Michael Keith’s commentary on the importance to climate change of urbanisation (Opinion, January 26) is squarely on the mark. As much as we like to imagine that renewable energy expansion and carbon emissions mitigation are a silver bullet, such responses are totally insufficient given the vast scale of material and energy consumption — in which urban areas play a major part. As Keith notes, even without powering up new cities, their continued construction using 20th-century approaches would be sure to produce untold additional harm.
Remedies for climate change and environmental damage more generally depend on fairly simple arithmetic: either population or per capita consumption levels must drop sharply. Both are related to urban development, yet population momentum will keep the former from occurring any time soon despite falling fertility rates — too late, in any case, to make enough of a difference.
It leaves a worldwide drop in consumption as the only viable solution. While Keith’s warning only addresses part of the problem, it is an important warning nonetheless. Even more important is the urgent need to expose as a naive and pernicious fantasy the idea that carbon mitigation through a transition to renewables will mostly suffice.
Mariano Torras
Professor of Economics; Chair, Department of Finance and Economics, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY, US