Zero-carbon, zero-emission, zero-waste city - yea, right
Abu Dhabi has started to build what it says is the world's first zero-carbon, zero-waste car-free city, reports BBC.
Indeed. I feel a bit sceptic about this.
1. They are going to build it. Well. I would really like to see how exactly they plan to do this zero-carbon, zero-emission, zero-waste construction of the entire city. I have never seen a zero-waste construction for instance. Even when you make a log cabin, you still have waste, you still have emission and you still cause a footprint in nature by the cut trees. And all other construction materials are way worse.
The city will be mostly powered by solar energy and residents will move in travel pods running on magnetic tracks.
2. Building solar panels is not zero-emission, zero-waste, and zero-footprint business.
3. Magic pods (at least they didn't call them carpets) running on magic magnetic tracks are not zero-waste and zero-footprint to build. How exactly do they plant to build this?
4. Zero-carbon is the absolute best selling line here. Finally a place for all the Fatkins dieters. No carb(on)s! But hey - how do they plan to build anything? Isn't there going to be anything green in the city? Green has carbon. If we cover the whole city with asphalt, maybe we can go to the low-carb end, but I would not call that with any of the other selling "zero" adjectives they are using. If you have anything green in the city, you have carbons.
5. There is a huge conflict of interest. Of all the countries on earth, why would Saudi Arabia be interested in not selling oil?
6. The only way I can really see a zero-carbon, zero-emission, zero-waste city is by not building it at all. Even if your magic city had only one inhabitant, who would only use his feet for walking, who would be vegan or even breatharian, and would go around naked to even eliminate all the footprints of producing meats, leather for shoes, or cotton production for producing any clothes, you will still have that inhabitant produce emission and carbon (by breathing and eating and by-products of those), waste (even if he breatharian and lacked normal bodily by-products after eating, he would still shead dead skin and hair, and he would still be wasting air), footprint... maybe if that one naked breatharian inhabitant didn't even walk, maybe he would not need to leave any footprints, but even after he died he would cause waste, carbon and emission in the nature.
Well. A marketing dream for sure. A modern-day marketing utopia, where WWF is handing out money for building this ecodisneyland.
Masdar City will cost $22bn (£11.3bn), take eight years to build and be home to 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses.
There is no way 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses will have zero footprint in the nature, or be all these zero-jargon slogans.
Even Nomads and Tibetans have some footprint and some waste, but if they truely went searching something that sounds a bit more realistic, how about looking at where people actually live with the least carbon, emission or footprint? It will be possible to minimize all these effects, but not to get them to zero as long as there are any humans involved. And to minimize them would have to be in smaller cities or villages.
The desert nature is always fragile, and will not provide food for human consumption unless you bring a lot of water from external to it. And when you do that, you have altered the nature and left a footprint. Before even starting to fly (to a zero-footprint, zero-carbon, zero-waste, zero-emission airport with zero-footprint, zero-carbon, zero-waste, zero-emission cargo airplanes) in any construction materials for dumping 50,000 rich people and 1,500 fashionable businesses in.
Indeed. I feel a bit sceptic about this.
1. They are going to build it. Well. I would really like to see how exactly they plan to do this zero-carbon, zero-emission, zero-waste construction of the entire city. I have never seen a zero-waste construction for instance. Even when you make a log cabin, you still have waste, you still have emission and you still cause a footprint in nature by the cut trees. And all other construction materials are way worse.
The city will be mostly powered by solar energy and residents will move in travel pods running on magnetic tracks.
2. Building solar panels is not zero-emission, zero-waste, and zero-footprint business.
3. Magic pods (at least they didn't call them carpets) running on magic magnetic tracks are not zero-waste and zero-footprint to build. How exactly do they plant to build this?
4. Zero-carbon is the absolute best selling line here. Finally a place for all the Fatkins dieters. No carb(on)s! But hey - how do they plan to build anything? Isn't there going to be anything green in the city? Green has carbon. If we cover the whole city with asphalt, maybe we can go to the low-carb end, but I would not call that with any of the other selling "zero" adjectives they are using. If you have anything green in the city, you have carbons.
5. There is a huge conflict of interest. Of all the countries on earth, why would Saudi Arabia be interested in not selling oil?
6. The only way I can really see a zero-carbon, zero-emission, zero-waste city is by not building it at all. Even if your magic city had only one inhabitant, who would only use his feet for walking, who would be vegan or even breatharian, and would go around naked to even eliminate all the footprints of producing meats, leather for shoes, or cotton production for producing any clothes, you will still have that inhabitant produce emission and carbon (by breathing and eating and by-products of those), waste (even if he breatharian and lacked normal bodily by-products after eating, he would still shead dead skin and hair, and he would still be wasting air), footprint... maybe if that one naked breatharian inhabitant didn't even walk, maybe he would not need to leave any footprints, but even after he died he would cause waste, carbon and emission in the nature.
Well. A marketing dream for sure. A modern-day marketing utopia, where WWF is handing out money for building this ecodisneyland.
Masdar City will cost $22bn (£11.3bn), take eight years to build and be home to 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses.
There is no way 50,000 people and 1,500 businesses will have zero footprint in the nature, or be all these zero-jargon slogans.
Even Nomads and Tibetans have some footprint and some waste, but if they truely went searching something that sounds a bit more realistic, how about looking at where people actually live with the least carbon, emission or footprint? It will be possible to minimize all these effects, but not to get them to zero as long as there are any humans involved. And to minimize them would have to be in smaller cities or villages.
The desert nature is always fragile, and will not provide food for human consumption unless you bring a lot of water from external to it. And when you do that, you have altered the nature and left a footprint. Before even starting to fly (to a zero-footprint, zero-carbon, zero-waste, zero-emission airport with zero-footprint, zero-carbon, zero-waste, zero-emission cargo airplanes) in any construction materials for dumping 50,000 rich people and 1,500 fashionable businesses in.