Skip to main contentSkip to solution

The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents. To a planner's eye, these cities look chaotic. I trained as a biologist and to my eye, they look organic. Squatter cities are also unexpectedly green. They have maximum density-1 million people per square mile in some areas of Mumbai-and have minimum energy and material use. People get around by foot, bicycle, rickshaw, or the universal shared taxi.

Not everything is efficient in the slums, though. In the Brazilian favelas where leave their lights on all day. But in most slums recycling is literally a way of life. The Dharavi slum in Mumbai has 400400 recycling units and 30,00030,000 ragpickers. Six thousand tons of rubbish are sorted every day. In 2007, the Economist reported that in Vietnam and Mozambique, "Waves of gleaners sift the sweepings of Hanoi's streets, just as Mozambiquan children pick over the rubbish of Maputo's main tip. Every city in Asia and Latin America has an industry based on gathering up old cardboard boxes."

In his 19851985 article, Calthorpe made a statement that still jars with most people: "The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution than his counterpart in settlements of lower densities." "Green Manhattan" was the inflammatory title of a 20042004 New Yorker article by David Owen. "By the most significant measures," he wrote, "New York is the greenest community in the United States, and one of the greenest cities in the world . . . The key to New York's relative environmental benignity is its extreme compactness. Placing one and a half million people on a twenty-three-square-mile island sharply reduces their opportunities to be wasteful." He went on to note that this very compactness forces people to live in the world's most energy-efficient apartment buildings.

Urban density allows half of humanity to live on 2.82.8 per cent of the land. Consider just the infrastructure efficiencies. According to a 20042004 UN report: "The concentration of population and enterprises in urban areas greatly reduces the unit cost of piped water, sewers, drains, roads, electricity, garbage collection, transport, health care, and schools."

The nationally subsidised city of Manaus in northern Brazil "answers the question" of how to stop deforestation: give people decent jobs. Then they can afford houses, and gain security. One hundred thousand people who would otherwise be deforesting the jungle around Manaus are now prospering in town making such things as mobile phones and televisions.

Of course, fast-growing cities are far from an unmitigated good. They concentrate crime, pollution, disease and injustice as much as business, innovation, education and entertainment. But if they are overall a net good for those who move there, it is because cities offer more than just jobs. They are transformative: in the slums, as well as the office towers and leafy suburbs, the progress is from hick to metropolitan to cosmopolitan electricity is stolen and therefore free, people

Which one of the following statements would undermine the author's stand regarding the greenness of cities?

Solution

āœ… Correct Option: 2

Need to find something that directly challenges their environmental benefits.

From passage: "The city is the most environmentally benign form of human settlement. Each city dweller consumes less land, less energy, less water, and produces less pollution"

Author's main argument -> Cities are green because they're resource-efficient and have lower environmental impact per person. The whole passage focuses on environmental benefits like density, energy efficiency, and recycling.

To weaken this -> Need something that shows cities actually harm the environment, not just create social or economic problems.


Option Analysis:

šŸ”“ Option 1 -> irrelevant -> Disease spread is a health issue, not environmental. Even if people get sick from sorting rubbish, this doesn't challenge whether cities use less energy or produce less pollution per person.

🟢 Option 2 -> correct -> Directly attacks the core argument. If high density increases CO2 and global warming, then cities are actually harming the environment, not helping it. This completely contradicts the "environmentally benign" claim.

šŸ”“ Option 3 -> irrelevant -> Crime is a social problem, not environmental. Violence doesn't relate to whether cities are "green" or use resources efficiently.

šŸ”“ Option 4 -> irrelevant -> Economic costs don't equal environmental impact. Higher utility bills don't mean cities aren't still more resource-efficient than suburbs.

The key confusion students have -> Mixing up different types of problems. Remember: "greenness" = environmental impact only. Social problems (crime, disease) and economic problems (costs) are separate issues that don't challenge environmental claims.

Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Left arrow: Previous question
  • Right arrow: Next question
  • S key: Jump to solution
  • Q key: Jump to question