Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

China to Build a Zero-Carbon Green City

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the tired-of-getting-whined-at-for-beijing dept.

Earth 620

gormanw writes "Just outside Shanghai, there is an island about the size of Manhattan. China is going to build its first-ever 'green city', complete with no gasoline/diesel powered vehicles, 100% renewable energy, green roofs, and recycling everything. The city is called Dongtan and it should house about 5,000 people by the end of 2010, with estimates of 500,000 by 2050. The goal is to build a livable city that is energy efficient, non-polluting, and protects the wildlife in the area."

cancel ×

620 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Dongtag? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563585)

Sounds gay to me.

Re:Dongtag? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563597)

The Chinese, like other asians, prefer homosexual tentacle scat porno.

Re:Dongtag? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563649)

It's "Dongtan", which would be a good name for a nude beach.

Re:Dongtag? (5, Funny)

caywen (942955) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563713)

Yeah, what an unfortunate name. I would have avoided that problem altogether and named the city Wangtan. Much better.

OMFG FASHION MELTDOWN (5, Funny)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563593)

...red and green should never be seen!

Re:OMFG FASHION MELTDOWN (-1, Offtopic)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563857)

There are several problems with your sig:

  1. 'Nearly a million monkeys' != 'an infinite number of monkeys' (although it apears that the original version had only one monkey)
  2. The Infinite monkey theorem [wikipedia.org] supposes that the monkey(s) are typing randomly, which Slashdot most certainly does not. Slashdot is wholely devoted to the honorable practice of MS-bashing (something Shakepeare did not do very often).

Re:OMFG FASHION MELTDOWN (5, Interesting)

arodland (127775) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563919)

If the internet has taught us anything it's that the Infinite Monkeys Corollary is more important than the Infinite Monkeys Theorem. The corollary reminds us that it doesn't matter whether the monkeys turn out Hamlet, because you'll need to read through an infinity of worthless crap before you find it.

Re:OMFG FASHION MELTDOWN (0, Flamebait)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563957)

There -- fixed it for you.

Re:OMFG FASHION MELTDOWN (0, Offtopic)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563997)

Meh, could (probably) be worse. What's the 'white owl'?

Re:OMFG FASHION MELTDOWN (-1, Troll)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564035)

Cock. You're welcome ;)

Re:OMFG FASHION MELTDOWN (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564075)

Yeah, it could be worse.

Re:OMFG FASHION MELTDOWN (-1, Troll)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564129)

Tell you what: I'll keep that sig for a week (so our oh-so-witty exchange still makes sense), and then I'll change it to something different. Oh, and kudos to you for being such a good sport!

Good Luck... (5, Insightful)

iamwhoiamtoday (1177507) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563599)

I hope that this pans out, but the manufacturing of said Renewable energy will probably offset the whole "Green" side of things... Well, hopefully it will all work out for the best. The question is, apart from Government financing, is it possible for Normal People to buy a Green Home / Car / Life?

Re:Good Luck... (5, Insightful)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563641)

The question is, apart from Government financing, is it possible for Normal People to buy a Green Home / Car / Life?

Move close to your work (or get a job you can telecommute to), use a bike / walk / public transport wherever possible. Insulate. Put in a water tank.

There - not that hard & no need to go whining to the government for a hand out.

Re:Good Luck... (5, Insightful)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563723)

you left out:

become vegan, or at least vegetarian (the cattle industry is extraordinarily destructive to the planet

fix things, instead of replacing them

wear studier clothes, longer

Re:Good Luck... (3, Insightful)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563767)

The GP said "Normal People" - vegetarianism and veganism are, for most of the world, unusual. I'm not going to enter into the debate as to whether they are desirable modes of living or not.

I think the real question we should be asking wrt to diet is 'How can we make farming and agriculture a green process?'

Re:Good Luck... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563799)

Replace all meat at the supermarket with tempeh, seitan and tofu without telling anybody.

Re:Good Luck... (4, Funny)

enoz (1181117) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563913)

That sounds like a job for Tyler Durden

Re:Good Luck... (4, Interesting)

NevermindPhreak (568683) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564033)

Ah, but riding a bike to work, if you don't live in an area where it is common, is unusual. You're becoming unusual by trying to be more green than the rest of the population around you. Why would becoming a vegan be different?

For the record, i'm a meat-eater. Just like to present other sides. ;)

Re:Good Luck... (1)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564119)

That's a nice tautology you got going there... doing ANYTHING, if you don't do it in an area where it is common, is unusual :)

Mod parent up (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24564077)

Mod parent up. Here's a piece by food writer Mark Bittman in the NY Times on the devastating environmental and health/social costs of our current meat consumption:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.htm [nytimes.com]

Re:Good Luck... (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564083)

actually vegans are full of shit when they claim they don't harm the environment. vast tracks of land would have to be cleared if the world were to convert 100% to a vegtable only diet, as vegtables are far lower in energy than meat and meat can be farmed in a much smaller area.

not to mention that "proper" vegan methods of food production would see better than 3/4 of the world starving to death because not enough food can be produced in the approved organic manner.

Re:Good Luck... (5, Interesting)

eln (21727) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563783)

So basically the solution is to live close to an urban center. Unfortunately, housing is generally prohibitively expensive close to most urban centers (except for the ones that are so far gone with blight that there are no real jobs there anyway).

The American city (especially in the west) is built around personal automobiles. The affordable houses are well outside of walking or biking distance to most of the jobs, and are too chaotically arranged to allow for efficient mass transit.

Individual choice is part of the equation, but sane urban planning is also a big part of it. Cities and counties need to start doing more to encourage high density housing near urban centers and discourage the building of yet more suburbs and exurbs. Unfortunately, most local governments are too far in the pockets of developers to ever enforce strict zoning of that nature. Most of the new development I've seen near urban centers has also tended to be of the million-dollar-condo variety as well, which doesn't do a whole lot to solve the problem either.

Re:Good Luck... (5, Insightful)

mrroot (543673) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563941)

Excuses take the responsibility off your shoulders so you can feel good about doing nothing.

Bite the bullet and make changes. Over two years ago, I cut my commute in half by moving closer to the city (no its not an urban blight neighborhood, nor is it a million dollar condo). While everyone else is complaining about gas prices, I don't give it a second thought. That is nice, but the reason I moved wasn't for gas prices or for the environment, it was to conserve the most precious resource I have... time.

If you commute 45 minutes each way to work, and let's say you work 5 days a week for 48 weeks out of the year (taking out 4 weeks for vacation and holidays). That means you spend 360 hours per year in your car driving to and from work. How many hours of vacation-time does your employer give you? 80? 120? If you cut your commute in half, you get an extra 180 hours per year!

By the way, a really good book I read a while back is called "Take Back Your Time", and there is also a Take back your time website [timeday.org] .

Re:Good Luck... (2, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564135)

the more people buy up housing close to the city the more expensive it's going to get, so people like you moving in and buying/renting close to the city are the problem.

facts are there is no where near enough space for all of us to live 5 minutes from our work place, not to mention people change jobs so often it's not possible to move enough to keep up.

please try again with a solution that works for more than yourself.

Re:Good Luck... (1)

Xaria (630117) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563987)

Actually, suburbs are fine - what we need are more satellite cities and hubs. Clusters of CBDs about 20 kilometres (yes, I'm Australian dammit) apart rather than one massive one. And build suburbs along transit corridors and massive carparks at major commuter hubs so people can drive where public transport is inefficient and take trains the rest of the way.

Re:Good Luck... (0, Flamebait)

Sam36 (1065410) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564005)

Stupid city boys. I have 25 acres out in the country where I live. Away from all the murdering, raping, child molesting liberal city people, oh and also gay people, none of those here either.

Re:Good Luck... (2, Insightful)

sycodon (149926) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563823)

"Move close to your work (or get a job you can telecommute to)"

The modern day equivalent of "Let them eat cake".

In general, the cost of housing goes up exponentially the closer you get to the average workplace.

Re:Good Luck... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563897)

Put in a water tank.

What about tankless water heaters? [wikipedia.org]

Re:Good Luck... (4, Insightful)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564079)

Move close to your work (or get a job you can telecommute to), use a bike / walk / public transport wherever possible. Insulate. Put in a water tank.

And have the right attitude.

Let me explain. Most people can't afford to live close to work, considering how expensive housing is in heavily developed office areas. Here in Seattle it can be up to *millions* to live within walking distance of work. Most people can't afford that.

So, the next best thing is to live somewhere with good public transportation coverage. This effectively cuts out *all* suburbs, since bus service is invariably trash due to the lack of ridership and the vast areas to cover with way too few vehicles. Your only real choice left are condo complexes built around transit hubs. Most American cities don't even *have* a hub-based public transit system (local traffic around a hub, with high speed links between hubs). So, if you live in the wrong city, you're ALREADY SOL.

And most transit authorities have no means to fix this problem. This is where attitude comes in. America has been car-obsessed for so long that riding the bus has become taboo - something the neighbours whisper about. "Oh, that poor Bob! They must be in dire straits, he can't even drive a car to work!"

And indeed it's cyclical. Transit is looked upon as the poor person's choice, and the affluent commuters shun it. This results in less revenue for the bus service, which eventually deteriorates. To maintain some semblance of service, cutbacks have to be made, and obviously the first routes to go are the ones to the rich suburbs - after all, nobody's riding THEM anyways right? That's why in every city I've been to public transit has always been disproportionately well-developed in poorer neighbourhoods. After all, the bus company has to go after its main audience - poor commuters. And on and on this cycle goes, with crappy buses, dirty stations, etc etc.

Few cities have been spared this cruel fate. Toronto, Canada is one of those few cities where commuting via mass transit is even a viable option for your average working-class guy, or even upper-middle class workers. Seattle is not too bad either - but its success is driven more by a yuppie desire to be green than anything else.

It's all in the attitude. As soon as we start accepting public transit as an everyday fact of life, whether rich, poor, or somewhere in between, we can start building cities with mass transit in mind.

Re:Good Luck... (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563671)

what's your definition of "green"?

Manufacturing... (2, Insightful)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563809)

Depending on what renewable energy systems are used, manufacturing can be pretty neutral. Windmills take a relatively small amount of energy to produce compared to photovoltaic, or even gas and coal for that matter. Solar thermal is also generally lower input than photovoltaic.

The question is, apart from Government financing, is it possible for Normal People to buy a Green Home / Car / Life?

This does raise an interesting counter to the whole capitalism/free market FTW crap that gets spewed by a lot of people. As soon as you start looking at a community or society genuinely taking responsibility for anything, the system fails to deliver. It puts too much power in the hands of a few and the few are usually in that position thanks to their selfishness. Not that I'm completely for government control, mind, I actually find both extremes equally laughable.

There are of course simple things that everyone can do to reduce our impact, but a lot of people don't want to change, are lazy or ignorant.

Re:Good Luck... (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564103)

I hope that this pans out, but the manufacturing of said Renewable energy will probably offset the whole "Green" side of things... Well, hopefully it will all work out for the best. The question is, apart from Government financing, is it possible for Normal People to buy a Green Home / Car / Life?

Several others have given good responses, but I thought I'd point out that the affordability for Normal People will come from projects like this, which make more economical versions more feasible.

FIRST! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563607)

FIRST POST!

Re:FIRST! (0, Offtopic)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563617)

Legendary fail; what shame you bring your sad parents!

Dongtan? (4, Funny)

Aardpig (622459) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563621)

Isn't that what comes from not wearing speedos on the beach?

Obvious (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563625)

This is obviously to help out their image after people had to drop out of marathons because of the pollution.

Re:Obvious (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563761)

And looking at the skyline in the TV coverage of the Olympics that is a real possibility. In spite of the cleanup the skys are STILL really thick over there, in spite of their massive efforts to clean them for the events.

That would be interesting (4, Interesting)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563631)

I can't think of any country that would benefit more by this sort of thing. A good working template tends to become widely adopted, and they have a visible pressing need to improve their ecological impact and the good will coupled with a lack of general knowledge might find a fertile ground for this sort of thing catching on.

A friend of me says there's a pervasive attitude of "if a little is good, an enormous lot more must be better" when approaching the use of say, pesticides or other chemical intrusions into the local environment.

Classical education doesn't help this attitude much yet, but an excellent and well publicised example community might just make the difference.

Exporting the pollution (3, Insightful)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563765)

So they'll just export the pollution to a different city which will manufacture goods for them. The roads will still be made of concrete (made with huge energy inputs) and they'll still use diesel earthmoving machines to build the place.

The people will still eat meat (probably only second to transport as a way people generate carbon footprint).

Basically its just a greenwashing exercise.

Re:Exporting the pollution (5, Insightful)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563917)

No good deed goes unpunished, I see. Now if you were considered a "thought leader" (whether you wanted the appelation or not) of a country of several billion people, and you saw you were increasingly becoming the lead polluter in the world, how would you go about fixing it? Spend trillions of tax dollars directly lining contractors pockets, brutally supress the use of non-green energy, or perhaps -- just perhaps -- try to educate your populace into doing it themselves?

It's easy to slag these efforts, yes they're flawed, but dammit **something** has to be done. Get out of the road if you can't lend a hand.

Re:That would be interesting (1)

taucross (1330311) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563909)

A "green city" in China -is- a chemical intrusion into the local environment.

Re:That would be interesting (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563979)

Now that *is* funny. I hereby award you one Pirate Point for that.

Re:That would be interesting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563953)

I can't think of any country that would benefit more by this sort of thing.

I can. Maybe the US since they do have the highest total annual CO2 emissions and the highest CO2 emissions per capita

Re:That would be interesting (1)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564151)

The MASDAR Initiative [masdaruae.com] by the UAE is trying to achieve similar goals. They also want to get off the grid and realize that to do that they'll need to go solar, but then they are stuck with the power shifting issue. I think GE are installing a $1 billion hydrogen generator there, to try and deal with that issue.

And we should care why? (-1, Troll)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563651)

Ok, if they spend enough money they can build themselves a model city and get cred with the greens. Probably even take a lot of their attentions away from the new coal fired plant going online every week. And since they are a communist country they can order people to live in the hell on earth they are making. But of what possible concern is this to normal sane people?

Any useful field testing of new tech could be done without building the whole showcase city around it... ya know, test THEN deploy?

Re:And we should care why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563975)

Ok, if they spend enough money they can build themselves a model city and get cred with the greens. Probably even take a lot of their attentions away from the new coal fired plant going online every week. And since they are a communist country they can order people to live in the hell on earth they are making. But of what possible concern is this to normal sane people?

Any useful field testing of new tech could be done without building the whole showcase city around it... ya know, test THEN deploy?

You have implied that benevolent socialist leaders of a progressive society would pull the environmentally-conscious, carbon-negative, cruelty-free wool over the eyes of the all-knowing environmentalists.

This insult has not gone unnoticed by the all-knowing environmentalist moderators and is considered doubleplusungood asoc behaviour. Lacking a doubleplusungood moderation they have instead moderated you as -1 Troll until such time as they are able to have your post rewritten in a plusgoodly manner.

Until then be advised they are watching you for further signs of reactionary asoc behaviour.

I don't like kneejerk politics (1)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563655)

And maybe this was in the pipeline for many years, but it is awfully coincidental that we've been talking negatively about pollution in china recently isn't it?

zero carbon? (2, Funny)

kamathln (1220102) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563663)

Humans breathe out carbon dioxide. Are we banned from this city ?

Re:zero carbon? (1)

Montusama (1147795) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563689)

carbon dioxide is a natural element in the atmosphere and is made wherever humans are so, plus you simply plant a bunch of plants to off-set humans living there

Re:zero carbon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24564017)

Only our robot overlords are allowed...

Better article from CNN (3, Informative)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563677)

This CNN article (from last year) has much more information:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/08/14/dongtan.ecocity/ [cnn.com]

Wikipedia's article mentions several problems and delays that I hadn't seen in any other stories (some of which lack citations).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dongtan [wikipedia.org]

Um, Earth to China... (2, Interesting)

caywen (942955) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563693)

I have an even greener idea for China: How about not building the city at all, and greenify an existing city?

Re:Um, Earth to China... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563737)

Are you suggesting tearing down an entire city's infrastructure and rebuilding it? It's impractical. Shanghai is also huge - it'd be too expensive.

Re:Um, Earth to China... (0)

caywen (942955) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563803)

Building a green city does nothing to reduce China's carbon footprint. And I'm not suggesting tearing down the city and rebuilding. You don't have to do that to increase the percentage of hybrids on their streets, to switch public transportation to hybrids (San Francisco is doing it), to switch over some of their power to solar/wind, etc. I'm sure they could do better with air conditioning, using less incandescent lighting, etc.

Re:Um, Earth to China... (1)

caywen (942955) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563819)

Also, in tersm of scale of a project, if China can build 3 Gorges Dam, they can certainly invest the same kind of effort in other types of clean energy. This is a huge opportunity for them to not just be on par, but to lead the world in very real terms.

Re:Um, Earth to China... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563901)

It's a pilot project. Every developer knows it's often cheaper and easier to build from scratch than to retrofit existing buildings and infrastructure that weren't designed for what is supposed to take place. And what do they do with the residents when the heavy construction is taking place?

Still, this is a huge undertaking. It's one thing to put up a few showcase green buildings, it's another to commit to supporting a modern city with zero fossil fuels. Nobody is interested in solving the problem by returning to the 19th century!

Once it is in place, and working, then the techniques and lessons learned can percolate back to the existing cities. And not just in China.

Re:Um, Earth to China... (1)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563931)

increase the percentage of hybrids on their streets, to switch public transportation to hybrids

Current hybrids are not the answer. They are more efficient in urban areas, but the efficiency gain is roughly equivalent to the difference between electronic fuel injected and old fashioned carburettor engines - they are just slightly more efficient oil burners. They suck for longer distances.

Trains and trams (you call them cable cars I think) are a lot better, A good bus network is also good, but if you really must have individual transport, get on a bike and burn some fat that you have created rather than the fossilised variety.

Re:Um, Earth to China... (1)

caywen (942955) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564073)

Well, not sure about the point about Hybrids being barely more efficient than modern combustion engines. I think that hybrids' increase in mileage does count for something. However, I'd like to see plugin hybrids make the point moot in dense, urban areas. Totally agree on trains and mass transit, and especially agree on getting more of us fatass Americans on some bikes (except for cities like SF where we have mean hills). Finally, cable cars are mostly a tourist attraction here in SF. We're all actually using hover-Segways now.

Re:Um, Earth to China... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563923)

Especially when they are not certain it will work out.

Re:Um, Earth to China... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563753)

I have an even greener idea for China: How about not building the city at all, and greenify an existing city?

Why not both?

Re:Um, Earth to China... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563831)

Because that would be WAY more expensive and without a working model it might not even work.

Re:Um, Earth to China... (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563995)

Because people just love having their homes and business razed on the promise that a greener version will be built in a decade or three.

Re:Um, Earth to China... (1)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564105)

I wonder why no one involved in the project thought about this.

About Time (1)

richie_the_toolman (1153737) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563705)

Wow I was really hoping the US would take the lead on this issue, but it looks like we may be a little late. Let's hope we can take a hint and actually invest a meaningful amount in sustainable technologies for green energy and a cleaner future.

Re:About Time (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563801)

Who is this "We" you talk about?

What have YOU done? Anything? ... Crickets....

LA or New york, on their worst smog days have less than a 100th of the pollutants in the air as does Peking on a daily basis.

The US HAS taken the lead on cleanup of polluted air and water, because we had some of the biggest messes in the western world (nothing to compare to Soviet block), but you NEVER see skys like Peking here.

Re:About Time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563843)

Out of curiosity, how much money have you personally invested in "sustainable technology" and "green energy"?

Re:About Time (0, Flamebait)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563869)

Wow I was really hoping the US would take the lead on this issue

And I was hoping for ponies. And winning 60 billion on the lottery.

Seriously, when a country is prepared to invade another purely over oil supplies and have a enough of the population support it to vote the idiot back in, how in hell are they going to take the lead on something like this. California maybe, but really Europe is already way ahead on this stuff. The rest of the US will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

Don't want to do a gratuitous anti US troll thing, but seriously, get real.

Zero Carbon? Really? (1)

warrigal (780670) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563707)

Zero carbon means zero people. How about we stop using PC shorthand? The problem isn't carbon, it's carbon dioxide. Giving carbon, an element we contain in abundance and depend on for our existence,a bad name is not helping anyone.

Re:Zero Carbon? Really? (1)

shermo (1284310) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563841)

Carbon dioxide is also abundant and vital for our existence. Why is it ok to demonize that instead?

Re:Zero Carbon? Really? (1)

pavera (320634) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563939)

you're funny... you do realize we exhale CO2 as well? Giving Carbon Dioxide, an element our bodies produce in abundance, and which plants depend on for existence, a bad name is not helping anyone either.

A community that produces Zero CO2 by definition cannot contain any people, or other animals that inhale oxygen and exhale CO2.

Re:Zero Carbon? Really? (1)

smellotron (1039250) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564111)

A community that produces Zero CO2 by definition cannot contain any people, or other animals that inhale oxygen and exhale CO2.

bzzzt. All it means is that the community, as a closed system, consumes as much CO2 as it produces. No reason that CO2 can't be transferred between different parts of the community.

This is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563709)

If done correctly, this could contribute a great deal to the scientific community. What to do, what not to do - this is essentially a large scale experiment in green technology, but in sustainable living development.

This is gonna end up like SimCity4.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563717)

I mean sure, you've got your residential zones as far as you possibly can from your industry, but then you check your stats and the air pollution just spreads and spreads and spreads...

Re:This is gonna end up like SimCity4.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24564023)

I mean sure, you've got your residential zones as far as you possibly can from your industry, but then you check your stats and the air pollution just spreads and spreads and spreads...

All you need to do is plant trees around the industrial area.

coalplants (2, Interesting)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563729)

I'd settle for them stopping the construction of coal plants which has made them the largest co2 polluter on the planet.

Re:coalplants (1)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564091)

...not to mention coal plants release more radioactive contaminants into the atmosphere than nuclear power plants. Think of the children.

Fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563731)

Just make sure to build a glass dome around the island so that the smog clouds coming from the rest of the country won't destroy the ecosystem. Also, clean your damn water!

Over a year old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563745)

this is from a Wired article that ran in May of last year! Talk about regurgitating old news.

Thats going to take a heck of a lot of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563763)

green paint. More than likely they will just pump from one of their polluted rivers, spray it on, and get the natural green color.

Re:Thats going to take a heck of a lot of (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563773)

Carbon Green? Is that like Titanium White?

I suspect... (1)

sycodon (149926) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563787)

That the majority of their "cities" (5000 people)
are green already because they are rural and everyone walks or rides bikes.

A great plan and I hope it works! (2, Interesting)

houbou (1097327) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563789)

I hope this project works, because let's face it, an environmental friendly city that functions and coexist with nature is exactly what is required. I find it amazing that we are so worried about money.

Money is really not the issue. If this works, it becomes a goal for any countries' economy. It's idealistic to think this way, I know, but in a way, it's also very practical.

Our economies are skewed right now, our countries don't have any real goals, tangible goals. Building environmentally friendly cities (converting actually), are concrete, positive goals. All will benefit "economically" from such goals.

This is the ultimate job creation idea on a long term basis I would believe!

Yeah, I know, it's sounds simple but anything that gives people work, gives them purpose and makes the money move, which is really what the economy should be about anyways.

"Keep things simple, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein

Re:A great plan and I hope it works! (1)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563949)

\

Our economies are skewed right now, our countries don't have any real goals, tangible goals. Building environmentally friendly cities (converting actually), are concrete, positive goals. All will benefit "economically" from such goals.

You might be giving too much credit to the central planners there, Comrade. But yes, I agree -- there needs to be a major shift in the direction of society as a whole. Unfortunately, that sort of mass movement is best accomplished through Authoritarian means -- ie, Communism or Fascism.

Re:A great plan and I hope it works! (1)

houbou (1097327) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564089)

well, you know, in the larger scheme of things, the problem ultimately, when it comes to "economy" and "money" is that communism failed and capitalism is failing too.

Why?

Because money has become it's own purpose. As a society where everyone is supposed to have a function, the idea behind the concept of money is that you do a task, you get money, and money allows you to purchase goods and services.

But you know, what are these tasks?

That's where we go into primary, secondary, etc... industries.

Again, the theory is that some folks who would work into something "primaries", thus very much goal oriented to society's needs. "imagine after the 2nd world war, it was the forestry, the ore plants, etc...".

Secondary could be the people who cut your hair, fix your car, etc.. "services"..

Imagine when you live in a world where entertainment gets more value than say research for cancer? that's our reality.

So, anyways, if the "primary" industry workers have money, they would spend it, and thus it would go in to the loop.

But this begs the question about Canada and the US. What are these countries primary economies right now?

I'm not so sure anymore, I have to tell you, and I don't think anyone can really tell you too!

It's not clear.

And thus, the dilemna.

When you work for money's sake, and nothing else, then it's like a monopoly game where it is being horded by those who can get the most of it.

And that's the crux of the problem with capitalism right now.

The money isn't moving as it should. It's behind horded.

Because people are afraid, jobs are not secure, so, keep the cash. It's a simplified view, but it's very real nonetheless.

In an idealist world, money would be of no issue.

We would be raised with the concepts and the security that all our basic and most fundamental needs are there.

We would have function "work" based on what is required and our talents.

And we would be raised with the security that "hording" isn't necessary.

Our basic "human" rights would be quite expanded and society would provide for our needs and we would have a function in society. "Sounds Star Trekkie" but hey, I did say "an idealist" world :)

Cheers!

Image is everything, right? (4, Interesting)

2ms (232331) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563797)

Hey it worked for Toyota -- have more models of SUV than any other car manufacturer on planet, but come out with one "green" car and you're a "green" car company, no matter the 8 independent lines of SUV and largest/least full efficient main-line pickups on the market. Likewise -- produce more polution than any other country on the planet, but come out with one "green" city and you're a "green" country, no matter the literal 50% of population having no access to clean drinking water and #1 cause of death in nation being air pollution.

One City is Green .... (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563817)

... but what about all the other cities that won't be "green" in order to support this "one" that is???

Re:One City is Green .... (1, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564145)

So zero green cities is better than one?

Credit to the Chinese (3, Interesting)

Pincus (744497) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563835)

For all the pollution problems made more apparent by the Olympics, I give the Chinese a lot of credit for innovation. Between this, their "weather altering rockets" and whatever other efforts I've missed, we can at least say they innovate.

It makes me wonder if such nationalized industry as China contains might actually be good for massive innovation. Surely no corporation would undertake an initiative like this, especially on this scale, as the profits would be far too long term and unlikely.

BIODOME!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563847)

Iron Man,Iron Man,
Does whatever an iron can.

Make it totally green (2, Funny)

Centurix (249778) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563861)

Make the whole city run from manure, thermal energy. Then call it Dungtan.

be realistic (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563863)

Really? Zero? So there's no smoking, no open flames or anything burning at all in the entire city? Nothing can ever be allowed to rot? Why don't they be real and say low carbon city or like 99% or something. This is like the subary "zero landfill plant" BS all over again.

Re:be realistic (2, Insightful)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564009)

Chill. Its an article headline, and even if it were part of an official plan, it would be a catchy slogan with an asterick to make sure dumbasses dont' start pointing out minor technicalities. Read the fucking article. Aims are to be self sufficient in renewable power, to ban vehicles that emit CO2, among other things.

But wait! says the nitpicker. Bicycles emit CO2, does that mean they're banned too? NO! Christ, use some fiscking common sense. They clearly mean motor vehicles, and it should be understood by nearly everyone they mean motor vehicles.

Shouldn't be too hard... (1)

bistromath007 (1253428) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563899)

All they need to do if it's got to be green is to get Ruby Rhod on the case.

Re:Shouldn't be too hard... (1)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 6 years ago | (#24563965)

There's an element of the fifth about that post. (Hic)

Too many people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24563983)

500 000 people living on something the size of Manhattan? In a green city, in China?!

Excuse me while I laugh. I'll be back in 20 days.

if anyone can do it, it's probably china... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24564025)

sad but true, all of our government officials here are lawyers that specialize in doubletalk and over billing. In China the government officials are all engineers. There's no government red tape, when they choose to build something somewhere there's no one to oppose because citizens do not own land. If any country in the world can do this, it's probably china because no one in the country would be permitted to complain.

Rights (1)

WGFCrafty (1062506) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564065)

protects the wildlife in the area.

Now protect the civil rights of the humans inhabiting this place, and everywhere else in China.

Oh my, where is the spirit of building things? (5, Insightful)

2Bits (167227) | more than 6 years ago | (#24564095)

Oh my oh my, where is the spirit of exploration, taking risk, experimenting, building things in this community? I often come here for insight discussion and interesting debate on things that matter, but instead, we got a flame fest.

So, for this forum, anything done in China must be bad, negative, and nothing good could come out of it.

Everyone is ohing and ahing when we talk about Mars terraforming. When China is experimenting a new project, everyone must slam about its politics, and there's nothing worth reading and discussing here.

Tell you what, I'm living in Shanghai, I hate as much as the next guy the corruption, the pollution, the control on free speech, the human rights, ... all the negative things here.

But for fuck sake, this is a project where the Chinese government is investing in, taking risk, experimenting, building things, ... this is a big project to experiment an alternative way of building human cities, to change the way we work, live, entertain, deal with nature, etc. Where else do you get to experiment at this scale, and with the financial backup like that? Ok, this may be a political show, but I don't see other governments dare to experiment and make a show like that.

It might be a big flop, and it might be a huge success. The lessons learned might be useful for other regions on this planet, and even might be useful when we need to build outer space colony.

And guess what, westerners (the Brits, Americans, French, Italians...) have taken a huge part in designing it too. This is not a one country thing.

For those who only have negative things to say, let's get out of the parent's basement and go out more. Visit other countries, not all is well and perfect, but I'm sure you will learn a lot more too.

You want to make China a better place? Don't whine in the basement, that won't change anything. Come here, bring your grand vision, your next big thing.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?