Slashdot Mirror
China to Build a Zero-Carbon Green City
gormanw writes "Just outside Shanghai, there is an island about the size of Manhattan. China is going to build its first-ever 'green city', complete with no gasoline/diesel powered vehicles, 100% renewable energy, green roofs, and recycling everything. The city is called Dongtan and it should house about 5,000 people by the end of 2010, with estimates of 500,000 by 2050. The goal is to build a livable city that is energy efficient, non-polluting, and protects the wildlife in the area."
...red and green should never be seen!
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
I hope that this pans out, but the manufacturing of said Renewable energy will probably offset the whole "Green" side of things... Well, hopefully it will all work out for the best. The question is, apart from Government financing, is it possible for Normal People to buy a Green Home / Car / Life?
Isn't that what comes from not wearing speedos on the beach?
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
This is obviously to help out their image after people had to drop out of marathons because of the pollution.
A friend of me says there's a pervasive attitude of "if a little is good, an enormous lot more must be better" when approaching the use of say, pesticides or other chemical intrusions into the local environment.
Classical education doesn't help this attitude much yet, but an excellent and well publicised example community might just make the difference.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
It's "Dongtan", which would be a good name for a nude beach.
And maybe this was in the pipeline for many years, but it is awfully coincidental that we've been talking negatively about pollution in china recently isn't it?
I record my sleeptalking
Humans breathe out carbon dioxide. Are we banned from this city ?
This CNN article (from last year) has much more information:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/08/14/dongtan.ecocity/
Wikipedia's article mentions several problems and delays that I hadn't seen in any other stories (some of which lack citations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongtan
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
I have an even greener idea for China: How about not building the city at all, and greenify an existing city?
Wow I was really hoping the US would take the lead on this issue, but it looks like we may be a little late. Let's hope we can take a hint and actually invest a meaningful amount in sustainable technologies for green energy and a cleaner future.
Zero carbon means zero people. How about we stop using PC shorthand? The problem isn't carbon, it's carbon dioxide. Giving carbon, an element we contain in abundance and depend on for our existence,a bad name is not helping anyone.
Yeah, what an unfortunate name. I would have avoided that problem altogether and named the city Wangtan. Much better.
I'd settle for them stopping the construction of coal plants which has made them the largest co2 polluter on the planet.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
The people will still eat meat (probably only second to transport as a way people generate carbon footprint).
Basically its just a greenwashing exercise.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
That the majority of their "cities" (5000 people)
are green already because they are rural and everyone walks or rides bikes.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I hope this project works, because let's face it, an environmental friendly city that functions and coexist with nature is exactly what is required. I find it amazing that we are so worried about money.
Money is really not the issue. If this works, it becomes a goal for any countries' economy. It's idealistic to think this way, I know, but in a way, it's also very practical.
Our economies are skewed right now, our countries don't have any real goals, tangible goals. Building environmentally friendly cities (converting actually), are concrete, positive goals. All will benefit "economically" from such goals.
This is the ultimate job creation idea on a long term basis I would believe!
Yeah, I know, it's sounds simple but anything that gives people work, gives them purpose and makes the money move, which is really what the economy should be about anyways.
"Keep things simple, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein
Hey it worked for Toyota -- have more models of SUV than any other car manufacturer on planet, but come out with one "green" car and you're a "green" car company, no matter the 8 independent lines of SUV and largest/least full efficient main-line pickups on the market. Likewise -- produce more polution than any other country on the planet, but come out with one "green" city and you're a "green" country, no matter the literal 50% of population having no access to clean drinking water and #1 cause of death in nation being air pollution.
Depending on what renewable energy systems are used, manufacturing can be pretty neutral. Windmills take a relatively small amount of energy to produce compared to photovoltaic, or even gas and coal for that matter. Solar thermal is also generally lower input than photovoltaic.
This does raise an interesting counter to the whole capitalism/free market FTW crap that gets spewed by a lot of people. As soon as you start looking at a community or society genuinely taking responsibility for anything, the system fails to deliver. It puts too much power in the hands of a few and the few are usually in that position thanks to their selfishness. Not that I'm completely for government control, mind, I actually find both extremes equally laughable.
There are of course simple things that everyone can do to reduce our impact, but a lot of people don't want to change, are lazy or ignorant.
I don't therefore I'm not.
... but what about all the other cities that won't be "green" in order to support this "one" that is???
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
For all the pollution problems made more apparent by the Olympics, I give the Chinese a lot of credit for innovation. Between this, their "weather altering rockets" and whatever other efforts I've missed, we can at least say they innovate.
It makes me wonder if such nationalized industry as China contains might actually be good for massive innovation. Surely no corporation would undertake an initiative like this, especially on this scale, as the profits would be far too long term and unlikely.
Make the whole city run from manure, thermal energy. Then call it Dungtan.
Task Mangler
Really? Zero? So there's no smoking, no open flames or anything burning at all in the entire city? Nothing can ever be allowed to rot? Why don't they be real and say low carbon city or like 99% or something. This is like the subary "zero landfill plant" BS all over again.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
All they need to do if it's got to be green is to get Ruby Rhod on the case.
If your not already familiar with the work of William McDonough, I suggest the following talk at TED from 2005: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/william_mcdonough_on_cradle_to_cradle_design.html fascinating and hopeful stuff!
sad but true, all of our government officials here are lawyers that specialize in doubletalk and over billing. In China the government officials are all engineers. There's no government red tape, when they choose to build something somewhere there's no one to oppose because citizens do not own land. If any country in the world can do this, it's probably china because no one in the country would be permitted to complain.
protects the wildlife in the area.
Now protect the civil rights of the humans inhabiting this place, and everywhere else in China.
Mod parent up. Here's a piece by food writer Mark Bittman in the NY Times on the devastating environmental and health/social costs of our current meat consumption:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.htm
Oh my oh my, where is the spirit of exploration, taking risk, experimenting, building things in this community? I often come here for insight discussion and interesting debate on things that matter, but instead, we got a flame fest.
... all the negative things here.
... this is a big project to experiment an alternative way of building human cities, to change the way we work, live, entertain, deal with nature, etc. Where else do you get to experiment at this scale, and with the financial backup like that? Ok, this may be a political show, but I don't see other governments dare to experiment and make a show like that.
So, for this forum, anything done in China must be bad, negative, and nothing good could come out of it.
Everyone is ohing and ahing when we talk about Mars terraforming. When China is experimenting a new project, everyone must slam about its politics, and there's nothing worth reading and discussing here.
Tell you what, I'm living in Shanghai, I hate as much as the next guy the corruption, the pollution, the control on free speech, the human rights,
But for fuck sake, this is a project where the Chinese government is investing in, taking risk, experimenting, building things,
It might be a big flop, and it might be a huge success. The lessons learned might be useful for other regions on this planet, and even might be useful when we need to build outer space colony.
And guess what, westerners (the Brits, Americans, French, Italians...) have taken a huge part in designing it too. This is not a one country thing.
For those who only have negative things to say, let's get out of the parent's basement and go out more. Visit other countries, not all is well and perfect, but I'm sure you will learn a lot more too.
You want to make China a better place? Don't whine in the basement, that won't change anything. Come here, bring your grand vision, your next big thing.
Who run Dongtan? Who... run... Dongtan?
I would have moved to that city if it were named DingDong Tan. Even dingdongs need to be tanned...
slashdot rocks
"Dongtan ... is being built on a major wetland site that was formerly used for small-scale agriculture and by migrating water birds." - Wikipedia
The only place where "eco-city" means millions of dead migratory birds...
No, but I did throw granola at a deaf person once
They also need to be fully transparent about the whole process. Just hiding pollution by exporting it does not make it go away.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Dongtan... shit; I'm still only in Dongtan... Every time I think I'm gonna wake up back in a real city. When I was home after my first visit, it was worse. I'd wake up and there'd be nothing... no emissions at all. I hardly said a word to my wife, until I said "yes" to a divorce. She got the Prius and the Honda Clarity... When I was here, I wanted to waste energy; when I was there, all I could think of was getting back into this green city. I'm here a week now... trying to be efficient... getting more wasteful; every minute I stay in this room, I get more carbon positive, and every minute Mao squats in the bush, he gets greener. Each time I looked around, the walls moved in a little tighter...
They've got a lot of bad press for their pollution. So, like any bureaucracy, they come up with an idiotic solution.
"Do we clean up our country?" No. "Well, what do we do?" Ok, we make a big press release, about a city we will do which will be greener than all. "Sweet."
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
The goal is to build a livable city that is energy efficient, non-polluting, and protects the wildlife in the area.
Seriously, I wonder what the real goal is?
... ok "green" is sort of ambiguous but oh what the hell. The city of Greensburg, Kansas is attempting to become the first city in the US to meet Platinum LEED certification. What's interesting is that the city was given a chance to become this green city because a huge tornado took out 95% of the city in 2007.
... and it was built on rock and roll.
This is not the first green city to be built. The masdar project has been going in the UAE for a while now, and it includes all the green advantages being mentioned in TFA.
Oh yeah. A nasty, polluting industrial complex providing all that "clean" power to the "green" city. And worse, putting it out in more concentrated form.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'm as much an idealist eco-weenie as the next European, and much as I aplaud the overall sentiment a recent Economist article (sorry, subscription only, here's third hand quotes: http://www.greenenergyinvestors.com/index.php?showtopic=809&mode=threaded&pid=16254 ) mentioned that the current site of Dongtan, Chongming, is a currently significant carbon sink and ecological habitat due to it's lack of links to the mainland.
To summarise, the proposed new city is likely to a weekend resort or dormitory town for the Shanghai rich, with vastly increased traffic to and fro, rather than any self-sustained eco-idyll.
Does anyone believe that China will do something that hasn't got anything to do with 'face' anymore?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
1. No more growing meat. Poultry, beef, farmed fish etc - gone. If you want it, kill it yourself.
2. All products that are sold must be carbon neutral.
That last part would take some of the hassle (and guilt) out of adjusting to a new time out of the lives of ordinary people. Clean power would benefit hugely too. Of course, some products would become much more expensive, but then that would open a market for replacement products that are more friendly to the environment.
Stop the brainwash
Why bother when you're around?
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
This is quite timely as I was starting to investigate the use of microgeneration recently and wrote some stuff yesterday. I think this has potentially great benefits to society, as well as reducing greatly one's utility costs. If of interest, I collected up my thoughts so far on this subject here: http://breden.org.uk/2008/08/11/microgeneration/
Frankly, this goes to show one thing: That democracy as-we-do-it is a dead end and will lead is straight into self-destruction. Evil dictatorship, on the other hand (China hasn't been a pure communist country for years) can get things done.
Face it: The west is in a dead-lock. We want to save the world, but we can't, because our focus on self-interest and "the market will solve it" very efficiently prevents any common-interest solutions. It's the tragedy of the commons all over again, just on a global scale.
The next step, I fear, will be eco-facism. The system can't heal itself because it's dead-locked. Someone will exploit the situation, promise salvation, and take control. By then, only drastic measures will do, so we will accept them, without further debate because there isn't time for debate. Welcome to facism (again, for some).
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Living in a green city would be awesome.
Unfortunately, most of its denizens probably go off to jobs that contribute to the "not so green" China industrial frigate @janderson China is usually full of "plans" that never actually materialize so I'm not holding my breath on this one. If it does happen, however, don't be surprised when there are full of holes in their "all green" initiative.
I must say the whole Communist system they have (if you can still call it that) is VERY efficient at getting government public works done. Don't want to move? We'll just throw you out of your house http://en.epochtimes.com/news/8-5-15/70674.html. Your building looks ugly to the Olympic visiting public? We'll build a wall around your storefront http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/sports/olympics/29beijing.html.
It's going to take more PR than this to gloss over the forced abortions, religious persecution, torture, and the slaughter of the homeless.
complete with no gasoline/diesel powered vehicles,
Yeah, well I'm sure that will work out just fine, right up until someone with no common sense figures out he can just "drop no gasoline powered vehicle" for a free ride.
sudo ergo sum
But being China, we can still count on plenty of lead paint, melamine, 1,4 butanediol, and oversulfated chondroitin sulfate, right?
Or will they only put those in the cities they build for export?
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I'm pretty sure that John Carpenter made a movie about just such a city back in 1981. Kurt Russell and Isaac Hayes were in it.
Probably silicon and aluminum oxides.
"Sausage factory"
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Your choice. I only have one child, I'm not an over-breeder. I vote for protecting the environment at the expense of excess food production.
Blar.
So let me get this straight. They're building a city inside a wildlife preserve.
How is that green, exactly?
1) the better way to "protect wildlife" is to not build a city where it lives. (Duh?) The Chinese are absolutely deadly to the environment - not just the air and water, but also leaders in deforestation and species extinction, even outside their borders.
2) the better way to cut pollution is to... uh... do something about the extreme pollution all over mainland China.
Who knew that clean air and water, forests, and sustainable coexistence with other species on the planet was worth having? Human greed trumps everything. The US was the poster child for environmental damage (Bush is very proud of being the "biggest polluter"), but China is competing for that gold medal.
you had me at #!
They are destroying a wildlife preserve.... to create a green city! Come on, what a joke!
China is building a sustainable, non-polluting city.
They're doing it specifically for proof of concept.
Our US leaders are so impotent that this could never happen here, despite being a necessity to continued survival of the species.
They're using their grammar skills there.
No, it's even worse (depending on your point of view). There won't be an "eco-fascism" phase, because with more than 50% of the world population urbanised, nobody remembers what the environment is supposed to look like.
All of the "exploitable" environment (the Amazon, most other remaining forests, the Arctic, Alaska, and anywhere else you can think of with any kind of economic value) will be razed/drilled/destroyed, which is going to result in further acceleration of habitat and species loss. Because urbanised people can't grow their own food, this is going to exponentially raise the destructive pressure on the environment outside cities to keep everyone fed, and their cars powered, etc.
This is linked to increasing pollution of all kinds (air, water, garbage, etc) and the "environment" as some of us remember it is purely history.
Our grandchildren will inherit something unrecognisable to us (there are already thousands of species and places that existed when you and I were young, that exist no more). Television and Hollywood, with the complicity of the great globalisers, has trained the world into perfect materialists (mini-Americans) who value convenience and profit above all else; for whom greed is the primary motivator; and for whom waste, pollution, injustice - if noticed at all - are merely acceptable side-effects of a selfish way of life. We have failed every human who lived to defend Nature, and every human who will follow who will never know it as we inherited it; and we have failed every other species on the planet. Even the trees.
you had me at #!
n/t
you had me at #!
So the ferries will be wind powered? That'll be interesting.
And ALL supplies and materials (to include the millions of tons of construction material to house the half million population) will be hauled in electric trucks? Or push carts?
Good luck to that.
From Wired Magazine Issue 15.05
"Pop-Up Cities: China Builds a Bright Green Metropolis"
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.05/feat_popup.html
"Anywhere else in the world, it would have been a thought exercise, done up pretty for a design book or a museum show...These new megacities could evolve into sprawling, polluting megaslums. Or they could define a new species of world city. Unlike New York or London, they are blank slates - less affluent, perhaps, but also free from legacy designs and technologies tailored to the world of the 19th and 20th centuries."
First of all, they are not saying they'll make their entire economy sustainable and non-polluting. In fact, with the financial advantage of not worrying about pollution, they can well afford a showcase project.
China's track record on this sort of project is not good. For example, one of their showcase efforts at archaeological preservation during the Yangtze river dam project was to demolish one ancient site, and then build an inaccurate replica on higher ground, staffed with costumed interpreters. That's a creative reinterpretation of "preservation", whose value is mainly PR.
And there's even more ways to make an unrealistically favorable impression on a project like this, for example moving the pollution elsewhere.
The trick in building a sustainable, non-polluting system isn't in making it non-polluting. It's making it sustainable. Making a city that actually works. And the trick of sustainability is not to achieve it on a test scale, but on a useful scale. Eskimos dressing in wild sealskin is sustainable; dressing the entire world in sealskin is not.
Still, I think this is an interesting experiment. We'll just have to be skeptical of any results because the regime is very serious about quashing bad PR.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
There are only a couple of things worth recycling, and one of those are aluminum cans. Paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, all that crap - are NOT worth recycling and costs us more in both resources and money than to make it new/fresh. You hear people talking all the time about how one should "use less paper, save trees!". Yet, we have 1/3 more trees than we did back in 1920. This whole "recycling" crap is all just a bunch of hype to make people feel all fluffy. Most people are too lazy to look into exactly what it takes to recycling all the materials we recycle. If they did, they wouldn't be recycling.
It's a city on an island, with densely clustered buildings, a ban on vehicles, and a network of organic farms. Sounds like a prison/labor camp to me. The buildings are densely clustered to make them easier to guard, it's on an island to control access, and the farm is the labor camp part -- no tractors, so it must be worked by hand, or at best animals.
Just so I'm clear on this:
A cleaning future environment is of no interest to you unless you can make a profit from it, right?
"Or, the trashy people could stop breeding like animals."
Wow. With an attitude like that, no wonder we have problems in our world. I thought we had progressed beyond such elitist nonsense: "Let's make sure only people with IQs over 140 have children. We also accept only people with blond hair and blue eyes into the 'breeding aristocracy.'"
This is an interesting idea, but it's too bad that they are apparently removing a nature preserve to install it.
The book "How to Build a Village" is not very far off from the plan that China is putting together, though the agriculture in the "Village" is kept in surrounding areas.
More details at http://villageforum.com/
China is building a sustainable non polluting village just like so many others around the world.
The proof of concept isn't new,just 5000 poor people not using modern conveniences.
Our U.S. leaders are doing just fine thanks.Here's your one way ticket to China,Comrade.
You don't love it, so leave it. Take all those Socialist Hollyweirds with you and don't let the doorknob get stuck in your ass on the way out.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Move close to your work
That takes a lot of money. How much pollution is involved in earning that much money? And if a family with more than one income moves closer to one employer, it often must move away from the other employer.
& no need to go whining to the government for a hand out.
Except when no real estate close to an employer is affordable.
So most of the world now means the United States?
On an anglophone web site such as Slashdot.org (not Barrapunto.com or Slashdot.jp), one conception of "most of the world" includes the developed anglophone countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and possibly South Africa. As far as I know, India is a borderline case in both "anglophone" and "developed".
With the advent of vitamin supplements, it's possible to eat a balanced vegetarian/vegan diet and still consume the necessary vitamins and minerals.
How vegan are the mainstream vitamin B12 supplements?
You'll need a clever product name, something catchy, something eco-friendly. Hmmm, "something" Green...
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Here's a YouTube video I found about the project:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP1ia_IY1Zg
Normal people are wasteful. If you are trying to reduce your environmental impact, you have to become unusual.
Having driven a multitude of different vehicles and models, I'd say that - in comparison to similar vehicles - Toyota does come out greener in many cases.
Fuel-inefficient, which year? My cousin's Toyota truck is much better on gas than similar Ford's at the time. I don't know anyone with Chevy/Dodge vehicles in the same time-frame, but it's definitely better than the old hosses I do know.
Same for vehicles, the first car I owned (though not my first vehicle) was a Camry. It beat my parents' accord for mileage (exempting very steep terrain), and it easily beat any of my friends fords/chevs/dodges.
My current vehicle is a Corolla. Why? Because it got better mileage than any non-hybrid (couldn't afford a hybrid) in the same year/class.
So yes, Toyota makes all types of vehicles. Some are less efficient than others. Some people do still *need* trucks (sorry, but I can't see you hauling heavy equipment in a little Hybrid) and Toyota makes those too. I don't know anyone who drives a Toyota hybrid, but it seems to me that on the majority of Toyota vehicles I have driven or know people that have, the fuel efficiency is better.
They might as well build in an Alpha Centuari submersion dome over the island. Dongtan the underwater amusement park could sell tickets in fifty years.
The birth of collaborative technologies like pagerank and wikipedia shows us that given enough eyes, someone has already sorted through the shit for us.
That being said, those eyes may not have the best taste or have encountered a given obscure issue.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
All of a sudden I hear millions of tiny little "packing" noises springing up from Beijing...
"China to host 2050 olympic games in green city....just like 2008 only less choking"...
Joe Investor
There is an update to this with videos from the developer. The link is http://cleanerairforcities.blogspot.com/2008/08/new-green-city-for-china-dongtan-videos.html
Because the pigs farmers do not have lots of land they have too much manure. This is the main cause of ground water pollution in Belgium.
I can vouch for this. In the Netherlands (aka Holland), a neighbour of Belgium, they have "pig shit inspectors" (no shit!) whose job it is to detect land that's had too much pig shit dumped on it. As far as I can tell, their main method of detection is to drive around with their window open until they smell something amiss.
Note to ACs: I won't mod you up, even if you are being funny or insightful. So take a chance! It's not real life!