Urban Concentration

I recently came across this article in the National Geographic. It deals with the ever-increasing number of folks who live - or who will live - in large cities over the next few decades. It is predicted that the percentage of people living in cities in 2050 will increase to 75% (it's around 50% now). This has a number of implications. But first, the article:

(begin quoted text)

Sustainable Earth: Cities

Rio+20 shows how our rapidly urbanizing world presents challenges and opportunities for sustainable development.

Andrew Curry

For National Geographic News

The world's concrete jungles don't have the best reputation when it comes to being environmentally friendly. Think "city," and most of us picture unappealing vistas: gridlocked cars, smoggy horizons, and landfills overflowing with urban debris.

Yet demographers say the majority of the world's population already lives in urban areas; by 2050, three-quarters of the people on Earth will live in cities. Most of the action toward urbanization is taking place in the developing world. Urban areas occupy just 2 percent of the Earth, but consume 60 to 80 percent of the world's energy and produce 75 percent of carbon emissions. (See the National Geographic magazine feature "City Solutions" from December 2011.)

Rethinking Cities

Does the trend towards urbanization spell disaster? Maybe not. Recent research suggests those numbers may be deceptive. In fact, the typical urban resident produces less CO2 than average for the country they live in. The average American is responsible for 23 tons of CO2 per year; the average Washingtonian, just 19.7—and New Yorkers generate only 7.1 tons apiece.

That's because cities offer opportunities for efficiency in a way sprawling suburbs and scattered rural areas simply can't. Small apartments are easier to heat and cool than suburban homes, dense cities make public transit an attractive option, and stacking offices makes them more efficient to manage. In other words, the "concrete jungle" is actually a lot greener than it looks.

At the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the debate over managing this urban transition will focus on how smart urban planning—from efficient and clean public transport to a realistic appraisal of how migration from the countryside to cities works—can make the most of these efficiencies.

China alone is undergoing one of the most dramatic demographic revolutions the world has ever seen. In the past 30 years, more than a quarter of the Asian giant's population has moved from farms and small villages in the countryside to booming cities like Shenzhen, Beijing, Shanghai, and Wuhan. Over the next 20 years, 15 to 20 million people each year will flood into Chinese cities.

All those new city dwellers will need places to live and work, making China the world's biggest de facto urban planning laboratory. Experts estimate that more than 1,500 skyscrapers will be built in China every year for decades to come; dozens of Chinese cities will need mass transport systems built from scratch. To put that all in context, China must build the equivalent of one Chicago-sized city each year for the next two decades.

China's far from alone. With their booming populations, countries like India, Brazil, and Indonesia are at the forefront of the urban future.

Looking Ahead

The potential is tremendous, but that doesn't mean the future of the city will be smooth. Urban planners must overcome challenges like traffic congestion, a shortage of adequate housing, and declining infrastructure. While cities are more efficient, they also concentrate demand for resources such as power and water, making it vital for planners to look beyond the city limits.

And authoritarian, centrally planned city designs like China's—efficient, perhaps, but often far from democratic—may not be a model many countries want to emulate.

There's no doubt the world of the future will be urban. The challenge confronting us today is whether we can make that world an efficient and sustainable one.

(end quoted text. Retrieved from http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/sustainable-earth/cities/#)

This has implications for Mont Belvieu. On the outskirts of one of the world's largest cities, and in an America where urbanization already accounts for more than 80% of the population, we are facing a very dynamic time. Houston has already claimed several smaller communities to the west of downtown. People I know who have been in the area for decades claim there was a time when Katy was its own separate entity. Yet driving through the area now, you don't get a sense that Katy is any different from the rest of the sprawl that has enveloped it. The same could easily be said of Pasadena, of Sugarland, of Spring, and of many others. 

Interestingly, folks who live in Katy, and others, still prefer to identify themselves as being from those places. But other than a tax role, or a mailing address, what is it that makes Katy distinctive? Why is there still a place called Spring? And what is different about Pasadena from places like Texas City or Pearland?

Some places are lucky. Galveston is on an island, which separates it physically from surrounding communities. San Antonio has a great, storied history that will help define it forever. Small towns all over the country have downtown areas that shape the character of the community and provide places of collective memory and history.

Some places - and Mont Belvieu is one of them - are not so lucky. We have a good history here in the City, but it is not tied to a particular place - the historical parts of our City are literally being removed as industry expands in the older part of town. There is a collective history, but that exists largely within the memories of folks that have made the area their home - some of them for generations. As the physical reminders of that past are being eliminated, there is the real danger that this memory will be gone, too. And as this part of our history and memory are lost, we run the risk of being just another bedroom community on the outskirts of a larger, nondescript community that people more readily identify with.

So what to do?

First off, we need to make sure that we continue to have places where people can gather to share common experiences. This all adds to the perpetual memory and collective feeling of community. The new City Park is definitely a step in the right direction. This facility has already created a place for people to come and celebrate major life events, sporting events, and just an afternoon together with friends. All of these shared and common experiences help bolster the feeling of community and knit our families and friends together.

We must also insist on the highest quality of development. There are many areas of the City which have yet to be developed. As they come on line, it is imperative that we demand that these new developments fit in well with what we want the community to look like. This is beneficial for developers, too - communities that have quality development enjoy the increased patronage and buy-in from the local residents, which increases their spending at and interest in new developments.

Finally, we need to get out and participate in those things that will make us a part of the community. Lions and Pilot Club, Boy Scouts, Little League and Pop Warner - these are all great things to be a part of, and essential for the health of the community. But even more generally, people are benefited just by showing up for an event - movie night in the park, the Fourth of July celebration, Fall Fest, and many others. Our children learn that these are good things to do, and the legacy of togetherness and community is passed down from one generation to the next.

To Everything There is a Season

The season for politics is upon us. From local municipal elections, to state and federal run offs and elections, we are in the full swing of another political year. And it is exciting! There is so much going on, so much at stake, I think it behooves us all to get out there and get involved to the extent possible.

One of the things that I enjoy about this kind of season is the rhetoric. Most of it is pretty boring (things like, we need to change the failed policies of the past! we need to plan for the future and make sure we keep America on the right track! I will restore faith in government! My worthy opponent is a complete louse!) and meaningless, but often you can feel the texture and subcontext in their statements. They are more often than not making an emotional appeal, reaching for phrases that will appeal to emotion rather than logic, that evoke an emotional response, rather than inform. And in this, there is real mastery and cleverness.

This morning I heard this on the radio, and I was intrigued: (link - http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/05/09/152287372/partisan-psychology-why-are-people-partial-to-political-loyalties-over-facts)

Text follows:

Partisan Psychology: Why Do People Choose Political Loyalties Over Facts?

by Shankar Vedantam

When pollsters ask Republicans and Democrats whether the president can do anything about high gas prices, the answers reflect the usual partisan divisions in the country. About two-thirds of Republicans say the president can do something about high gas prices, and about two-thirds of Democrats say he can't.

But six years ago, with a Republican president in the White House, the numbers were reversed: Three-fourths of Democrats said President Bush could do something about high gas prices, while the majority of Republicans said gas prices were clearly outside the president's control.

The flipped perceptions on gas prices isn't an aberration, said Dartmouth College political scientist Brendan Nyhan. On a range of issues, partisans seem partial to their political loyalties over the facts. When those loyalties demand changing their views of the facts, he said, partisans seem willing to throw even consistency overboard.

Last time it was Republicans who were against a flip-flopping, out-of-touch elitist from Massachusetts, and now it's Democrats.

- Brendan Nyhan, political scientist, Dartmouth College

Nyhan cited the work of political commentator Jonathan Chait, who has drawn a contrast between the upcoming 2012 election between President Obama and the likely Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and the 2004 election between President Bush and John Kerry, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts.

Nyhan also contrasted the outrage in 2004 among Democrats who felt that Bush was politicizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks for political gain, and the outrage today among Republicans who feel the Obama re-election campaign is exploiting the killing of Osama bin Laden.

"The whole political landscape has flipped," Nyhan said.

Along with Jason Reifler at Georgia State University, Nyhan said, he's exploring the possibility that partisans reject facts because they produce cognitive dissonance — the psychological experience of having to hold inconsistent ideas in one's head. When Democrats hear the argument that the president can do something about high gas prices, that produces dissonance because it clashes with the loyalties these voters feel toward Obama. The same thing happens when Republicans hear that Obama cannot be held responsible for high gas prices — the information challenges their dislike of the president.

Nyhan and Reifler hypothesized that partisans reject such information not because they're against the facts, but because it's painful. That notion suggested a possible solution: If partisans were made to feel better about themselves — if they received a little image and ego boost — could this help them more easily absorb the "blow" of information that threatens their pre-existing views?

Nyhan said that ongoing — and as yet, unpublished — research was showing the technique could be effective. The researchers had voters think of times in their lives when they had done something very positive and found that, fortified by this positive memory, voters were more willing to take in information that challenged their pre-existing views.

"One person talked about taking care of his elderly grandmother — something you wouldn't expect to have any influence on people's factual beliefs about politics," Nyhan said. "But that brings to mind these positive feelings about themselves, which we think will protect them or inoculate them from the threat that unwelcome ideas or unwelcome information might pose to their self-concept."

Shankar Vedantam is a correspondent for NPR's Science Desk.

(back to me)

So listen to me. You are a good person, whomever you are. You can do great things. You are a part of the greatest country in the world, part of the greatest experiment in politics the world has ever known. You are capable of changing the way things are done. Now, inform yourself, become powerful, and get out there and get to work. You'll feel better, and the world will be a better place.