A proliferation of what has been termed 'ghost cities'
suggests that China's approach to urbanisation leaves a lot to be desired. This
approach, characterised by the notion of 'build it and they will come,' has
seen large scale cities erected on the rural urban fringes in order to
accommodate the projected transition of residents from rural to urban areas.
Capable of accommodating millions of people, they are left largely uninhabited,
with occupancy rates floating around the 10% mark. This is due to the fact that
policies and processes underpinning construction are not sustainable. Firstly,
Chinese policy stipulates that residents are restricted to investing their
money in China, resulting in a massive over supply of the market. This problem
is exacerbated due to the fact that from an economic perspective, the
development is largely out of reach of the unskilled rural population it is
intended for. Unlinked from market demand, this rapid growth in infrastructure
investment is unsustainable and needs to moderate in the future, preferably
through more efficient and densely populated cities that require less
infrastructure.
Saturday, 3 May 2014
Week 12.2 - Liveability
The liveability of a city is directly proportionate to the
degree which it can be considered sustainable. As a consequence, with its wide
footpaths, tree lined streets and readily accessible amenities, Barcelona is
often considered one of the world's most sustainable cities, even with a
population density of 50-70,000 people per square km. In accordance with an
efficient public transport network, effective land use planning is able to
reduce the reliance on private vehicle ownership, and in turn, negative
externalities such as congestion and pollution. By facilitating a comfortable
and convenient lifestyle, land use planning in Barcelona harks back to
pre-industrial times, whereby people's daily activities were confined to a certain
precinct. As such, residents are able to walk short distances to work or the
shops, and are content in doing so.
Week 12.1 - Earth Hour
Earth Hour is a worldwide movement which involves a multitude of cities turning off their lights for one hour on a specified night of the year. This concept was initiated in Sydney, 2007, and is designed to draw attention to the issue of sustainability and cities. For those who participate, Earth Hour acts as a medium in which they are able to acknowledge their commitment to this responsibility, whilst raising funds for environmental projects.
In terms of acting upon the need to foster a greater interaction between sustainability and cities, Earth Hour can be said to be little more than a symbolic gesture. This concept is still largely in its infancy, so it is a start. The intentions are there, and this movement does raise awareness for ecological initiatives that need immediate attention. In Australia this year's event focused on implementing policies to protect the Great Barrier Reef, a national treasure under immediate threat from climate change. however, as it is essentially one hour of action per year, Earth Hour is vulnerable to ridicule. Commenting on the event, Danish political scientist Dr Bjorn Lomborg argues that it does little to address the primary concern of global warming.
"While more than a billion people across the globe make a symbol of foregoing non-essential electrical power for one hour a year, another 1.3 billion people across the developing world will continue to live without electricity as they do every other night of the year."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-29/australia-marks-earth-hour/5354338
In terms of acting upon the need to foster a greater interaction between sustainability and cities, Earth Hour can be said to be little more than a symbolic gesture. This concept is still largely in its infancy, so it is a start. The intentions are there, and this movement does raise awareness for ecological initiatives that need immediate attention. In Australia this year's event focused on implementing policies to protect the Great Barrier Reef, a national treasure under immediate threat from climate change. however, as it is essentially one hour of action per year, Earth Hour is vulnerable to ridicule. Commenting on the event, Danish political scientist Dr Bjorn Lomborg argues that it does little to address the primary concern of global warming.
"While more than a billion people across the globe make a symbol of foregoing non-essential electrical power for one hour a year, another 1.3 billion people across the developing world will continue to live without electricity as they do every other night of the year."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-29/australia-marks-earth-hour/5354338
Week 11.3 - Reed bed system
Consisting of plants, sand and gravel, a reed bed is an
organic system which is able to reduce the amount of energy used to treat waste.
When waste water is fed into the system, it is treated by microorganisms living
in the roots of the plants, a process which takes approximately 7 days. As a
result, the treated water is able to be recycled and used primarily for grey
water purposes, and depending on the system, the quality occasionally high
enough for drinking. Although a rarity amongst urban environments, reed beds
offer an alternate to the process which often sees Sydney's treated waste water
pumped out to sea. However, it is the implementation of such systems within an
urban environment that is an issue which remains. With space at a premium, roof
tops appear as the obvious option, however the viability of pumping waste water
to them may be disproved through a cost benefit analysis.
Week 11.2 - Farmers
The degree to which a city can be considered sustainable is
not restricted to the inner workings of a city itself. Rather, it is similarly
dependent upon supply mechanisms, e.g. a viable farming economy, necessary to
ensure that produce is able to be provided in a sustainable manner. Due to the
fact that Australia is a nation of droughts and flooding rains, it is essential
that our farmers are provided support during these periods, e.g. through
stimulation packages, in order for them to remain viable and service our
cities. Even though the Australian farming industry is not solely responsible
for supplying our cities, the other alternate, importation, is far less
sustainable considering Australia's geographical context. As a consequence, after two flood years,
followed by record low droughts, the importance of farmers loans cannot be
stated highly enough.
Balogh, S, 2014. Drought loans fail to rain down on farmers.
The Australian, 29 April. 7.
Neales, S, 2014. Race against time to make most of weather's
fortune. The Australian, 29 April. 7.
Week 11.1 - Clean Coal
The utilisation of clean coal technology, and the degree to
which it is effective, is an issue which is subject to debate. From an
Australian perspective, the sustainable management of coal is of particular
importance considering that it is the nation's secound largest export with its
industry employing almost 200,000 people and worth $60 billion to the economy.
With the notion of sustainability becoming increasingly relevant to corporate
business practice, Australian companies need to do more to secure their future
as large coal exporters. Neglect of bigger picture issues is driven by
economics, with the preoccupation of their bottom line potentially detrimental
to the long term viability of the industry at large. In comparison, solar and
wind-powered generation have grown more rapidly in response to incentives and
renewable energy targets. Consequently, it is up to the government to take a
leadership role in this matter and implement policies concerning carbon capture
and storage at coal-fired power stations. A look to the London based IEA Clean
Coal Centre is able to reveal that such mechanisms are effective on a
commercial scale.
Potter, B, 2014. Clean coal works on a large scale: IEA
expert. The Australian Financial Review,
23 April. 14.
Week 10 - Government Policy
On Monday 31st March, 2014, the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change released a report detailing the
likelihood of severe and irreversible damage if high greenhouse gas emissions
continue and the planet warms. In Australia, opinion remains divided upon how
to best tackle this issue, with the Liberal government's direct action policy
superseding that of Labour's emission trading scheme. Increasing the cost of
living, specifically gas and electricity prices, the 'carbon tax' was scrapped
on the premise that it placed too great a strain on the Australian economy. On
the converse, the 'direct action policy' aims to reduce emissions by providing
financial incentives to the nation's leading polluters to do so, in accordance
with the implementation of green projects, e.g. the exploration of soil carbon
technologies and abatement.
Both schemes can be classified as polar opposites, and, as a
result, the most appropriate solution to ensure a healthy integration between
sustainability and cities probably lies somewhere in between. Advocates for the
carbon tax argue that it will result in greater and more immediate reduction in
emissions, and that this mechanism is the only viable solution to ensure that
Australia matches the ambition of other countries, who plan a 19% cut by 2020
and a reduction of 40-60% by 2030. In saying this, the carbon taxes' ability to
act as a panacea for reduced emissions is unquestioned, however would see that
Australians would pay dearly in lost jobs, and higher prices for electricity,
groceries and goods and services. As a consequence, the economic implications
may prove to be too costly and potentially impact upon the future capacity to
facilitate sustainable initiatives.
On the other hand, the direct action policy is centred on an
'emissions reduction fund' a pool of $2.55 billion of taxpayers' money, from
which some of the nation's biggest polluters will be paid incentives to cut
their greenhouse gases. This is proposed to be done by means of reverse
auction, with firms who submit the lowest bids, the least expensive way to
reduce emissions, to get government subsidies. In comparison to the carbon tax,
the biggest point of difference is target reductions, with the direct action
plan set to reduce emissions by 5% on 2000 levels. When measured against other
advanced nations, this target is hardly ambitious, and criticised by
environmentalists due to the fact that a stable economy is prioritised over
reduced emissions.
As mentioned previously, the ideal solution probably incorporates
aspects of both schemes. In the long term, rewarding the reduction of
emissions, as opposed to simply taxing them, will provide greater incentive to
be sustainable. With the direct action plan, reduced emissions from power
plants are aided by making buildings more energy efficient, planting trees and
storing carbon in soil. By contrast, the ability to implement such mechanisms
under the carbon tax would be questioned due to the economic burden which
taxing emissions itself carries. In addition, the argument that the direct
action plan (in comparison to the carbon tax) is economically inefficient,
doesn't necessarily wash. Even though it requires tax payers money, it does not
cripple pensioners, small businesses, family and industry by taxing all electricity
in the economy and forcing down demand. Of cause for greater concern is the
fact that the direct action plan only targets the nation's 130 biggest
polluters. It neglects to address the issue of the country's other emitters,
and must be careful that proposed cuts aren't underdone by other businesses
increasing emissions. Furthermore, companies which have spent time and money
switching to more efficient methods of production do not benefit.
Comment, 2014. Inaction on climate change is no laughing matter.
Sydney Morning Herald, 01 April. 14.
Cox, L, 2014. White paper leaves questions unanswered.
Sydney Morning Herald, 25 April. 5.
Lloyd, G, 2014. Minimal attitude suits climate action mood.
The Australian, 25 April. 6.
Lloyd, G, 2014. PM plans for $1bn climate top-up. The
Australian, 25 April. 1.
Cox, L 2014. Key senators give direct action policy a chilly
reception. Sydney Morning Herald, 26-27 April. 9.
Comment, 2014. Paying polluters, robbing taxpayers is poor
policy. Sydney Morning Herald, 28 April. 16.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)