Hong Kong skyline at night. Population: 7 million
Urbanization, or the growth of suburban and urban areas, has increased exponentially over the past century and shows little sign of stopping. The two foremost drivers of urbanization are natural birth factors, when the birth rate exceeds the death rate, and immigration, when foreigners move into a country. The nature of urban development has four general trends. Firstly (trend one) is that the percentage of people living in urban areas vastly outstrips the percentage of rural dwellers. Next (trend two) is that the overall size and scope of urban populations and development are exploding and increasing the number of megacities (population of at least 10 million) and hypercities (population of at least 20 million). China is an astronomical example of this boom, considering the nation alone will add more people to their cities than the entire current population of the United States by 2013 (Miller). Urban growth (trend three), is dramatically faster in less developed countries. Finally (trend four), these less developed countries will be the greatest breeding ground for urban poverty in the forms of “crowded and unsanitary slums and shantytowns” (Miller 589).
Cities have massive ecological footprints that far exceed city limits (taking up 2 percent of the land yet using 75 percent of the land’s resources) and are unsustainably structured. Paving over vegetation and natural ecosystems combined with high-density development in cities create an unnatural and unhealthy environment that concentrates pollution and destroys natural chemical cycling systems.
Basket weave of Los Angeles highway systems
All cities (both dispersed ones like La or dense ones like Hong Kong) require a mass means of transportation that includes planes, trains, and cars, as well as walking and biking. Each mode of transportation has its advantages and disadvantages and some modes make more ecological sense. Currently, the most environmentally destructive means of transportation spawn from dispersed cities and suburbs in the form of cars. Cars provide convenient mobility but are heavy polluters and require a colossal network of infrastructure and urban sprawl as well as continue our dependence on fossil fuels.
High speed train
More environmentally conscious options would require people to use less cars (possibly through gradual tax increases, such as the taxes employed in many European nations) and more high-speed trains and buses, especially areas of high population density and congestion. Trains (including high-speed, heavy-rail, and light rail) tend to use less energy then cars, reduce land use for car-based infrastructure and sprawl, and cause less pollution, especially in dense areas where shopping/living/working areas are built alongside train lines. For less developed nations, however, bikes can be one of the most financially feasible options (and are increasingly popular in US ‘complete streets movements’).
Constructed wildlife bridges to connect large tracts of fragmented territory
Land-use planning, or determining the best use of each plot of land, has the preventative power to reduce environmental degradation and increase sustainable systems of living… or not. Land-use planning that emphasizes environmentally sustainable development is called ‘smart growth’. Sample principles of smart growth include protection of open/natural spaces, limits and regulations on development, creation of greenbelts, concentration of development along mass lines of transportation, tax incentives for ecologically sustainable practices/businesses, conduction of environmental impact analysis surveys, and much more.
The Arboretum is a mix of conserved, cultivated, and maintained green space that cuts through a neighborhood near downtown Seattle.
Public transportation in Curitiba, Brazil
To make cities more livable and ecologically sustainable, people are trying to develop the ‘ecocity’ model, which can be thought of as “a people-oriented city, not a car-oriented city”. Ecocities thrive on walking/biking/mass transit for the majority of the population’s transportation, recycle most of its waste, grow its own food, and preserve the surrounding land and ecosystem biodiversity as much as possible. These cities emphasize walkability, mixed-use and diverse centers of living/commerce, environmental education opportunities for citizens, minimal environmental impact, and smart transportation systems. Ecocities are not ‘a futuristic dream’ as some of these intelligent cities are already taking place (take Curitiba, Brazil for example). Additional urban sustainability movement includes the global eco-village movement, which brings together cooperative groups of people to live in a sustainable community between each other, and living buildings, which construct sustainable development on a microclimate scale, creating structures that operate local (and sustainable) sources of energy, reduce waste, and aim for self-sufficiency.
World population growth chart
Biking is a popular form of mass transportation in 3rd and 2nd world countries
As Lester R. Brown says, “Our numbers expand but the earth’s natural systems do not” (Miller 144). People who advocate for ecological sustainability are not only looking at city design, but the population growth that cities will have to sustain. This is the idea that the “Impossible Hamster” tries to communicate; that nature sets caps on infinite growth, so why do economists and politicians assume that human population and economies can grow infinitely? The human population has been exponentially growing over the past hundred or so years due to a sharp decrease in the death rate (accompanying better sanitation and health technologies in developing nations, causing longer lifespans). However, this growth is not distributed equally around the globe, and developing nations around the world are growing far more rapidly than developed nations (affording 99 percent of the new [baby] births each year) (Miller 127).
Population growth patterns chart (taken from Miller’s “Living in the Environment”)
However, instead of aiming to discover the number of people the earth can support, a better goal is to access the number of people the earth could sustain well, with reasonable comfort and freedoms (known as the cultural carrying capacity). There certainly is such a limit because no population can ever grow indefinitely while being supported by the earth (this is proven by science). The human growth rate can either grow, decline or remain stable depending on the ratio of the crude birth rate and the crude death rate. In actuality, women are indeed having less children (2.1 children average per woman in developed nations and 2.5 children average in developed nations), but since the death rate is still low, the population is still growing, and growing fast. In the United States, a huge swell in population occurred during the baby boom generation (immediately after the end of WW2 to about 1964). However the number of births per American woman decreased sharply in the following decade and has remained somewhat the same since the 1980s. Overall, there are four general stages of population growth. The first stage has a low population because the high infant mortality rate cancels out the high birth rate, the second stage has an increase of population due to high birth rates and low death rates, the third stage levels off the population due to slower birth rates and death rates, and the fourth stage has a population decline as the birth rates equal and fall below the death rates.
Vinage stamp from the 1970’s
In order to reach somewhat of a fourth stage reality, many acts can slow the population growth. Empowering women (via education, economic opportunities, and birth control/family planning) have shown to slow the birth rate and mostly need to be implemented in more developing countries that have less of those services than most developed ones. Lowering the reliance on child workers and increasing the average marriage age of women can also contribute to taming the population growth. However, even with a worldwide decrease in the natural birthrate to an average of 2.1 children per woman (the current baby to woman ratio in developing nations), the population would continue to grow for another 50 years because of age structure, which takes the percentages of a population with attention to age (pre-productive, reproductive, and postreproductive). For instance, populations with substantially larger pre-productive generations will experience exponential growth in the coming years, whereas populations with smaller preproductive generations will experience declining growth. The United States is considered to have slow growth because the preproductive generation makes up a slightly greater percentage of the population and nations like Japan will have stable growth because they have a relatively balanced percentage of preproductive, reproductive, and postproductive populations.
Sustainability efforts concerning population also consider immigration to be a key issue. Most people who migrate to other places or nation are primarily doing so to gain economic wealth (but there are also other issues like genocide, disease, political oppression, environmental degradation, etc).
If we are going to make serious strides to be an environmental conscious world, I firmly believe we need to slow the population boom in developing countries and reduce the amount of resources used in developing countries. There should be a move for equality between developed and developing nations. For developing countries this means ecocities and living locally and frugally. This means no car, no excess water/electricity use, no excess gadgets or household objects, use of sustainable products. For developing nations this means establishing birth control, women education, sustainable and cheap housing, environmentally conscious jobs, and living locally (not exporting everything they have for the use of developed nations). Developing nations could also use some population control as well.
Words of Henry David Thoreau
I also think there is a lot to be said for the Good Life parable. Why would you wait for decades to enjoy life, working for years, accumulating capital, using an overload of natural resources, and pushing the earth’s ecosystems to the brink when happiness can be something immediate, sustainable, and not material-based? The Good Life parable asks for a change in the human consciousness and a reevaluation of modern paradigms that dictate what a successful life really means. This new human consciousness increases a persons reverence and gratitude for the simple pleasures of life that nature gives naturally. If this kind of mindset was treasured as seriously as Americans treasure fame, power, money, recognition, and material consumption, the world’s economy would be so much more environmentally sustainable, if not beneficial!
Scene from “It’s a Wonderful Life” when everybody comes together to pitch in money to save the business
This new mindset would mean a brand new kind of economy and the Center for a New American Dream offers one that I agree with on many things. We could really use a plentitude economy, based on the idea that we need to change the way we live our lives to create more jobs, reduce our environmental impact, and increase the quality of life. This means sharing the wealth but it does not mean a militant, socialist regime. If we spread out the work (allowing more people to be employed and share the nation’s wealth more equally) and work collectively together, we can support ourselves in a much more sustainable way. This means we don’t each need to own our own lawn mower, we can borrow it from our neighbors. This means when kids get tired of their toys, share them with friends and family who are raising kids. This means instead of working insane hours to pay for your own expensive medical care, work collectively to make medical care as available as public education. Work less, consume less, and build social capital. Of course, there are other factors that must be worked on to achieve a sustainable world, but these factors mentioned have the potential to go a long way.
Question One: When I look at many Chinese megacities, I am disgusted by the sheer volume of development, energy/resource use, and industry… but, since they are dense and have the potential to be a lot more sustainable, should I look at these cities with hope?
Question Two: Since many highway systems in the United States will probably be neglected/unused in the following century (or two) with the increase of train travel, higher costs of gas, etc, what is the most ecologically sustainable way to deal with all of that concrete? Do we install sod/plantings on top of them like the High Line? Do we reuse the concrete in infrastructure to build our buildings? Do we build housing underneath these highways and connect them with rail lines?
Word Count: 1,775
allthingsconnect 