|
|
Regular
Posts: 80
| After ready http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-08-25/citywatch-taking-n...
today, i'm left wondering "who is Right".
In the artical the author thinks that Cities cannot only feed themselves but continue to grow.
Where as Richard Heinberg predicts that the cities will empty as oil supplies dwindal and the production of food and wood become the only gams in towns.
There seems to be a diifferance of opion between the enviromentalists and Peak oil communities.
Enviromentalists believe that densly populated cities are the answer, providing ecomonies of scale, in creased oppertunity of exchange of ideas. Seeing cities in terms of increased efficiency of it's internal system. Stewart Brand (Whole earth Catalogue" believes that increased Urbanisation is responsible for the world wide slow down in the birth rate. That birth rates will continue to decline until 2050 (9 billion people) and after that population will start to decline ( number of births less than the number of deaths)
For Peak oiliers cities need to import food and water, and export waste. Seeing cities in terms of the inefficiency of their external systems. And if cities are responsible for falling world populations, what happens if they all go "back to the land"? Increased population?
Perhaps there is a third future for Cities? Seasonal migration. Travelling to and from the city and countryside during planting and harvesting seasons. Spending summers and winters in the city?
How will any of this affect the Black-isle? | |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 275
| Densely populated cities make it easier to deal with services such as refuse collection, and reduce the need to travel for education, commuting, shopping, etc. But they are a million miles away from resilience - then again, most rural communites in the developed world aren't much better, but at least they have lower population density, which gives some hope they could become resilient.
But I suppose the main thing is that, as the availability of cheap fossil fuels reduces, the balance of employment will have to change, with many more people working to produce food. So that means the global movement from the countryside to cities will have to reverse - and we'll have to live with the inefficiencies of dispersed rural populations. | |
| | |
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 319
| In many parts of the world there is already seasonal migration from the cities to go and work the land or help with the harvest. Perhaps that will become more common.
In terms of transport we have found it very much harder to keep a low carbon footprint here compared with London where we didn't have a car at all for 7 months or at least only occasional use of a car club one.
Its also interesting that places now seen as 'remote' e.g. Cromarty and various islands were actually very strategic in an era when sail power was the cheapest and fastest way to get about. Perhaps we will see a resurgence of this. | |
| |
|
What is the Furtue of the worlds Citiies?