Whether you accept the theory of man-made Climate Change or not, every reasonable person should admit that the typical “1st world” lifestyle consumes (and wastes) far too much energy and resources, and almost everyone agrees on the importance of reducing our “ecological footprint” even those who believe “saving the planet” is un-necessary. The question is “by just how much do we need to reduce?”. In their 2006 documentaries both Al Gore and David Attenborough recommended (among other trivialities things) that we replace old incandescent lightbulbs, insulate homes, adjust thermostats, drive less often, diligently sort our rubbish into separate re-cycling bins, etc, etc. Would that be enough to significantly reduce our CE? To be fair I am sure both gentlemen would both say “No, much more must be done.” But they didn’t say how much more, and that my friends is the Really Inconvenient Truth” because it is now generally agreed among climate scientists that worldwide CE/GGE need to be reduced by at least 60%, and more realistically by 80%. Some think it should be 90%. Nobody really knows and probably we will never know but, to put things into perspective, CE in 1950 were probably about 20% of what they are now and atmospheric CO2 had been slowly increasing for 150 years before then. So the 1950 level (80% less than today) seems to be a good initial target.
Agreement with the basic logic of my idea does not imply agreement with the concept of GW/CC.
OK, now its going to get political as the “climate deniers” have recently grabbed the ball and are running like hell with it. There are actually 2 kinds of “deniers” – one camp denies the very existence of global warming whereas the other camp is prepared to admit GW is happening but (they contend) it is not caused by human activity but is due to natural warming and cooling cycles, such as have occurred many times in the past. Presumably these deniers, if they had their way, would carry on with “business as usual”, i.e., regardless of increasing CE. But what if they are wrong? Without launching into a long dissertation on the various pro and con arguments surrounding the issue (or non-issue as some would have it) of Global Warming (GW) or Climate Change (CC), common-sense would say that “its unrealistic to presume that we can hurl billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere of this small fragile planet and not expect a reaction of some sort.” I know I’m not going to convince any climate-change deniers here, so I’m not going to try. And you know what? IT DOESN’T MATTER which side is right..!
Much has been written and spoken about how we can reduce our EF (Environmental Footprint) or GHI (Gross Human Impact). The ideas and suggestions put forward largely revolve around the replacement of Carbon Emitting (CE) fossil-fuel power sources with “Green” (“renewable”) energy – solar, wind, wave, etc. It is also proposed replacing the world’s fleet of almost ONE BILLION internal combustion engine vehicles with electric or hydrogen powered vehicles.
Despite a gradual improvement in efficiency, a complete switch from Fossil to Green energy is still several decades away at least. Some sceptics say it will never be reliable enough. The major disadvantages of Wind and Solar Power are LOW ENERGY DENSITY, INTERMITTENCY (Unreliability) and UNSTOREABILITY. The first two can probably never be solved but if an efficient and economical way can be found to STORE large quantities of energy, then the first two problems become irrelevant.
More recently there is a growing realisation that cities themselves – both buildings and transportation – are responsible for most of our CE. Britain now has ambitious plans to retro-fit its energy-wasteful old buildings – covering roofs with solar panels, loft and wall insulation, double-glazing, energy-use sensors, and a smorgasbord of other “green” solutions, like so-called “smart grids”. But when this massive retro-fitting job is completed (if ever) the reduction in CE probably wont be much more than about 20%, which is nowhere near enough as we need to reduce CE by 80%, not 20%..!
This attempt to make our outmoded weather-leaky Grey cities “Green” is the equivalent of making a silk purse from a sows ear. The only way that we are ever going to achieve the British governments target (of an 80% reduction in CE by 2050) is to create entirely new cities from scratch. What I am proposing with Deltapolis is nothing like the soul-less but car-friendly “new towns” built in the 1950’s and early ’60’s. The cities I propose will be totally car-free stand-alone “modules”, each with a population of plus/minus 8000. They could either be a small town in itself, or an outlying suburb of an existing Grey city, or be combined with other such modules to create entirely new eco-cities. They will occupy far less land, will probably be cheaper to build, and will certainly be far cheaper to maintain. They will also offer tranquility, a far better quality of life, and unbeatable security – a “selling-point” that in the decades ahead is going to become a paramount consideration – yes, even in Britian. Last, but not least, they will be BEAUTIFUL TO BEHOLD..!
Although more emphasis is now being placed on reducing our demand for energy, rather than hoping for a cheap energy miracle or bonanza (eg., the long wished-for breakthrough in Fusion technology), I feel the “solutions” being widely touted (e.g., electric cars, better-insulated homes, more efficient low-energy lighting and, recently, what seems to be a frivolous fascination – even a fetish – with energy-monitoring sensors, etc, etc) are wide of the mark.
MASSIVE REDUCTIONS IN POWER AND RESOURCE CONSUMPTION CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY IGNORING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS, OF COURSE, THE PRIVATE MOTOR VEHICLE (PMV)
REMOVE SPRAWL AND WE REMOVE THE NEED FOR PMV’s.
LG syndrome
In the decades since WW2, the “West” (and now much of the “East”) have attained the “LG” (Life is Good”) point where the great majority can afford good housing with instant piped hot and cold water, an unlimited supply of varied and good quality food, fine clothes, personal transportation, an endless stream of ever more sophisticated consumer electrical goods, restaurants, overseas leisure travel, etc. Most important of all we have a constant supply of the fuel and electrical power without which none of this would be possible. All of this and more is available in affordable and seemingly endless abundance.
But on the other hand there is an increasing public awareness that such abundance has its limits – and some people are even questioning whether the relentless striving for “growth”, which politicians insist is both a necessity and an inevitability (although only if you vote for them), is really such a good idea. Aside from being unrealistic, might endless “growth” be an unhealthy obsession?
BE PREPARED
I do not want to sound apocalyptic but there is another very good reason to want to live in DP. I happen to believe that, for Europe and N.America especially, the next few decades (if not the next few centuries) are going to be a lot less benign then the comparative peace and prosperity of the post 1945 era. When the big financial crash comes – as it surely must – our big and “diverse” cities are going to erupt in class and ethnic conflict and the glib political mantra that “diversity is our greatest strength” will be exposed for the cynical lie that it is. But, even if you disagree with me, it would be foolish not to be in some way prepared for such a possibility would it not? In addition to all its other advantages, Deltapolis will offer its fortunate citizens a considerable degree of protection from any chaos without. DP’s security will be a passive one provided by its very nature as a self-contained community – like a small island country – and will not not be dependent on heavily armed security nor by high walls, razor wire, electric fences, etc.
FORWARD TO THE PAST?
UNITED NEW NATIONS?
Perhaps the most exciting possibility that can arise from DP is that someone (or more likely a group of like-minded individuals) could found a new “nation” in his/her own image, so to speak.
If Richard Branson were to announce to the media “I’m going to found a new COMPANY that will be run on co-operative principles and which will employ thousands of people who will all be shareholders”, I think this would generate a lot of positive publicity and certainly – especially given his record – nobody would say “impossible” and call him an idiot or a dreamer.
But suppose he were to say instead “I’m going to found a new COUNTRY that will be run on co-operative principles and which will employ thousands of people (citizens) who will all be shareholders”. This may sound very strange to our ears but 300 years ago it wouldn’t have done so.
Notwithstanding the “slight” problem that all the worlds land is presently claimed by nation states which are very reluctant to give up even a square inch, I am saying IT CAN HAPPEN AGAIN..! Many countries might be prepared to long-lease small parcels of uninhabited territory if it could be shown to be beneficial, and there are many reasons why it could be so.