Cities play an important role in social and economic activities. Cities generally perform poorly in terms of environmental performance (compared to social and economic activities). One of the main reasons behind this poor environmental performance appears to be due to population pressure and its impacts on the environment. Currently, about 50% population live in cities which is projected to rise in the coming years (by 2050 it could 6 out of 10 people will live in cities). Most of world megacities (> 10 million people) are in developing countries (e.g. Guangzhou, Shanghai, Jakarta, Seoul, Delhi, Mexico, Karachi, Manila, Sao Paulo, Mumbai, Beijing, Moscow, Dhaka, Cairo, Kolkata, Buenos Aires, Bangkok, Istanbul, Lagos, Tehran, Rio de Janeiro, Shenzhen and Tanjin) and few are in developed countries (Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, Osaka, London, Rhine-Ruhr, Paris). The dense population in cities generate huge volume of solid and soluble wastes, the demand for electricity, water and traffic in cities will cause significant carbon footprints and water footprints. What measures would be needed so that cities remain a healthy place to live on in terms of managing carbon pollution and water pollution in the future?
Dear Sir,
You have focused on the chief problem in front of the mankind. But as far as human civilization is concerned their unawareness and careless behavior should be the main cause of the contamination and pollution of the environment. Along with periodic/ regular monitoring of the environmental resources, the strict law regulation and awaking the people about their contribution to the pollution will be effective measure to keep check on this dreadful problem.
Dear Sanindhar
Thank you. Awareness, education is important as well as monitoring to check up whether water and food are within the guideline threshold values, similarly policies and programmes to regulate discharge of wastes into natural environment is required. In developed countries where people are much educated and respect their laws it may be possible to regulate pollution but in many developing countries including Indian sub-continents open discharges into natural environment is always happening. regards. Golam
Along with awareness, enlightened leadership is a very important element of keeping cities clean, liveable, and efficient, so that the environmental footprint of the populace is keep as small as possible. Great leaders can inspire people from many walks of life to work together for a common goal such as cleaning up the environment. As the people of cities learn that they can work together successfully for a better future, then regulations can be developed, and then water quality and air quality will improve. That's how it has worked in the USA.
Hi Daniel, I do agree with you that involvement of key influential people such as celebrities, key politicians need to be involved from both developed and developing countries in order to be successful in reducing impacts from air, water. Regards Golam
Hi Daniel, I do agree with you that involvement of key influential people such as celebrities, key politicians need to be involved from both developed and developing countries in order to be successful in reducing impacts from air, water. Regards Golam
Dear Golam Kibria.
.
I think science can not develop theories starting from axioms before checking the truth of the axioms
.
In the supporting text the question is written the following sentence: "....Cities Generally perform poorly in terms of environmental performance (Compared to social and economic activities) " In other words, you claim that cities have a weak environmental performance, I would ask first. Poorly environmental performance in relation to what?
.
When we say that the performance of something is better or worse, we should say "about that", I suppose you're comparing cities in relation to country life, and not see how I can prove that the cities in terms of environmental performance is worse than the campaign.
.
I think this question there is a strong equivocal confusing two concepts, concentration and total volume. In terms of concentration actually cities have the characteristic of increasing not only the concentration of pollution as problems regarding the campaign, but as this last as much pollution problems are diffuse there is a tendency to consider them more environmental performance.
.
Not to stay with a theoretical discourse we take as an example exactly the examples cited at the end of the text , the volume of solid and soluble wastes , the demand for electricity , water and traffic .
.
(Continues below)
(Continued)
The volume of solid and soluble wastes generated per person in a city is almost the same as that generated by the same person with the same quality of life in rural life. If it were dispersed a population of 10,000,000 people over a large surface, except that everybody lives a subsistence agriculture does not generate surpluses capable of provide the same standard of living than in the city, in the form of consumption of each one will be the same. Adding to this all the environmental cost of moving products to each point (to diffuse residents) will be much higher than the resident of a large city.
.
Regarding the treatment of solids and soluble wastes will be nearly impossible to made with the same degree of energy efficiency than a concentrated treatment of large cities.
.
The demand for electricity, following the same pattern of life, is sometimes diffuse a greater consumption since the introduction of several pieces of equipment will be needed to get the same quality (water pumps, illumination Around the residences, ). For the same consumption in a disperse environment the cost of networks and power distribution transformers is much higher. This is easily verifiable by the cost of rural electrification, that for the same number of people the cost is at least 10 times higher than urban electrification.
.
Satisfying the demand for water has no terms of comparison as to provide treated water to rural households can not economically convey miles away treated water for each of these 10 million people dispersed, so that the costs are astronomical. There is a chance in places where there is plenty of water extract it from rivers or underground with due water treatment individually for each household, something totally impractical both in economic and environmental terms.
.
For the cost of transportation the above remarks also apply, and to meet the locals scattered with pathways that operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year the costs would be exorbitant.
.
In addition to these easily quantifiable problems, have other more intangible needs. To carry medical aid to an inhabitant of a city need a good care of ambulances and some hospitals, to disperse nuclei need helicopters! No further develop the text can cite other human activities such as education, leisure, safety and others that have the same proportion of costs.
.
(Continues below)
(Final)
People live in cities not because like losing touch with nature or losing your individuality, but because it is the only way that one has to satisfy a number of basic demands with high efficiency in relation to country life, environmental efficiency and economic, and that since the Neolithic man discovered.
.
Soon, analyzing in terms of environmental and economic efficiency towns are real successes in relation to country life not unlike as it is said in the question, if we are to reduce both the carbon and water footprint we concentrated on the most possible in cities, and solve many of these problems through urban planning.
.
Dear Prof Rogerio Maestri,
Thank you for your comments and inputs
I meant cities perform better in terms of social and economic aspects compared to environmental aspects. Literatures I read actually compared cities with three pillars: economic, social and environmental (three pillars in sustainability).
Waste load I meant amount /size
The impact from electricity and water uses by dense population will have both carbon pollution (green house gas emissions) and water pollution (more sewage water) which is in concentration of pollutants
regards
Golam
Maybe you have not understood the purpose of the long text , item by item if you look you will see that cities both in the economic , social and environmental aspects , are more sustainable than the country life . An objective , technical and real, not romantic view .
.
Treatment of a city sewage concentrate with all the necessary network, pumping stations are still cheaper and with lower environmental impacts than small units dispersed treatments with low efficiency of removal of pollution and lower energy efficiency.
.
There is a HUGE confusion between concentrated and diffuse treatments, concentrates appear to have a higher cost, but UNIT both economic and environmental cost is less, moreover concentrated sewage are easier to treat than diluted and if treatment is anaerobic generation methane is better to be reused
.
Now, the country life can be more bucolic and romantic, but it is more expensive and harder, making people come to the cities.
The majority of the worlds rural population does not get as much administrative support as is normal in the cities, which have more power to require all available ressources . They produce more organic and other waste , which also cannot be recycled or reused nearby.
Moreover, cities depend heavily on fossil fuels ( whereas ancient Rome depended on wood, slaves, wheat an so on ) for taking everything needed in and out.
Cities in developing countries increase tremendously, since they started this way - depriving finally people in the countryside from resources.
Many people in cities lost the basic understanding, that we are living on the fundamental consequences of the earth, as e.g.the soil, the sunshine and its harvests and not on the base of an urban organisation.
Thank you Herbert for your inputs. I got your point. In rural areas greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) take place from agriculture and livestock farming, irrigation pumping, food transportation, and deforestation. In cities, transportation, electricity consumption, heavy industries and housing sector (space heating, water heating and use of electric appliances) are major sources GHGs. Recycling also happens in rural areas, for example, in Australia farmers are supposed to recycle their waste water within their farm dams.
Thank you Golam. In Germany ecological farmers ( a few percent of all ) are supposed to use mainly their own products for cattle and fields, and only organic matter from not far away in addition - in difference to most of the other farmers. Also in the countryside you can reuse the organic material in your own compost , whereas it is not recycled to the fields in general. Thus, shortage of phosphate is coming soon - although it is worked on means to regain it from municipal sewage treatment.
In Africa circumstances allowed small farmers to survive somehow without very much impact from the fertilizer and chemical industry. The BIOVISION foundation (Zürich ) is in contact with small farmers in Kenia, Senegal and others to develop farming better in an organic way and reducing monoculture and its effects, with the help of diverse plants and the insects living there.
What concerns greenhouse gases: the USA, Saudiarabia and Australia have the highest emissions per capita.
However, the waste depends on various factors. Among others the density of cars as well as of people may be considered.
Italy is top in the density of cars per capita, followed by Australia and Germany.
The population density ( following the Philippines and Great Britain/UK ) is highest in Germany and Italy.
Therefore Italy and Germany suffer most of congestion - in Australia the space is much wider, but from the emissions of GHG suffers the whole world.
Yes Herbert, Australia is one of biggest polluter (on the basis of per capita GHG emissions) whereas on the basis of total emissions (CO2) China is now leading followed by USA, India, Russia, Japan
Dear Hebert.
I would like to comment on some of your statements which seem to me not to have scientific support.
.
The first is the following: "Moreover, cities depend heavily on fossil fuels (Whereas ancient Rome depended on wood, slaves, wheat an so on) everything needed for taking in and out".
.
I do not know from where to withdraw that statement. If we consider all the widespread displacement of normal inputs for life (not locally produced food, toiletries and cleaning, dressing, .....) as well as the offset for education, health, access to business establishments and dozens of other activities, causes the field to be much more dependent on private transport than in the city. Adding to that all activities that named the other entries will not cover the economy on no fossil feuls you can do with a more sustainable agriculture.
.
The second statement: "The Majority of the worlds population does not get the much rural administrative support the standard is in the cities, Which have more power to require all available ressources" leads the reader to conclude that rural people do not get the same resources that urban neglect for of the public agents. This is false, what is that to provide the same supports life in a city that has the values are extremely high. Take for example the French government is implementing a medical emergency service in small rural communities, while in town transportation is done by ambulances in the field should be done by helicopters!
.
On the need for organic agriculture without the use of chemicals and the elimination of monoculture, I totally agree, but this is not a matter of will of the people is a market issue. Farmers who work with organic agriculture has a much greater difficulty in distribution and marketing of its products.
.
I get extremely worried when looking to establish a European paradigm for world agriculture, as the basis for all European agriculture is not technology, but the subsidy. On the EU budget for the period 2014-2020 is 362 billion euros (budget reduced by British pressure). There's even a statement of the English politician Douglas Alexander (who may or may not be true) that each European cow receives two euros per day.
.
Dear Rogerio,
it is also my opinion, that the agriculture in industrial countries is not social and not sustainable , therefore I cited the tiny group of organic farmers who are often opposed and get difficulties.
The western lifestyle uses resources of more than one planet.
Moreover, cities perform badly in many repects.
Nearly half the world population are small farmers mainly in Asia and Africa. Education and health services for them are more difficult to establish, but not impossible and need not increase the low GHG emissions in these countries.
The Global Report (Agriculture at the Crossroads) critisizes inappropriate policy interventions, socioeconomic exclusion and the failure to address the real needs of poor people, recommending agro-ecological small-scalle farming, balancing beetwen economy and ecology - scaling up socially and environmentally sustainable practices.
Large cities are also more vulnerable, if the supply should be interrupted.
Their rapid growth is not well planned. Why not favor cities of more moderate extension ?
If cities are planned completely, they may perform perfectly for a while ecologically, but only for the period of time, where the planning conditions are not changed to much.
Thus, many aspects are important - also the balance between a sufficient size of the population and the impact on the environment.
.
Dear Herbert.
.
I do not disagree with the need for an ecological and sustainable agriculture, that disagree are the basic assumptions to achieve this agriculture.
.
In your text is clear the difficulty encountered in Europe for this type of organic agriculture, now if we transport to the third world difficulties are still much higher.
.
My basic premise is that the difficulty is much more political than technological, and I would quote one of the basic requirements for deployment in the third world of this type of agriculture prerequisites, the elimination of agricultural subsidies in industrialized farms of developed countries, as tons of its products are discharged on the third world in competition for small farmers.
.
Maybe the Europeans who militate in the development of natural farming, there will realize that one of the reasons for the immense difficulties of farmers in Africa and Asia is unfair competition from a subsidized agriculture (European and American) with subsistence farming continents most underdeveloped.
.
Agroecological farming small scale in the poorest countries, may represent misery and death when it comes into competition with surplus imported from industrialized countries. A problem for small farmers in the third world is the lack of capitalizing for times of drought or other weather problems. If the subsidized products did not reach the cities of the third world countries, these residents spend a little more on food, but the rural exodus would cease to exist by setting the farmer on his land and not swelling cities.
.
Paradoxical as it may seem, the sale of low-cost food to undeveloped countries (or even donate), it may seem in the short term to improve the lives of its inhabitants, but in the medium and long term as well as represent the dependency factor of the transformation hungry for an epidemic to an endemic situation.
.
Not simply gentle and correct proposals for a sustainable agriculture farmers of the third world will remain in their small rural farm, the path is the economic value of its surplus production, which enables you to purchase other products that are needed in your life.
.
What drives the farmer of the third world countries leave the field are not climate or cultural problems is poverty and misery of this is caused by the devaluation of their products.
.
Ecological agriculture and sustainable, with low technological level, which was the third world farmer produced for millennia, and the lack of capitalization thereof which prevents him continuing with an ecological and sustainable agriculture assimilating best technological level.
.
.
The great mass of people in third world cities was not generated by endogenous reasons of their own countries, but the economic impose centralized in large monocultures owners. Monoculture of large areas is the only way to become profitable agriculture in the third world to compete with other industrialized monocultures.
.
90 % of the city areas suffer from rather bad air, as stated presently by the WHO.
As reasons for the harmful fumes are mentioned the fossil fuels and little insulation of the builings ( needing heating/cooling ).
Bogotá is mentioned as outstanding for providing measures for pedestrians and cyclists .
According to the UNEP the damages from exhaust in developing countries are unproportionally larger, lacking better protection.
The economic pressure in developing countries drives people into the cities.
In industrial countries larger farmes do not need as much workers anymore and life in cities appears to be more attractive, but costs in health.
Thank you Herbert. Yes cities are crowded. In the future cities population will rise to 60% according to some predictions (i.e.6 out of 10 people will live in cities)
.
Dear friends.
.
When I hear veiled insinuations that cities are polluted and that would be better than everyone lived in the camps I remember a recent story that everyone try to forget!
.
People living in cities because conditions are better and the internal migration in countries is something spontaneous, scientists, researchers, environmentalists and politicians who not should decide the future of the people, I feel completely inhibited when I see the direction that it goes.
.
Dear Rogerio,
from my side there is no suggestion atb all, that "everyone" has to live in a certain place, which he cannot decide by himself.
However it is clear, that most poeple are driven to one or the other place by economic shortcomings - often consequences of politcal circumstances. E.g. the power of companies, who grab land for making profit and drive out small farmers. (Africa)
Also, to my knowledge the protesters and the surrounding people of the huge hydropower project Belo Monte in your country were not treated well.
In Romania many villages werde destroyed by the late Ceauscescu. He built towns with houses of many floors, without sufficient heating and often without enough supply of food - what the villagers could provide for themselves before.
"Provision of heat " was made finally by shifting the scale of the thermometers.
Presently I saw the detailed reports of the houses in China destroyed for expanding cities with new streets and buidings.
To a smaller scale, but with more cruelty the russian administration in Sotchi did the same.
Even in the US many people in smaller villages feel driven away by the large companies buying or renting land, not employing anybody of the surrounding villages.
I am questioning, if it is a sign of a civilized or a free country, if either violence, corruption and the police force or - as in the US - the big companies move people away from the places, where they have their living.
Dear Kibria,
Considering the debates around this question, it could be the subject of a paper. Kind regards.
Air quality in most cities worldwide fails to meet WHO guidelines for safe levels, putting people at additional risk of respiratory disease and other health problems according to latest WHO report released on 7 May 2014. About half of the urban population being monitored is exposed to air pollution that is at least 2.5 times higher than the levels of WHO. Reliance on fossil fuels such as coal fired power plants, dependence on private transport motor vehicles, inefficient use of energy in buildings, and the use of biomass for cooking and heating are responsible for high level of pollutants in cities.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/who-most-polluted-cities-list-sees-new-delhi-smog-trump-beijing-20140508-zr6k4.html#ixzz31BLBQnoT
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2014/air-quality/en/
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/08/world/asia/india-pollution-who/
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/who-most-polluted-cities-list-sees-new-delhi-smog-trump-beijing-20140508-zr6k4.html
Sanitary conditions, weather protection ( particularly flooding during heavy rainfalls ) are bad in slums and favelas. There is hardly any care for it.
Is it known, how many climate gases are produced there ?
Comparison could be made with the small farmers in India and Africa, who do little harm.
It was amazing to me, how the book of Ezra J. Mishan :
The costs of economic growth (1967 ) - ( see also his commentary 2006 )
which I read in the Sixties predicted many city problems .
He discusses the human and natural background.
Dear Golam, We should promote green cities or sustainable urban environmental management through adopting combination of both command and control and economic instruments or measures.
Dear Choen, Thank you. Yes a number of city councils have strategy towards green cities and energy action plan for example
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Atmospheric Sciences
- Climate Science
- Climate Change