How does Roseland define “sustainable community?”
Roseland refers to a sustainable community as making cities more urban and urban to more rural
Over half the global population now lives in cities. What are the positive and negative impacts of this transformation? How might what Roseland refers to as a northern city differ in impact from what he calls a southern city?
One positive impacts of cities are the communication and networking opportunities that are available. Negative impacts include a separation for the natural capital and a disconnect with nature. Rosland say that the “basic problem with northern cities is that they are unsustainable, whereas the basic problem with southern cities is that they are underdeveloped”.
What assumptions have cities been built upon in North America regarding land and energy? How is this manifested in current urban form, say, in Indianapolis or Bloomington?
Cities in North America have been built under the assumptions that all land and energy resources are renewable. This is evident by the populations reliance on imported goods and the distance between the town and local food supplies.
How do North American cities compare to cities in other parts of the world in terms of ecological footprint? What if all world citizens had similar rates of consumption to North Americans?
North American cities are coined with holding 25% of the world’s population which consumes 75% of the world’s resources. If all the world’s citizens had similar rates of consumption to North Americans we would all be dead.
How is it that large cities “import sustainability” and export “ecological degradation?”
This is done through placing economic values on pollutants. For example, an new concept is “carbon budgeting” where companies can use “carbon credits” if the absorb more carbon than they used. These credits can then be used for things such as tax credits.
No comments:
Post a Comment