The idea of an ‘eco-city’ (or ‘smart cities’) is a way of viewing cities as part of the solution. It is line of thinking that believes in the promise of technology and that we can manage our way out of the crisis. It can be defined as a city that “enhances the well-being of its citizens and of society through integrated urban planning and management that fully harness the benefits of ecological systems and renewable energies aiming for zero-emissions and zero-waste” (Lehmann 2011:853). An implicit assumption that could be questioned about ‘eco-city’ is whether we can keep up our level of consumption – especially in the Global North – and still talk about being ‘ecologically’ responsible. But putting that discussion aside, Zaman and Lehmann (2011) has made an interesting study into a subfield of the eco-city, namely into the ‘Zero Waste City’.

 

Zero Waste is defined as “designing and managing products and processes systematically to avoid and eliminate the waste and materials, and to conserve and recover all resources from waste streams”. This issue matters to urban sociologists, because it is a problem that we see a solution to, but we haven’t found a way of implementing them yet. Think about the success of the TV show “The War on Waste” – many people are aware of the issue of waste, but on a greater societal scale it remains an unresolved one. This article investigates the key drivers, challenges, threats and opportunities of transforming our current waste management systems into zero waste practices.

Photo: Vincent Callebaut's 2050 Vision of Paris as a "Smart City"

In conclusion, there are a lot of possible solutions being advanced, and maybe just as many obstacles in implementing them. But it remains evident that the city has the potential and maybe even the responsibility to become the main unit from which we manage to overcome climate change.

Sources:
Lehmann, S. (2011). Optimizing urban material flows and waste streams through 

 

The main aim of the Paris Agreement is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change. This includes a goal of limiting temperature rise to below 2 degree Celsius, while aiming to reach 1.5. The agreement also looks to tackle the problem of countries not having the ability to deal with climate change impacts. By improving finance flows with low GHG emissions the agreement hopes to make climate change management simple for all countries. In order to reach these ambitious goals, appropriate mobilisation and provision of financial resources, a new technology framework and enhanced capacity-building is to be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives. 

Donald Trump, one the more polarising figures in recent memory is at the forefront of the American withdrawal from the agreement, as per (Zhang, 2017) two key reasons that led to the United States deciding to not abide to the agreement terms are;

 

First, the Trump Administration is closely tied to the fossil fuel industry, and interest groups are a defining feature of American politics. The fossil fuel industries hold powerful political clout over the Trump Administration and the Republican Party:

 

Another reason is that Donald Trump is sceptical of climate change, refusing to acknowledge the fundamental principle of common but differentiated responsibility in global climate cooperation. He has also never publicly acknowledged that climate change is happening and is mainly caused by human beings, a consensus shared by most U.S. scientists.

·         Energy – design elements are incorporated to improve energy efficiency. All new homes must now comply with energy-efficiency requirements of the Building Code of Australia. 

·         Water – greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced by up to 80% with a greenhouse efficient hot water system (i.e. solar, electric, gas). 

·         Material – using sustainable building material such as recycled materials, avoiding on-site construction waste and household run-off into drains can limit the environmental impact of housing. 

·         Landscaping – retaining existing vegetation as much as possible is an important tool, often outlined within local planning schemes. Vegetation offsets are also commonly imposed.

Although these new housing design elements are important, the majority of housing in cities has already been built, mostly without consideration of such elements. For many, social change in the way they live their day to day lives is now required to limit the environmental impact of their homes. For example installing solar, or reducing shower time. For many these behaviours are often hard to accept and therefore leads to in-action and the continuation of environmental degradation through housing in our cities.

_{https://sustainability.uq.edu.au/projects/campus-grounds-and-buildings/better-buildings-designing-solutions-sustainable-architecture}