practices, and technological innovations will make these cities and the societies of
which they are part more resilient in the face of global trends (Bicknell et al. 2009).
This dilemma emerged starkly at the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting in
which some of the largest developing countries argued that they should not be
expected to carry the responsibility for the conditions of global climate change
that had been brought about by the developed countries. They also took the position
that they should not be prevented from developing their nations to the economic
level of developed countries by attempts to mediate global warming. For most of
these countries, they can reach the economic levels of the developing countries only
through trajectories of economic growth that are imitative of the developed countries. This is the only way, they argue, that they can eliminate poverty and deliver an
expected standard of living to their citizens.
However, if this means that the only route to development is through the adoption
of urban consumption practices similar to the developed countries, this poses a real
challenge to the development of viable sustainability policies. For instance,
Satterthwaite (2009) has argued that the mere physical growth of urbanization per
se is not the major cause of human contribution to greenhouse gases (GHGs)
emissions. Rather, this results primarily from the consumption practices of the
middle- and upper-income populations of urban areas. For example, he cites evidence showing that each household added to India’s population having an income of
more than 30,000 rupees per month will contribute more than five times the GHGs
emission of a household with less than 3000 rupees per month. Similar arguments
are presented in a report by the World Resource Institute (2007a) and Assadourian
(2010). These arguments present a dilemma for policy makers because reducing
poverty in developing countries means an increasing proportion of people in middleand upper-income households that will contribute to a greater output of global
GHGs. Thus, unless the urbanizing countries of the developing world can find
some way to avoid imitating the “urbanization paths” of the developed world
while still continuing to develop economically, there seems to be little possibility
of a solution to this dilemma. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, we are
faced with the major policy question of how to produce a “globally responsible form
of urbanization” that still enables economic growth to continue.
In this presentation I want to deal with three ideas that are central to policies for a
“globally responsible form of urbanization”:
1. the centrality of the urbanization process
2. building adaptable and resilient livable cities and urban regions and
3. building new institutions of urban political and eco-governance.
18
T. G. McGee and K. Mori
which they are part more resilient in the face of global trends (Bicknell et al. 2009).
This dilemma emerged starkly at the December 2009 Copenhagen meeting in
which some of the largest developing countries argued that they should not be
expected to carry the responsibility for the conditions of global climate change
that had been brought about by the developed countries. They also took the position
that they should not be prevented from developing their nations to the economic
level of developed countries by attempts to mediate global warming. For most of
these countries, they can reach the economic levels of the developing countries only
through trajectories of economic growth that are imitative of the developed countries. This is the only way, they argue, that they can eliminate poverty and deliver an
expected standard of living to their citizens.
However, if this means that the only route to development is through the adoption
of urban consumption practices similar to the developed countries, this poses a real
challenge to the development of viable sustainability policies. For instance,
Satterthwaite (2009) has argued that the mere physical growth of urbanization per
se is not the major cause of human contribution to greenhouse gases (GHGs)
emissions. Rather, this results primarily from the consumption practices of the
middle- and upper-income populations of urban areas. For example, he cites evidence showing that each household added to India’s population having an income of
more than 30,000 rupees per month will contribute more than five times the GHGs
emission of a household with less than 3000 rupees per month. Similar arguments
are presented in a report by the World Resource Institute (2007a) and Assadourian
(2010). These arguments present a dilemma for policy makers because reducing
poverty in developing countries means an increasing proportion of people in middleand upper-income households that will contribute to a greater output of global
GHGs. Thus, unless the urbanizing countries of the developing world can find
some way to avoid imitating the “urbanization paths” of the developed world
while still continuing to develop economically, there seems to be little possibility
of a solution to this dilemma. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, we are
faced with the major policy question of how to produce a “globally responsible form
of urbanization” that still enables economic growth to continue.
In this presentation I want to deal with three ideas that are central to policies for a
“globally responsible form of urbanization”:
1. the centrality of the urbanization process
2. building adaptable and resilient livable cities and urban regions and
3. building new institutions of urban political and eco-governance.
18
T. G. McGee and K. Mori