[NYCFarmboy]

Urban dwellers mainly cause global warming, but see little of it

http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/14443.html

By UTA HARNISCHFEGER | Associated Press
June 3, 2005
Urban dwellers are mainly responsible for global warming, but see little of the effects because they have their biggest impact in isolated and sparsely populated regions, the U.N. environment agency said Friday.

"Cities use vast amounts of resources like water, food and timber while also producing a large amount of waste," said Klaus Toepfer, head of the United Nations Environment Program, or UNEP.




FIRST OF TWO PHOTOS The Almeria province along the southern coast of Spain, showing undeveloped land in an image taken from space on Jan. 24, 1974 which was released by the United Nations Environment Program from its new world atlas Friday June 3, 2005. 30 years later the area shows the extensive expansion of agriculture. - (AP Photo/UN Environment Program)


"People living in San Francisco or London may look at these images of deforestation or melting Arctic ice, and wonder what it has to do with them," Toepfer said. "Their impacts stretch beyond their physical borders affecting countries, regions and the planet as a whole."



SECOND OF TWO PHOTOS The Almeria province along the southern coast of Spain, in an image taken from space on July 18, 2004 which was released by the United Nations Environment Program from its new world atlas Friday June 3, 2005. Compared to a picture taken 30 years earlier the area is covered by a patchwork of greenhouses growing food for European markets that required the building of 118 dams and 22 water plants that moved water from parts of the country to the Almeria region. - (AP Photo/UN Environment Program)
Toepfer made his remarks to commemorate the launch of a new atlas called "One Planet Many People," which compares and contrasts satellite images of past decades with present ones. The atlas is aimed at educating citizens, notably of industrialized countries, on how their lifestyle can destroy the environment.

"An image says more than a thousand words ... The atlas provides evidence of the changes we bring to our environment," said Pascal Peduzzi, an environmental scientist at UNEP.

Using satellite images from the United States Geological Survey and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the pictures highlight dramatic changes around cities such as Beijing, Dhaka, Delhi and Santiago, the destruction of farmland, the clogging of river beds, the draining of water supplies and many others.

The atlas shows satellite images of Las Vegas, the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the U.S., which had 24,000 inhabitants in the 1950s and where today's population of 1 million is expected to double by 2015. As a result, the water level of nearby Lake Meade has dropped by 18 meters (60 feet) from 2000 to 2003 as housing and irrigated golf courses replaced natural desert.

"The images are as awe-inspiring as those of the tsunami, although they don't occur from one day to the next," Peduzzi said, referring to the tsunami that devastated coastal areas of Asia in December.

Other images show the effects from the huge growth of greenhouses in southern Spain, rain forest deforestation or the rise of shrimp farming in Asia and Latin America.

But they also highlight effects from wars and diseases. For example, wars and Saddam Hussein's draining of marshlands in Iraq have contributed to the virtual destruction of the world's biggest date palm forest along the Shatt al'Arab in Iraq and Iran. Satellite images show that more than 14 million trees, or 80 percent of the trees that stood in 1970, are gone along with the livelihoods of millions of people.

[NYCFarmboy]

oops..forgot my rule 8 post:


I think cities should immediately start consuming less water, food and timber to save the planet from certain distruction.... afterall..the UN says so, so it must be true!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

FIRST OF TWO PHOTOS The Almeria province along the southern coast of Spain, showing undeveloped land in an image taken from space on Jan. 24, 1974



SECOND OF TWO PHOTOS The Almeria province along the southern coast of Spain, in an image taken from space on July 18, 2004

So the UN is nostalgic for General Franco. Why am I not surprised?

[Athens]

cities could be build and designed smarter to lower the impact that’s for sure. More solar panels on roofs, more water recycling, smarter layout and better transit, more energy efficient homes would all go along way.

[dcmacdaddy]

Time for you to move back to the farm then, eh?

[Athens]

why would I need to move back to the farm?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Athens

why would I need to move back to the farm?

What's the name of the original poster? NYCFarmboy.

[Millennium]

How interesting that for all the environmentalists make of suburban sprawl being so horrible for the environment, it's interesting to see that cities may actually be worse.

[Sven G]

But cities shouldn't really be multi-million metropolises: rather, they should be at most medium- to large-sized, livable cities and towns, interconnected in a network of public transportation, mostly - something that your country's New Urbanism movement is rather good at explaining.

A polycentric network of livable communities, that is: today, of course, some areas of the world are very far from such a goal - but the energy crisis (and social/economic crisis, in general) will probably "force" some substantial changes, sooner or later (even in the absence of a logical city planning)...

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Time for you to move back to the farm then, eh?

not just yet...

someday.

anyhoo...this is just more c#ap from the UN...

I'm ordering a extra large pizza and not recyling the box in protest.



Actually this has been a unusually cold spring... today is the first day that really feels like summer.. finally!

love the sun... bring the global warming on!!!!!!!!!!!

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

not just yet...

someday.

anyhoo...this is just more c#ap from the UN...

I'm ordering a extra large pizza and not recyling the box in protest.



Actually this has been a unusually cold spring... today is the first day that really feels like summer.. finally!

love the sun... bring the global warming on!!!!!!!!!!!

I hear ya. I grew up in upstate New York and I am ready to move back there or someplace else in rural New England. I am done with living in Washington, DC. I get my Masters in 2007 and then I can move. Yippee!

As for heat, the usual Memorial Day blast of hot weather we get in DC came a week late. Today it hit 90 . . . but with a nice breeze.

[maggie11_6]

????????????

[Kilbey]

Originally Posted by maggie11_6

????????????

Have you noticed how your signature doesn't look like everyone else's?

IT'S BECAUSE IT'S TOO DAMNED BIG!!!

[Zimphire]

Yeah maggie you need to make your sig MUCH bigger.

[loki74]

hmm. what if the UN is responsible for global warming... i think i'll look into that

[Mithras]

It's my understanding that an apartment in a sufficiently dense city is much better for resource usage (than a suburban or rural single-family home), due to the efficiencies of heating an entire apartment building, mass transportation, shared water delivery, etc.

Correct me if you hear otherwise.

It seems to me that this is talking about alienation from the natural environment, which is certainly an effect of living in a dense city, and the lousiest part IMHO.

[Krusty]

Originally Posted by Mithras

It's my understanding that an apartment in a sufficiently dense city is much better for resource usage (than a suburban or rural single-family home), due to the efficiencies of heating an entire apartment building, mass transportation, shared water delivery, etc.

Correct me if you hear otherwise.

It seems to me that this is talking about alienation from the natural environment, which is certainly an effect of living in a dense city, and the lousiest part IMHO.

Your scenario is actually pretty narrow.
A rural dweller in the US probably uses more energy than an urban dweller in the US due to economies of scale. But for a HUGE part of the world, living rurally means simply NOT having a lot of the energy consuming conveniences present in the city.

A family living in a home in Upstate NY may use more energy than a similar family in NYC. But a city dweller in, say, Nairobi Kenya probably uses infinitely more energy and resources than a person in rural Kenya. On a global scale, the latter scenario is probably more common than the US scenario. (Think about China, India, Africa, large parts of Latin America where a HUGE portion of the rural population simply doesn't even have the ability to consume resources the way people in their cities do). Even in the US, there are exceptions to the rule of thumb because people in the country can:
Keep a compost heap on their property.
Heat their home with wood, which is renewable (on large tree can heat a home for a winter or two. In the mean time, the total amount of wood from other trees on their property grows more than the wood taken from the single tree).
Use water from a well on their property rather than a piped in source.
Grow substantial portions of their own food with just hard work and without mechanized equipment.

Growing up in a small town with a mild climate, I knew several people who did some or all of the above things (always by choice, because they could have bought all of the things on that list). In a city, none of those things is even a choice.

[idjeff]

The atlas shows satellite images of Las Vegas, the fastest-growing metropolitan area in the U.S., which had 24,000 inhabitants in the 1950s and where today's population of 1 million is expected to double by 2015. As a result, the water level of nearby Lake Meade has dropped by 18 meters (60 feet) from 2000 to 2003 as housing and irrigated golf courses replaced natural desert.

This quote has got to be the biggest load of crap I've ever read. So, the original source is stating that in three years, Lake Mead which has a surface area of 247 square miles [taken from Wikipedia of course ) has dropped 60 feet between 2000 and 2003because of the city of Las Vegas? My God? Common sense anyone? I feel the people of Vegas are going to meet the same fate as that of the politician in the movie X-men when he all of a sudden turned into water

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by idjeff

This quote has got to be the biggest load of crap I've ever read. So, the original source is stating that in three years, Lake Mead which has a surface area of 247 square miles [taken from Wikipedia of course ) has dropped 60 feet between 2000 and 2003because of the city of Las Vegas? My God? Common sense anyone?

Are you saying Las Vegas doesn't get water from Lake Mead?
Are you saying that taking water from a lake in excess of water entering the lake won't drop water levels?
What exactly is your common sense telling you?

[jbartone]

Pfft, all the major cities here in Australia are definately feeling the effects of 'global warming' or whatever the hell is going on at the moment.. The drought has been so bad that water storages in all major cities are around or under 50%. Perth is at 25%, Melbourne is around 52% and Sydney is at 39%

[Athens]

2 years ago when Vancouver had a long hot stretch, a very dry winter and spring our water supply had dropped to 18%, it had never been that low in the history of the city. We where 2 weeks away from not having drinkable water. And we are usally known for rain here lol

[jbartone]

****, that sounds bad, I have no idea how long we could live with no rain at all on our current water storage levels. I'd say it's a hell of a lot longer than two weeks though, thank god, because combined, the Sydney and Melbourne metro areas hold close to 9 million people.

I don't understand though, we're an island nation, and pretty much ALL of our major cities are on the coast - why not take water out of the ocean?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by jbartone

****, that sounds bad, I have no idea how long we could live with no rain at all on our current water storage levels. I'd say it's a hell of a lot longer than two weeks though, thank god, because combined, the Sydney and Melbourne metro areas hold close to 9 million people.

I don't understand though, we're an island nation, and pretty much ALL of our major cities are on the coast - why not take water out of the ocean?

Well Vancouver had gone almost 3 months with out any real rain but what did us in that year was the dry winter, with out the melting snow pack in the spring, the water supply dosent get full for Summer. Also the water supply hasent been upgraded in 20 years, and in that time the city as doubled. And we are pretty used to being water wasters.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

Are you saying Las Vegas doesn't get water from Lake Mead?
Are you saying that taking water from a lake in excess of water entering the lake won't drop water levels?
What exactly is your common sense telling you?

My common sense is telling me that it the population growth of Las Vegas has not caused the water level of Lake Mead to drop by 60 feet. If you build a home in vegas currently, in most cases you're not even allowed to have a grass lawn. If you've seen the new developments in the area, you'll notice that most have rock lawns or artificial grass lawns. So, my point is that population growth of Las Vegas has not caused the water levels of Lake Mead to drop by 60 feet.

[budster101]

So, global warming did it?

Link please. You sure that wasn't 60 inches?

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by budster101

So, global warming did it?

Link please. You sure that wasn't 60 inches?

I was referencing the original post and it says 60 feet. So i guess the original link would be http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/14443.html

[budster101]

Originally Posted by idjeff

I was referencing the original post and it says 60 feet. So i guess the original link would be http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/14443.html

I Know, I Just wanted to see if you read it, which you did NOT.

" As a result, the water level of nearby Lake Meade has dropped by 18 meters (60 feet) from 2000 to 2003 as housing and irrigated golf courses replaced natural desert."

It was between 2000 and 2003 and due to what again?

I don't know... THE GOLF COURSES and HUGE INSURGENCE OF PEOPLE MOVING THERE.

I don't believe that Global Warming can of one minute evaporate 60 feet of water in 3 years. If so then what of all the other water holes in the USA and world?

Thanks for stepping up to the plate. You are OUT.

Next.

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by budster101

I Know, I Just wanted to see if you read it, which you did NOT.

" As a result, the water level of nearby Lake Meade has dropped by 18 meters (60 feet) from 2000 to 2003 as housing and irrigated golf courses replaced natural desert."

It was between 2000 and 2003 and due to what again?

I don't know... THE GOLF COURSES and HUGE INSURGENCE OF PEOPLE MOVING THERE.

I don't believe that Global Warming can of one minute evaporate 60 feet of water in 3 years. If so then what of all the other water holes in the USA and world?

Thanks for stepping up to the plate. You are OUT.

Next.

I don't think so...how didn't I read it. I addressed the issue of the population increase in the Vegas area vs the water level of Lake Mead. Are you that thick to think that watering of golf courses in the Vegas area has caused a 60ft decrease in the water level of Lake Mead? Lake Mead is part of what? That's right...the Colorado River. Where does it begin? That's right...in the mountains of Colorado. What's its next stop after Vegas? That's right...aquaducts for southern California and Arizona. So, maybe there hasn't been as much snowfall in the Rockies or maybe SoCal and southern Arizona have been using more water from the Colorado River. It doesn't mean that Las Vegas has used the amount of water that has "disappeared" from Lake Mead.

I'm out? Whatever...anything else?

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by idjeff

I don't think so...how didn't I read it. I addressed the issue of the population increase in the Vegas area vs the water level of Lake Mead. Are you that thick to think that watering of golf courses in the Vegas area has caused a 60ft decrease in the water level of Lake Mead? Lake Mead is part of what? That's right...the Colorado River. Where does it begin? That's right...in the mountains of Colorado. What's its next stop after Vegas? That's right...aquaducts for southern California and Arizona. So, maybe there hasn't been as much snowfall in the Rockies or maybe SoCal and southern Arizona have been using more water from the Colorado River. It doesn't mean that Las Vegas has used the amount of water that has "disappeared" from Lake Mead.

I'm out? Whatever...anything else?

Still waiting for a rebuttal Budster...

[budster101]

Originally Posted by idjeff

I don't think so...how didn't I read it. I addressed the issue of the population increase in the Vegas area vs the water level of Lake Mead. Are you that thick to think that watering of golf courses in the Vegas area has caused a 60ft decrease in the water level of Lake Mead? Lake Mead is part of what? That's right...the Colorado River. Where does it begin? That's right...in the mountains of Colorado. What's its next stop after Vegas? That's right...aquaducts for southern California and Arizona. So, maybe there hasn't been as much snowfall in the Rockies or maybe SoCal and southern Arizona have been using more water from the Colorado River. It doesn't mean that Las Vegas has used the amount of water that has "disappeared" from Lake Mead.

I'm out? Whatever...anything else?

? < My response for you. (BTW: increase your ADD medication)

[idjeff]

Originally Posted by budster101

? < My response for you. (BTW: increase your ADD medication)

Wow...what a clever rebuttal.