> Leigh Meyers wrote:
>
>> Yep, China is going to build 10 new cities outside Beijing where the
>> working people will live while the rich stay behind in Beijing and
>> aimlessly
>> drive their
>> SUVs around without the risk of running over some overworked prole
>> bicyclist too tired to pay attention to the traffic and the SUV's
>> blaring horn... did I mention the driver owns an SUV and is rich? It
>> bears repetition.
>
> How do you know this? There's nothing in the article that says
> anything like this. You just shooting from the lip, or do you have
> some info to back it up?
>
> I keep reading/hearing things about how the Chinese are serious about
> energy efficiency and a new environmental paradigm. Have you heard
> differently in SC?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
I know the Chinese are serious about buying up all the available carbon-based energy resources.
*That* shows some faith in the conversion to more sustainable power sources. [snickerintocuff]
What? Will we all poison ourselves with PM10 particulate matter from McDonalds cooking oil based biodiesel instead?
[...] By Elisabeth Rosenthal International Herald Tribune WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2005
http://leighmdotnet.blogspot.com/2005/09/true-cost-economics-of-driving-iht.html
ROME After the European Union placed new limits on airborne chemical particles on Jan. 1, many cities across the Continent, from Italy to the Netherlands, found that they were unable to comply, EU officials and scientists say.
Now, a new report from the World Health Organization, to be discussed Wednesday by the European Commission, defines the consequences of such failure: The average European city dweller can expect to die a year before the end of his or her natural life span because of particulate air pollution, the researchers calculate.
While the levels of most types of air pollution have been falling steadily in Europe, levels of dangerous particles have remained steady in the past few years and are increasing in some places. Such pollution is known as PM10, for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. In cities, it is largely related to traffic. [...]
No No No... Driving IS PART OF THE PROBLEM. Relocating people away from where the work exists just exacerbates the problem. Would you suggest that the industrials will move to the outskirt cities as well?
That's good... All the janitors and maids can ride the bus to Beijing.
We've seen that before somewhere.
Europe, right now.
Santa Cruz, where the early morning express bus from Watsonville, the major Chicano community 15 miles south, makes a special loop up to UCSC to drop off the workers who will change the trash can liners in the dorms for kids whose parents have an average income of about $100,000.
But about those cities...
I read awhile back in the major media that the driving force for these eco-friendy cities was to move the people outside the city to ... urban suburbs... a corridor, but in a circle... I think it was bbc.
As far as burning buses 100 years from now... Just using some currently available empirical data... Rioter all over Europe targetting public transport (latter day "cattle cars").
I see the seeds of a similar social model in China. 50 years from now, if the model holds, those cities will be big economic ghettos full of "proles", from whatever Chinese province, whatever contry they come from.
The industrial work will be there... so will the related conditions and the "related people".
The "Sinocons" will be in charge of the government.
BTW, I'm shooting from the HIP... not the "lip".
Leigh www.leighm.net
Have you seen my newsfeeds?: http://leighmdotnet.blogspot.com/ Got RSS?: http://www.furl.net/members/leighm/rss.xml