Posted on 08/20/2011 2:01:47 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Urban areas with at least one million inhabitants in 2006. 3% of the world's population lived in cities. Image via Wikipedia
From Yale University
Growth of cities endangers global environment
New Haven, Conn.—The explosive growth of cities worldwide over the next two decades poses significant risks to people and the global environment, according to a meta-analysis published today in PlosOne.
Researchers from Yale, Arizona State, Texas A&M and Stanford predict that by 2030 urban areas will expand by 590,000 square miles—nearly the size of Mongolia—to accommodate the needs of 1.47 billion more people living in urban areas.
“It is likely that these cities are going to be developed in places that are the most biologically diverse,” said Karen Seto, the study’s lead author and associate professor in the urban environment at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. “They’re going to be growing and expanding into forests, biological hotspots, savannas, coastlines—sensitive and vulnerable places.”
Urban areas, they found, have been expanding more rapidly along coasts. “Of all the places for cities to grow, coasts are the most vulnerable. People and infrastructure are at risk to flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes and other environmental disasters,” said Seto.
The study provides the first estimate of how fast urban areas globally are growing and how fast they may grow in the future. “We know a lot about global patterns of urban population growth, but we know significantly less about how urban areas are changing,” she said. “Changes in land cover associated with urbanization drive many environmental changes, from habitat loss and agricultural land conversion to changes in local and regional climate.”
The researchers examined peer-reviewed studies that used satellite data to map urban growth and found that from 1970 to 2000 the world’s urban footprint had grown by at least 22,400 square miles—half the size of Ohio.
“This number is enormous, but, in actuality, urban land expansion has been far greater than what our analysis shows because we only looked at published studies that used satellite data,” said Seto. “We found that 48 of the most populated urban areas have been studied using satellite data, with findings in peer-reviewed journals. This means that we’re not tracking the physical expansion of more than half of the world’s largest cities.”
Half of urban land expansion in China is driven by a rising middle class, whereas the size of cities in India and Africa is driven primarily by population growth. “Rising incomes translate into rising demand for bigger homes and more land for urban development, which has big implications for biodiversity conservation, loss of carbon sinks and energy use.”
The paper, “A Meta-analysis of Global Urban Expansion,” can be viewed on the PlosOne website at http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023777.
fyi
********************************EXCERPT******************************************
Mike Bromley the Kurd says:
The findings really say one thing: “We think this is about to happen, and we must put a stop to it!” Otherwise I see no purpose to the exercise, because no mention of adaptation is made. And lo and behold, the hasty mention-in-passing of “carbon sinks” in the last sentence of the last paragraph. Oops! Almost forgot to mention it! Had to make sure it got a favorable review!
Note also, that their review was of “peer-reviewed studies”. Whew! Sure glad they were careful to avoid Greenpeace, huh?
Back in the 70s, they warned that there would be a massive city stretching from Toronto to Chicago.
I live in south central Michigan and its as rural here as it was in the 70s. In some places its even more rural. In fact, the state is in the process of buying 2000 acres from a private owner near me so it can be added to the public hunting land.
OTOH, transitioning from subsistence agriculture to modern industrial farming means more efficient use of land, and possible reforestation as former peasants move to the cities and suburbs. That’s been America’s experience.
Somebody should tell the authors of the Global Agenda 21.
*****************************EXCERPT********************************************
Truthseeker says:
“whereas the size of cities in India and Africa is driven primarily by population growth. “Rising incomes translate into rising demand for bigger homes and more land for urban development”
I am glad to see that incomes in Africa are rising given that the emphasis on bio-fuels is causing African children to die of starvation by the thousand …
Mankind is using less that 20% of the land area on this planet – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_use_statistics_by_country
Seems like yet another scare mongering attempt. I am old enough to remember when research grants were given for looking at ways to make life better for everyone.
Looks like we do away with the cities, we do away with the libs, communists, socialists, crime, etc
****************************EXCERPT*****************************************
David Schofield says:
London [quite a pleasant sprawling city] is 160 sq miles with a population of 8,000,000
Mongolia is 604,000 sq miles
You can get 3775 Londons in Mongolia x 8000000 pop = 30 200,000,000 or over 30 billion.
In fact the whole world [7 billion] could live in 875 Londons requiring 140,000 sq miles which is around half the size of Texas and leave the rest of the world completely empty.
If you replaced London with a denser packed city it would be much higher.
Again these people talk utter tosh.
PS I’ve just woken up and this took me 3 minutes so any arithmetical corrections welcome, but you get the principle.
It will be far better for the environment if those 1.47 Billion people live in cities than out in the country.
Of course the Green weenies have other solutions in mind for that extra 1.4 Billion people...
“I am glad to see that incomes in Africa are rising “
At the expense of the American taxpayer.
“according to a meta-analysis published today in PlosOne.”
Well! I’ve been a Meta-Proctologist for almost 50 years, and I say this analysis is pure cr@p! And I oughta know!
I’m more worried about the loss of farmland than anything.
We need to conserve prime farmland as much as we do rainforests.
The Yale researchers seem to have missed that.
>> “according to a meta-analysis published today in PlosOne” <<
In other words, “We were too lazy to actually DO any real research studies on our own, so we just read a bunch of other people’s stuff and made it up as we went along.”
Whenever I see “meta” anything, I just about stop reading. It’s all useless horse pucky.
>> “and associate professor in the urban environment at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies” <<
And I’m getting to dismiss ANY study or opinion from anyone that has “environment” in their title. They’re always lefties and lie through their teeth about their study of meta-studies. Typical libtards.
What a dilemma for environmentalist wackos. They’ve been trying for decades to herd us all into cities so we would use public transportation and be easier to control. But now we have warnings that cities are bad for the environment.
Maybe we should all just stay out in the countryside, but live a subsistence existence. But that doesn’t work either because then we’d rape the landscape for wood for cooking and heating. And we’d pollute the waterways with sewage.
Sheesh, I guess we should all just die.
LOL!
All they need to do is to kill about 6 billion people.
And don't make the mistake of thinking they don't have plans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.