are probably building the city, which will include vegetation, where there is currently bare ground. So any vegetation they add will instantly become a net carbon sink, especially if the orgnaic matter is used to build healthy soil. The city will provide immediate benefits and probably be around for a long time. It is an offset that keeps on giving. Furthermore, they will developing technology that will allow others to further reduce carbon dioxide emissions (but see below).
It is just a little sad that this can be done only by an autocratic state with a history of human rights abuses and involvement in trade in illegal trade of drugs, weapons, and human beings. Will all of this be ignored just because they convert to "green living"? Will they get a free passs on the abuses as long as toss the world a few crumbs of benevolence?
Returning to that new technology... it is a very smart investment for those corporations involved in this project and another indication that they can read the writing on the wall. They are clearly not doing this just because they want to be good world citizens (they'll receive carbon credits in exchange for their effort). It looks like they are going to use oil wealth to develop the technology we will need to live without oil. This means that while some corporations sit on their asses and pretend oil will last forever, there are a few corporate executives developing and, very likely, patenting the technology we will need in a few decades.
Very smart. I appreciate their efforts. I realize it doesn't make much of a difference, but I've returned to purchasing BP gasoline. They really are the greenest of the brown. Perhaps capitalism and corporate greed will actually get us through this difficult time. If only it could repsond a little faster.
Forward!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:30 am
10 Aug 2007
Permalink