• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Navigating the Poles
    • New Security Broadcast
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • Building Sustainable Cities in a Warmer, More Crowded World

    January 3, 2013 By Laurie Mazur

    The future is urban – but is it sustainable?

    For decades – centuries, really – warnings have been issued: The burgeoning human population will outgrow the planet’s capacity to sustain us. The formula seems simple. More people equals fewer resources and greater environmental damage.

    But today, we have a more nuanced understanding of the population-environment connection. We know that the relationship between human beings and the environment is complex, mediated by systems of production and consumption. And we know that population growth is not the only demographic change that matters: age structure and population distribution also shape environmental impact.

    In other words, the planet’s “carrying capacity” is not just about human numbers, but about how people live, and where.

    Urbanization Rising

    Where we live is – increasingly – in cities. In 1950, cities were home to 750 million people. In 2008, for the first time in history, more people lived in urban than in rural areas. This trend is expected to continue. According to the National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends 2030 report, over the next two decades the number of city-dwellers will soar to nearly five billion, 60 percent of the world’s population. Most of those new urbanites will live in developing regions of Asia and Africa, and as many as two billion will live in “informal settlements,” or slums.

    This means that building sustainable, prosperous cities is an urgent priority for the 21st century. It is difficult to comprehend the magnitude of the task. As Global Trends 2030 reports, “the volume of urban construction for housing, office space, and transport services over the next 40 years could roughly equal the entire volume of such construction to date in world history.”

    Or, as Alex Steffen puts it in Carbon Zero: Imagining Cities That Can Save the Planet:

    Every day, at least 200,000 people move to cities or are born in them. That’s like building a city the size of San Francisco every four days. Then doing it again, four days later. Then doing it again – and repeating the process several thousand times in the next 40 years.

    The structure of those cities – their systems of transportation; energy and water use; and waste disposal – have profound consequences for our planet and its inhabitants, and for the ultimate sustainability of the human enterprise. What, then, does the urban future hold?

    Defying the Kuznets Curve

    There are reasons for hope. As cities stretch to accommodate growing populations, and as existing infrastructure reaches the end of its useful life, there is an extraordinary window of opportunity to build sustainable urban areas.

    Fully half of the built environment that will be in place by 2030 does not yet exist. And urban density and economies of scale can – in theory, at least – encourage more efficient use of resources. For example, public transit is practical and economical in densely populated cities. That is one reason why New York City, with its well-used transit system, has the lowest per-capita carbon emissions of any large American city: 6.5 tons per person annually, compared to 16.5 tons in car-dependent Houston.

    But cities are also engines of economic development, and their relative affluence typically leads to greater resource use. The National Intelligence Council observes that, historically, urban growth has been responsible for significant environmental damage, including dramatic reductions in forest cover; extinctions of plant and animal species; and changes in the availability and quality of fresh water.

    Of course, some believe that economic development will ultimately improve environmental quality. This is the “environmental Kuznets curve” (EKC) hypothesis, inspired by the work of economist Simon Kuznets. The EKC proposes an inverted U-shaped curve for development – environmental conditions worsen in the early “smokestack” stages but later improve as affluent urbanites demand better conditions. This theory has real-world implications. In many countries, it is seen as a justification to “grow first and clean up later.”

    Except that the “cleaning up” part may never come. In his book The Citizens at Risk: From Urban Sanitation to Sustainable Cities, development economist Gordon McGranahan shows that real cities rarely follow the orderly arc of the EKC. It is true that affluent city dwellers demand better conditions, but this effect is mainly for local environmental problems – such as contaminated water from poor sanitation. The same effect does not necessarily hold true for global environmental problems, including climate change, as more affluent city-dwellers consume more and expand their environmental “footprint.”

    Re-Imagining Vulnerability

    There are potential environmental benefits from urbanization, but much like the effects of the demographic dividend, they do not accrue automatically. Cities concentrate human activity, so if systems of production and consumption are problematic, they will be even more so in urban areas.

    On the other hand, cities can also concentrate solutions. The urban building boom of the early 21st century offers an opportunity – and an imperative – to reimagine the cities we inhabit. In Carbon Zero, Steffen lays out such a vision. He calls for walkable, carbon-neutral cities that protect the ecosystems on which they depend.

    While we are reimagining our cities, we may also need to rethink their location. Humanity’s great migration to the city has also been a migration to the coast. By 2025, about a third of the world’s people will live within 60 miles of a coastline. But, as scientists have long predicted (and as many in New York and New Jersey recently learned the hard way) those coastal areas are extraordinarily vulnerable to rising seas and intensified storms in a changing climate. The projected cost of business-as-usual – both in lives and treasure – is staggering.

    In economic terms, rising seas could swallow nearly a tenth of the world’s wealth, according to the OECD. Worse, that projection does not account for the now likely melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which could raise sea levels by three to six feet this century. For the poorest people living in low-lying slums, that would be nothing short of catastrophic.

    The task of reimagining – and possibly relocating – today’s great cities, and those of tomorrow, may seem impossibly daunting. But opportunities abound, and the stakes are high. We live in an increasingly urban world. If our cities are not sustainable, nothing will be.

    Laurie Mazur is a consultant on population and the environment for the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program and a writer and consultant to non-profit organizations. She is the editor, most recently, of A Pivotal Moment: Population, Justice and the Environmental Challenge (Island Press, 2009).

    Sources: CNN, Dinda (2004), LiveScience, McGranahan et al. (2001), National Intelligence Council, Natural Resources Defense Council, Steffen (2012), The City of New York, UNDP, UNFPA, UN-HABITAT, Yale Environment 360.

    Photo Credit: “Black Marble – Asia and Australia,” courtesy of NASA; Chart courtesy of Cialani et al. (2003).

    Topics: Africa, Asia, biodiversity, climate change, conservation, consumption, demography, development, economics, environment, featured, flooding, forests, oceans, population, U.S., urbanization, water
    • Jane Bevis

      Climate change and its implications for our future wellbeing are not on this year’s G8 agenda, as announced by the UK’s Prime Minister yesterday. Instead the focus is on short term fixes for the current economic problems. Understandable though this may be, given political life-spans, the truth is we cannot build a better future without taking account of the threats – and opportunities – our changing climate presents.

      Back in 2005 I commissioned research at the Association of British Insurers into the likely financial impacts of a changing climate. We did not foresee Sandy as a specific scenario, but we did forecast an increase of 75% in insured losses from extreme US hurricanes (at 2004 prices), equivalent to 2-3 Hurricane Andrews (which hit Miami-Dade) in a single season.

      The UK Met Office has just reported 2012 was the wettest year in England since records began, with extreme rainstorms much more common than in the 1960s. Seven of the hottest 10 years here have occurred since 1997. UK cities are not designed to cope with these conditions. Meanwhile recently published UK Census figures show London’s population is growing, with 1 in 5 Londoners born outside the UK.

      It’s not just the world’s new cities in the BRICs and CIVETS, or even LDCs, that face challenges. Some of our most developed cities, home to our financial and other globally significant services which underpin the global economy, need to address these issues as a matter of urgency.

      The London Climate Change Partnership attempted to address these issues in its 2006 report ‘Adapting to climate change: Lessons for London’ which drew on lessons from cities around the world. How much progress have we made? Very little. We’re not even future-proofing our new build, let alone retro-fitting existing housing and infrastructure.

      Regrettably there could be many more New Jerseys before we invest prudently in sustainable solutions, unless the climate change movement re-mobilises and demonstrates why a time of economic uncertainty is exactly the right moment to reinvent our cities, our transportation and infrastructure, and the way we do business and live our lives.

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • 49890944808_c7d6dfef74_c Why Feminism Is Good for Your Health
    Melinda Cadwallader: "Feminism materializes through investment in human capital and caregiving sectors of the economy...
  • 49890944808_c7d6dfef74_c Why Feminism Is Good for Your Health
    Melinda Cadwallader: People who refuse to acknowledge patriarchy are often the ones who benefit from it. So please, say...
  • Water desalination pipes A Tale of Two Coastlines: Desalination in China and California
    Dr S Sundaramoorthy: It is all fine as theory. What about the energy cost? Arabian Gulf has the money from its own oil....

Related Stories

No related stories.

  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2023. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000