Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Eco-Cities

opencity writes "The Guardian is reporting on a deal by Arups, a British consulting firm, to build four eco-cities in China. The cities are to be self-sufficient in energy, water and most food products, with the aim of zero emissions of greenhouse gases in transport systems. The press release hints at some of the technology."

14 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. The best part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    After a few decades of careful and steady growth, they launch into outer space.

    1. Re:The best part by way2trivial · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not without a spindizzy

      Seriously though, what's wrong with designing a generation ship by first designing a self-sufficient arcology?

      as soon as you have a more or less closed system (bio-sphere anyone?) that only requires a little energy from external sources.. you can send generation ships..

      say.. they find a planet with no ability to support any but cellular life, and leave a few microbes.. wait milennia, and kerzham!

      --
      every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  2. We can all breathe a bit easier by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As China is one of the biggest polluters and is not bound by the Kyoto environmental treaty, having them take this step on their own initiative to create cleaner cities is certainly a welcome sight.

    The cities are being developed by a British group, and I'm not sure how well that bodes for the final designs. Britain has some of the most "natural urban growth" cities in the Western world. It will be interesting to see how well they will be able to come up with something that is both ecologically friendly and unique and attractive.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:We can all breathe a bit easier by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      China is trying to industrialize and modernize without the same harships and human suffering.

      Yeah, China is a real beacon of freedom and fairness. Oh, no, wait - China actually has a long, brutal history of tyranny and oppression, with a history of more "slaves" than the West ever had in its worst moments. Moralizing about that is, quite simply, remarkable.

      China's current economic wealth is of course slingshotting on the backs of the West - it hardly occurring in a vacuum.

      India is much worse, and per capita Canada is one of the worst with America coming in second.

      Canada 1/40th the number of people over more land than China - saying we're "worse" is lame given that the "per capita" consumption is largely the creation of resource wealth for the world.

      Of course China is cleaning up, as all economies do when they become more wealthy - suddenly living in a shithole doesn't seem as appealing, and you start to want to have clean air and clean cities. Just look at the industrialization of London, England as a great example of this.

    2. Re:We can all breathe a bit easier by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm saying that if you have 1 country with 300 million people, who all drive SUVs, Turn their heat up to 25 degrees in the winter, and their airconditions down to 15 degrees in the summer, as well as leaving all their incandescent light bulbs on 24 hours a day, then they are going to produce much more pollution than a country of 1.2 billion who mostly don't own cars, don't have air conditioners or heaters, and don't have all that many lights to turn on. I'm pretty sure the earth could support 30 billion people if we didn't generate the amount of pollution we currently do. We have created some good things like treating sewage, but most of the inventions of the last 100 years have reeked havoc on the environment.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:We can all breathe a bit easier by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why per capita? Why not per square foot?

      Or why not per dollar of GDP? Measuring pollution by GDP actually represents an interesting metric of production efficiency, and on that scale China is very poor indeed, although the US and Canada are at best middling (on par with nations like Brazil, Sri Lanks and Mexico. It's Japan and various European countries that fare best.

      Jedidiah.

  3. The press release is dated 24/8/2005 ... by SimonInOz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Recycled news is green too, I suppose ....

    --
    "Cats like plain crisps"
  4. Also Known As Arcologies... by bc90021 · · Score: 5, Informative

    For more information check this link as a starting place.

  5. Self-sufficient cities by cffrost · · Score: 5, Funny

    How about self-sufficient governments in these cities? Tibet would be an ideal test site.

    --
    Thank you, Edward Snowden.

    "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  6. Benefit of Planned Economics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A situation such as this is virtually impossible to achieve in a free market situation. Hence this is showing the benefits of a planned economy. China (economically) has come a long way in the past 50 years and will probably go much further as they gain more influence over their super power buddy the US.

    Imagine the US if the govt didn't give businesses money for jobs and everything else?

  7. Re:Energy crisis by vantango · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "but only when a country is rich and the people have decent quality of life will it have the means to stop polluting."

    Do you know any countries like this? Me neither. Great theory.

  8. great achievement by a302b · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The ability to do these things is probably the strength of China. Because the economy is run by the government, it has the ability to pursue these large-scale and exciting projects such as sending a man to the moon or creating ecological cities.

    Every country has its strengths and weaknesses. I actually think these "ecological cities" are a fantastic idea, and I am very happy that someone is modelling them for future modification/reference. On the other hand, China has its own weaknesses (poverty of so many & massive industrial pollution to name two big ones), but I don't think these weaknesses should detract from what is fundamentally a great potential achievement.

    --
    Unity in Diversity
  9. Re:Energy crisis by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Rather than trying to save energy, we should find ways to produce more energy cheaply without causing pollution. Expensive energy is the root cause of global poverty and reduced quality of life. Cover the deserts with solar panels.. make energy dirt cheap.

    This is about both saving energy (by making more efficient use of it) and producing more energy (new energy generation for the city to make it self sufficient). Put most succinctly it is about sustainability. Efforts to "save" energy are not about stopping doing things, but about doing possibly even more than we do now, just doing it all more efficiently so that it doesn't use more energy.

    To put it in terms of a rough economic analogy, it's like figuring out how to spend your money more wisely so you can get more out of it. Sure you could simply keep spending flagrantly with ever increasing expenses and just take out larger and larger loans, but eventually you have to sit down and work out what your current income level really is, and then see how you can spend that most efficiently. That doesn't mean you stop trying to get a raise, it just means you try and get "living within your means" as a basepoint.

    Sustainability and efficiency do make sense, no matter what your standpoint. I think you're simply constructing a straw man with claims that "The supposed environmentalist "final solution" is to eliminate people" and generally implying that energy self sufficiency is about giving things up, rather than what it is really about: doing even more with what we already have.

    Jedidiah.

  10. Re:It's a leftist's dream come true by pomo+monster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You mean like most of the world's great cities? Here in NYC, for example, our government "plans in advance" where you can live and work (zoning laws), what we can do there (labor law and industry incentives), how we get to work (automobile restrictions and public transit), what products we can buy (consumer safety), where to buy them (business regulation), and where to dispose of the wrappers (litter law, trash pickup, mandatory recycling).

    Of course, if you prefer to live in a libertarian shithole like Houston, Texas (no zoning laws, few social services, motor vehicle free-for-all, etc.), that's entirely up to you--and so much the better for the rest of us in livable environments, as we won't have to waste time talking down all the suckers at the teats of Ayn Rand.