How slums can save the planet (come again?)

[Mouroux]

See:
Slums Urban Living Prospect Magazine
Internet Archive: Free Download: Slumming IT in Indian Slum

"Urban density allows half of humanity to live on 2.8 per cent of the land. Demographers expect developing countries to stabilise at 80 per cent urban, as nearly all developed countries have. On that basis, 80 per cent of humanity may live on 3 per cent of the land by 2050. Consider just the infrastructure efficiencies. According to a 2004 UN report: “The concentration of population and enterprises in urban areas greatly reduces the unit cost of piped water, sewers, drains, roads, electricity, garbage collection, transport, health care, and schools.” In the developed world, cities are green because they cut energy use; in the developing world, their greenness lies in how they take the pressure off rural waste."

"The point is clear: environmentalists have yet to seize the opportunity offered by urbanisation. Two major campaigns should be mounted: one to protect the newly-emptied countryside, the other to green the hell out of the growing cities."

Does Brand succeed in his portrayal of slums --for example when he suggests that there is a positive sense of community where 'everyone knows your name' (think Cheers?) --because so much 'housing' is condensed into such a relatively small space, so that you pass by many of your neighbours during a short walk from your living quarters to a parking lot --and begin to trust them? Lots or ordinary, simple folks happily going about their lives while potentially reducing energy consumption on a grand scale?

Sure, it's not perfect, but could radical urbanisation bring about a kind of green utopia?

The second link is to a documentary series: 'Slumming It' (see also Kevin McCloud: Slumming It | 4Homes | Channel4.com) in which the film maker discovers "awe-inspiring resourcefulness" in some of the more extreme samplings of the urban centre. Prince Charles is interviewed and advocates the way of live in the slums, as depicted by the film makers, for the purposes of sustainability.

But will everyone know your name? Is urbanisation really the way forward? Judging by the sources cited above, it seems there is... a hell of a lot of overlooked potential? Or, is something else being overlooked --homelessness? Child labour? Social hierarchies --the inevitable gangster running a variety of black markets that allow some of those dwelling within the slums to amass great fortunes. The documentary shows little boys with smiles on their faces running along the street... but could those same boys work for criminals... and how many are sleeping on floors? Are Prince Charles, Steward Brand and Kevin McCloud (and no doubt many of the more 'committed' greens) looking at slum live through rose coloured shades ? Should we be inspired to live a condensed, sustainable life? Is this... the future? Ireland 2050?!

[Húrin]

I would look upon this prescription with serious scepticism, and with the weight of history in my mind. Europe became urbanised gradually by enclosure of the countryside by powerful private interests, forcing people into slums in the 18th and 19the centuries, especially in Britain.

In the present system, the emptying of the countryside of people tends to result in it being taken over by agribusiness which replaces small, diverse farms with enormous monocultural crops. This releases huge amounts of greenhouse gas, reduces biodiversity and causes many other environmental problems.

The goals of evacuating people from the countryside, and yet protecting it from destruction are contradictory goals. The interests that want to destroy it for profit are too powerful for environmentalists to resist.

The best way to protect the majority of rural areas in the world are either to leave them as the wildernesses they are, or in the case of cultivated rural areas, to strengthen the position of small-scale farmers there, enshrine tenants' rights and property rights in law and aid their efforts to support themselves. These small scale farmers who make up most of the people in the world are helping to keep the planet cool.

[Mouroux]

Hi Húrin,

You state the need to "strengthen the position of small-scale farmers" and "enshrine tenants' rights and property rights in law and aid their efforts to support themselves." Gosh, you're starting to sound like a member of the Republican Party. Can you elaborate on your point?
Well you know where I stand on the broader issues, but you have peaked my curiosity insofar as your actual proposals are politically conservative (think conservation!) and do not appear supportive of core mechanisms of globalisation as set out in Agenda 21 (DSD :: Resources - Publications - Core Publications). The UN position that urbanisation is inevitable is, in very real terms, supportive of the current process of globalisation/corporatism. How might transnational entities like Shell, Monsanto, or even newly emerging 'green', corporatised technology 'initiatives', benefit collectively from Agenda 21 or similar goals and directives? You must consider that when a key document is produced by, for example, the UN (which I see as just another 'transnational entity'), it is subtly designed to be well received by the financial establishment --it must also have political 'currency'.

It really is a pity that AGW skeptics are forced to continually invest their energies in combating the false (and falsified!) scientific 'consensus'. There so many other disciplines that could be brought to bear on the wider political/sociological debate, or that can offer critiques of globalisation, e.g., Postcolonialism or Feminism --I'm thinking Gayatri Spivak (on rural culture), or Judith Butler (incidentally, Butler has even offered some sharp criticisms of science, or of the 'scientific mindset').

[Húrin]

Hi Húrin,

You state the need to "strengthen the position of small-scale farmers" and "enshrine tenants' rights and property rights in law and aid their efforts to support themselves." Gosh, you're starting to sound like a member of the Republican Party. Can you elaborate on your point?

Perhaps "property rights" is not the right term, but there needs to be less of a tendency for farmers to be only on land for a year or two before moving, in order to encourage sustainable use of land, and to encourage projects like biochar burial by farmers. My point is that small-scale farmers are in most cases helping to prevent runaway global warming and that this role needs to be encouraged. I think that forcing these people into urban slums would only make our problems worse.

Well you know where I stand on the broader issues

What issues do you speak of?

but you have peaked my curiosity insofar as your actual proposals are politically conservative (think conservation!) and do not appear supportive of core mechanisms of globalisation as set out in Agenda 21 (DSD :: Resources - Publications - Core Publications).

Ideologies don't help people; people help people. I don't owe loyalty to any one ideology especially when dealing with a serious and urgent issue.

The UN position that urbanisation is inevitable is, in very real terms, supportive of the current process of globalisation/corporatism. How might transnational entities like Shell, Monsanto, or even newly emerging 'green', corporatised technology 'initiatives', benefit collectively from Agenda 21 or similar goals and directives?

As little as possible I hope. It's a lot to read. Have you read it?

You must consider that when a key document is produced by, for example, the UN (which I see as just another 'transnational entity'), it is subtly designed to be well received by the financial establishment --it must also have political 'currency'.

Probably. Documents written by such institutions are inherently cautious and conservative because they need approval from so many political authorities, with divergent agendas.

It really is a pity that AGW skeptics are forced to continually invest their energies in combating the false (and falsified!) scientific 'consensus'.

They are forced by nobody. It is a choice.

There so many other disciplines that could be brought to bear on the wider political/sociological debate, or that can offer critiques of globalisation, e.g., Postcolonialism or Feminism --I'm thinking Gayatri Spivak (on rural culture), or Judith Butler (incidentally, Butler has even offered some sharp criticisms of science, or of the 'scientific mindset').

I think most serious critiques of globalised capital have come from people who accept the existence of AGW.

[Húrin]

Why has this thread slipped into obscurity? It is one other more interesting ones on posted this forum lately.

[feargach]

Why has this thread slipped into obscurity? It is one other more interesting ones on posted this forum lately.

I think it's the dumbo title of the article. Equating "high density" with "slum" is stupid.

Brooklyn has lower density than Manhattan, so does that mean that Brooklyn apartments are more expensive than Manhattan ones? Of course not.

Well-executed high density living is, as measured by the free market, the best way to live.

All the most expensive places per sq metre are in high-density locations, be they in Auckland, Tokyo, New York or Paris.

[Mouroux]

Why has this thread slipped into obscurity? It is one other more interesting ones on posted this forum lately.

I absolutely agree Hurin --the environment forum has become an endless series of repetitive threads where nearly every "new" thread could just as well have the same title as the last one. It's not even slightly interesting... the same handful of posters contributing to and reading the same old threads and topics.

It is time to branch out a little bit and discuss topics like urbanisation: pros/cons. Or how about a thread or two on Monsanto? Playing devil's advocate for a minute here, I would say that the AGW proponents stand a better chance of advancing the general subject-matter of environmentalism is there is shown to be common-ground with the 'skeptics' on some of the issues. For example you have said, variously, that small farmers could be protected more, the property of individuals needs to be protected (or however you want to word that), that Monsato are bad news all round (?) and that Cap & Trade is questionable as a policy, to say the least. I'm paraphrasing, but you get the point.

I was going to start a thread on Monsanto, but I figured that maybe someone on the 'other side' might take the initiative? Think about it.

[Tombo]

See:
Slums Urban Living Prospect Magazine
Internet Archive: Free Download: Slumming IT in Indian Slum

"Urban density allows half of humanity to live on 2.8 per cent of the land. Demographers expect developing countries to stabilise at 80 per cent urban, as nearly all developed countries have. On that basis, 80 per cent of humanity may live on 3 per cent of the land by 2050. Consider just the infrastructure efficiencies. According to a 2004 UN report: “The concentration of population and enterprises in urban areas greatly reduces the unit cost of piped water, sewers, drains, roads, electricity, garbage collection, transport, health care, and schools.” In the developed world, cities are green because they cut energy use; in the developing world, their greenness lies in how they take the pressure off rural waste."

"The point is clear: environmentalists have yet to seize the opportunity offered by urbanisation. Two major campaigns should be mounted: one to protect the newly-emptied countryside, the other to green the hell out of the growing cities."

Does Brand succeed in his portrayal of slums --for example when he suggests that there is a positive sense of community where 'everyone knows your name' (think Cheers?) --because so much 'housing' is condensed into such a relatively small space, so that you pass by many of your neighbours during a short walk from your living quarters to a parking lot --and begin to trust them? Lots or ordinary, simple folks happily going about their lives while potentially reducing energy consumption on a grand scale?

Sure, it's not perfect, but could radical urbanisation bring about a kind of green utopia?

The second link is to a documentary series: 'Slumming It' (see also Kevin McCloud: Slumming It | 4Homes | Channel4.com) in which the film maker discovers "awe-inspiring resourcefulness" in some of the more extreme samplings of the urban centre. Prince Charles is interviewed and advocates the way of live in the slums, as depicted by the film makers, for the purposes of sustainability.

But will everyone know your name? Is urbanisation really the way forward? Judging by the sources cited above, it seems there is... a hell of a lot of overlooked potential? Or, is something else being overlooked --homelessness? Child labour? Social hierarchies --the inevitable gangster running a variety of black markets that allow some of those dwelling within the slums to amass great fortunes. The documentary shows little boys with smiles on their faces running along the street... but could those same boys work for criminals... and how many are sleeping on floors? Are Prince Charles, Steward Brand and Kevin McCloud (and no doubt many of the more 'committed' greens) looking at slum live through rose coloured shades ? Should we be inspired to live a condensed, sustainable life? Is this... the future? Ireland 2050?!

Classic greenism. You just look for an imperative to start planning, regulating and directing.

Cities become more green because as we become more wealthy that is what we are willing to pay for - directly and indirectly.

We only want watermelons to stay out of the way and let it happen of its own accord.

[Mouroux]

It occurs to me that had Obama, Al Gore etc. stood up at Copenhagen and talked about the need to "strengthen the position of small-scale farmers" and "enshrine tenants' rights and property rights in law and aid their efforts to support themselves..." maybe a real dialogue/discourse would have emerged, versus Cap & Trade, Cap & Trade, Cap & Trade... and the inevitable response "scam, scam, scam." Everything is tailored towards securing the support of the wealthy and big corporations (and their lobbies). But this is just an internet forum --the people who read these thread are not sitting in some huge boardroom, sipping champagne and looking on with greedy eyes as attempts are made to impress them with powerpoints, graphs and (expensive) computer models. There has to be a middle ground that focuses on the worries and concerns of ordinary people? Something that goes beyond dogged adherence to some 'party line' or other. If everyone feels that "there can be no middle-ground whatsoever!!!" then we are all lost... and irrelevant/wasting our time hacking away at our respective keyboards.

[Tombo]

It occurs to me that had Obama, Al Gore etc. stood up at Copenhagen and talked about the need to "strengthen the position of small-scale farmers" and "enshrine tenants' rights and property rights in law and aid their efforts to support themselves..." maybe a real dialogue/discourse would have emerged, versus Cap & Trade, Cap & Trade, Cap & Trade... and the inevitable response "scam, scam, scam." Everything is tailored towards securing the support of the wealthy and big corporations (and their lobbies). But this is just an internet forum --the people who read these thread are not sitting in some huge boardroom, sipping champagne and looking on with greedy eyes as attempts are made to impress them with powerpoints, graphs and (expensive) computer models. There has to be a middle ground that focuses on the worries and concerns of ordinary people? Something that goes beyond dogged adherence to some 'party line' or other. If everyone feels that "there can be no middle-ground whatsoever!!!" then we are all lost... and irrelevant/wasting our time hacking away at our respective keyboards.

This is a commie rant. This belongs in a theoretical politics forum, not the environmental forum