To most people, big, densely populated cities look like ecological nightmares, wastelands of concrete and garbage and diesel fumes and traffic jams. But, compared with other inhabited places, cities are models of environmental responsibility. By the most significant measures, the greenest community in the US is New York City, the only US city that approaches environmental standards set elsewhere in the world.
The average New Yorker generates 7.1 tonnes of greenhouse gases annually; that is more than the average Swede, who generates 5.6 tonnes, but it is less than 30 percent of the US average of 24.5 tonnes. Residents of Manhattan, the most densely populated of the city’s five boroughs, generate even less.
The key to New York’s relative environmental benignity is its extreme compactness. Manhattan’s density is approximately 67,000 people per square mile (2.59km2), or more than 800 times that of the US as a whole and roughly 30 times that of Los Angeles.
Moving people closer together reduces the distances between their daily destinations and limits their opportunities for reckless consumption, as well as forcing the majority to live in some of the most inherently energy-efficient residential structures in the world: apartment buildings.
New Yorkers, individually, use less water, burn less fossil fuel and produce less solid waste. Their households also use much less electricity: 4,696 kilowatt hours per year, compared with 16,116 kilowatt hours in Dallas, Texas.
Most important, New York’s highly concentrated population and comprehensive public transit system enable the majority of residents to live without owning automobiles, an unthinkable deprivation almost anywhere else in the US. Some 82 percent of employed Manhattanites travel to work by public transit, bicycle or on foot. That’s 10 times the rate for Americans in general, eight times the rate for workers in Los Angeles County and 16 times the rate for residents of metropolitan Atlanta.
CRAM TOGETHER
At an environmental presentation last year, I sat next to an investment banker who was initially skeptical when I explained that New Yorkers have a significantly lower environmental impact than other Americans.
“But that’s just because they’re all crammed together,” he said.
Well, yes. He then disparaged New Yorkers’ energy efficiency as “unconscious,” as though intention were more important than results. In fact, unconscious efficiencies are the most desirable ones, because they require neither enforcement nor a personal commitment to cutting back.
I spoke with one energy expert, who, when I asked him to explain why per capita energy consumption was so much lower in Europe than in the US, said, “It’s not a secret, and it’s not the result of some miraculous technological breakthrough. It’s because Europeans are more likely to live in dense cities and less likely to own cars.”
In European cities, as in Manhattan, the most important efficiencies are built-in. And for the same reasons.
China and many other non-Western countries are rapidly urbanizing. That is, their populations are undergoing a general migration from rural areas to cities. This trend, which has been under way worldwide for decades, is often decried by US environmentalists, who generally prefer people to move in the opposite direction, toward “the land.”
But urbanization is usually a good thing, both for those moving to cities and for civilization in general. Urban families live more compactly, do less damage to fragile ecosystems, burn less fuel, enjoy stronger social ties to larger numbers of people and, most significantly, produce fewer children, since large families have less economic utility in densely settled areas than they do in marginal agricultural areas.
AGAINST THE TIDE
The world’s population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2042. That’s an increase of seven times the current population of the US, or of the combined current population of India and China. If we are to sustain a world of that size, growth must occur almost entirely in cities.
Unfortunately, many global trends are pushing in the opposite direction. Dependence on automobiles is growing in parts of the world that formerly got by without them. China’s pool of licensed drivers is growing exponentially, and India is a decade into one of the largest road-building projects in history, a 5,800km superhighway known as the Golden Quadrilateral, which links the country’s four largest cities, plus an extensive network of feeder roads.
All those new highways, in combination with India’s brand-new “People’s Car,” the US$2,500 Tata Nano, represent an environmental, economic and cultural disaster in the making.
If the US’ long history of energy-and-emissions gluttony proves anything, it’s that an automobile-dependent society is vastly easier to create than to un-create. Moving from walking, bicycling and public transit to driving is relatively simple, because it requires only wealth, a desire for independence and status, and an inability or unwillingness to look very far into the future.
Moving from driving back to transit, bicycling and walking is far harder, because the cars themselves are only part of the problem. Much more critical is the inherent inefficiency of the way of life that cars both enable and make necessary, and of the sprawling web of wasteful infrastructure that high levels of individual mechanized mobility lead affluent societies to create.
Sooner or later, whatever else happens, the world will run out of inexpensive oil. Countries with expanding economies would be better off using their new wealth to create ways of life that can be sustained beyond that inescapable point, rather than recklessly investing in a future that has no future.
Not jumping off a cliff is easier than turning around in mid-fall.
David Owen is author of Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less are the Keys to Sustainability.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry