New Environmental Frontiers in China’s First Vertical Home

Global populations have risen exponentially over the last two centuries, with numbers expected to increase past 9.8 billion in 2050 and more than 11 billion by 2100! The enormous global population has taken significant tolls on the Earth and its vital resources, expediting global warming and environmental stress. One of the most significant contributors to global warming is the occupied space and pollution generated by megacities dispersed worldwide in countries like China, India, USA, and more. Scientists have been working to develop strategies to better support growing urban populations, preventing further degradation of the environment. Vertical cities are a solution to those issues, and environmental sectors have been discussing their implementation for a long time. 

Vertical cities are a specific and purposeful redesign of how humans have lived throughout history. Instead of traditional outward expansion of cities by connecting additional infrastructure, these cities utilize the space for development above existing frameworks. Vertical cities are key to managing overpopulation and habitat degradation by confining large populations into sustainable units. By designing vertical developments, skyward cities will be able to preserve natural resources outside the city, protect critical wildlife habitats, and contribute to global environmental status. An ideal vertical city would allow people to live, work, go to school, recycle waste, and produce their food inside a single building.

Let us break down the pros and cons of designing, implementing, and operating one of these massive infrastructure projects because there are reasons why they are not popping up in every major city. The first notable benefit of establishing vertical cities is reducing natural resource acquisition based on land space and urban development. These cities can be installed within current urban boundaries and move many businesses and residential areas off the ground. Unfortunately, because these cities do not exist yet, and we do not have any current data to assess their success, designs receive large amounts of skepticism from funders.

Vertical cities are meant to host hundreds if not thousands of people, so establishing the necessary resources is vital to the building’s survival. These buildings need to be explicitly designed to deal with environmental hazards, evacuation procedures, and plans for any emergency. The biggest hurdle facing these cities is funding because there is no evidence to outweigh their costs with benefits, so installing the first of its kind in China is vital to supply research necessary for future vertical developments. 

China’s staggering 1.4 billion people have put immense stress on the country's space and resources. Most Chinese live and work inside urban developments that significantly lack the space necessary to accommodate large daily influxes of people adequately. That is why China is the first home to one of these vertical cities, designed to support 500 residents and more than 5,000 trees and shrubs on its various levels. This initial development is not meant to be an ideal vertical city but a trial into the environmental benefits of increasing urban greenery and attempting to reduce the spread of people throughout the city. 

The plants were chosen to contribute the most benefits to the region by introducing native, non-invasive species aiding atmospheric recycling of greenhouse gasses. The design is estimated to absorb more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and emit more than 10 tons of oxygen. These buildings are of paramount importance because their location inside urban settings will directly contribute to the city’s clean air. Either way, the first test of this new way of living will indicate if they are a viable and profitable solution to many of the climate changes Earth is currently facing. If successful, this type of architecture can be expected to show up in every major city around the world and reinvent how we design urban areas.

Plastic Production to Outpace Coal in Driving Climate Change by 2030

Plastics are on track to contribute more climate change emissions than coal plants by 2030, according to a new report by Beyond Plastics at Vermont’s Bennington College. As fossil fuel companies seek to recoup falling profits, they are increasing plastics production which are canceling out greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions gained from the recent closures of 65 percent of the country’s coal-fired power plants.

The New Coal: Plastics and Climate Change report, analyzes never-before-compiled data from ten stages of plastics production, usage and disposal and finds that the US plastics industry is releasing at least 232 million tons of greenhouse gases each year — the equivalent of 116 average-sized coal-fired power plants.

In June, the US Plastics Pact unveiled an aggressive national strategy to ensure all plastic packaging will be reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025. But in the meantime, conventional plastics production shows no signs of slowing down: In 2020, the plastics industry’s reported emissions increased by 10 million tons of GHGs over 2019. According to the report, construction is currently underway on another 12 plastics facilities, and 15 more are planned — altogether these expansions may emit more than 40 million more tons of GHGs annually by 2025.

“The fossil fuel industry is losing money from its traditional markets of power generation and transportation. They are building new plastics facilities at a staggering clip so they can dump their petrochemicals into plastics. This petrochemical buildout is cancelling out other global efforts to slow climate change,” said Judith Enck, former EPA Regional Administrator and President of Beyond Plastics.

In addition to accelerating climate change, plastic pollutes water, air, soil, wildlife, and health — particularly in low-income communities and communities of color. The US plastics industry reported releasing 114 million tons of greenhouse gases nationwide in 2020. 90% of its reported climate change pollution occurs in just 18 communities where residents earn 28% less than the average US household and are 67% more likely to be people of color. In addition to greenhouse gases, these facilities also emit massive amounts of particulates and other toxic chemicals into the air, threatening residents’ health.

As Congress finalizes federal spending bills and the United Nations prepares to meet for COP26 in Glasgow next month, their failure to acknowledge and act to reduce plastics’ contribution to climate change threatens to undermine global climate-change mitigation efforts. Nearly 1,000 companies have already adopted 1.5°C-aligned, science-based targets — but governments must now do their part, and work to provide clarity for companies that are ready to accelerate their climate action with equally ambitious policies and incentives. Without both sectors working in tandem, the majority of sustainability experts are pessimistic about our ability to avoid the effects of catastrophic climate change.