Polar Cities

1959_chicago_tribune.jpgIf there was some­thing that you really believed and knew that if acted upon it could save human­ity, what would it look like to ded­i­cate your life to this cause? What if you were wrong? What if peo­ple crit­i­cized you for it? Would it still mat­ter? You would never know whether you were right until you knew. Over the past week I’ve been think­ing a lot about cli­mate change. What sparked this cur­rent thread was a news story I read about Dan Bloom and his plan for the cli­mate cri­sis. He has ded­i­cated him­self to this project in a vul­ner­a­ble and unin­hib­ited way. Dan Bloom’s idea is to pre­pare for the loom­ing cli­mate dis­as­ter by build­ing Polar Cities. I totally geeked out on the idea of Polar Cities and I was able to inter­view Dan Bloom about him­self and his plans.

Tell me a lit­tle about your­self. How did you become inter­ested in cli­mate change and polar cities?

dan_bloom.jpg

I was inter­ested in cli­mate change and global warm­ing before 2007, in other words from 1971 to 2006, just as a nor­mal news­pa­per reader, aware of the sit­u­a­tion, but not deeply aware, nor very con­cerned, just nor­mal low-frequency aware­ness from news­pa­per and mag­a­zine arti­cles I had read from col­lege grad­u­a­tion in 1971 to life in the real world of the early 21st Cen­tury. THEN one day, I read two arti­cles in the news­pa­per here in Tai­wan: one was about the upcom­ing IPCC report on cli­mate change, released in Feb­ru­ary 2007, and then two was an inter­view with James Love­lock the UK sci­en­tist who said that in his view in the future, there might be only “breed­ing pairs in the Arc­tic” to con­tinue the human species after global warm­ing “events” cause mass migra­tion north and mass die offs of humans, from a pop­u­la­tion of 10 bil­lion to maybe just 200,000 left. When I read this, I had a eureka moment, I woke up at the moment. At first I was depressed. I wrote a long essay on my blog about how things are really screwed. But after re-reading what I wrote, which was basi­cally depress­ing and sad writ­ing, I woke up again and said to myself: Hey, you can’t go around mop­ing about and feel­ing sad for the world, try to do some­thing pos­i­tive, some­thing to give you and oth­ers hope. So I visu­al­ized humans liv­ing in polar cities in the north­ern areas in the year 2500 or so, and that is how I began this quixotic adven­ture. Via the blo­gos­phere. And 12 months later I found an artist, in Tai­wan, where I live, Deng Cheng-hong, who agreed to make some illus­tra­tions for me, on com­mis­sion. I paid him for his work and two months later he gave me these amaz­ing illus­tra­tions. He is genius. In fact, his visual images have made this project leap off the page and into people’s imag­i­na­tions, so all credit goes to him. James Love­lock has seen these images and said to me via email: “It may very well hap­pen and soon.”

Are polar cities your response to the cli­mate crisis?

Yes, this project is my per­sonal response to the cli­mate cri­sis, my small con­tri­bu­tion to the ongo­ing global dis­cus­sion. It’s my way of tak­ing part in what I think is a pos­i­tive way in the debate.

Are the aims of polar cities to accom­mo­date a lucky few or all of humanity?

City Illustration by Deng Cheng-hong

The aim of the polar cities project is to accom­mo­date all of sur­viv­ing human­ity, in an open demo­c­ra­tic human­i­tar­ian way. These cities are not just for the lucky few or the rich or the pow­er­ful. My phi­los­o­phy and aim is to start plan­ning for these adap­ta­tion cities now, in 2008, so that by the time we need them, humankind has fig­ured out how to make them open and demo­c­ra­tic. But if things get really bad in the future, out of a world pop­u­la­tion of maybe 15 bil­lion peo­ple in 2500, there might be only 200,000 sur­vivors. In that case, these peo­ple will be the lucky few. Or unlucky few, some might say. But they will be the breed­ing pairs who keep the human species alive for many gen­er­a­tions inside these polar cities and then come out and repop­u­late the Earth again when the time is right. The polar city era might last 100 years or 1000 years or even 10,000 years. So these polar cities are lifeboats for humankind, for the human species, not just for the lucky few. I have no chil­dren, so there is no per­sonal intent here for me. I am doing this because I have com­pas­sion for the future. A deep com­pas­sion for the future, and this is now my life’s work. Unpaid. On my own time. On my own dime. My con­tri­bu­tion, in a small minor way, to the ongo­ing debate, pro and con, about cli­mate change.

In a recent Guardian arti­cle, James Love­lock is quoted as say­ing “Enjoy life while you can” in regards to the cli­mate cri­sis. Do you see ideas like recy­cling and car­bon off­set­ting as useless?

Love­lock is my men­tor in all this, and that recent Guardian inter­view was very insight­ful, I thought. I agree with him on many of the things he said. How­ever, he is 88 and I am 58, so being 30 years younger I still have more hope and opti­mism that we can solve this cli­mate cri­sis prob­lem with real solu­tions. So yes, recy­cling and car­bon off­set­ting are impor­tant ideas and I agree we should imple­ment them as best we can, and do all we can NOW to try to mit­i­gate global warm­ing in the here and now. I have not given up hope. I still think we can solve this Long Emer­gency, but there will have to be some sacrifices.

Is tech­nol­ogy part of the problem?

It is a part of the prob­lem and a pos­si­ble solu­tion to the prob­lem, too. My fin­gers are crossed. I hope some­one can come up with a tech­no­log­i­cal fix for the cli­mate cri­sis. That is where my hope lies. Yes, but in the case that worst come to worst, I feel that polar cities can be our lifeboats to get us through a long period of north­ern life, maybe for 30 gen­er­a­tions of humans.

The polar cities have been likened to fall­out shel­ters, how would you respond to this?

I never thought of polar cities as fall­out shel­ters. But we could call them global warm­ing shel­ters. Lifeboats. I see them more as lifeboats. The cold war men­tal­ity of fall­out shel­ters is not really appro­pri­ate for polar cities. But head­line writ­ers have wild imag­i­na­tions and I appre­ci­ate all head­line writ­ers attempts to grap­ple with these issues.

Do we need a sense of impend­ing dis­as­ter to give our­selves some­thing to work towards?

You are right. Yes, we need a real deep sense of impend­ing dis­as­ter to wake us up. Love­lock and Hansen and oth­ers are impor­tant in issu­ing wake up calls to human­ity. I am just a sol­dier in the trenches launch­ing my polar cities idea as a non-threatening thought exper­i­ment to wake peo­ple up in another way, visu­ally. I remain an eter­nal opti­mist and I wake up every day full of energy to fight this cli­mate cri­sis. This IS the fight of human­ity, all human­ity. We need all the ideas we can get.

18 Responses to “Polar Cities”


  • Matthew,

    Merde! This is a very nice pack­age, the intro and the inter­view, good ques­tions you asked, and I hope those who come across this on the Inter­net find some inspi­ra­tion, one way or another, pro or con polar cities. Some peo­ple have asked me when I think we might need polar cities, and in order not to appear as if I am invovled in scare­mon­ger­ing or doom­say­ing (which I am not; I remain an eter­nal pos­tive opti­mist!), I have said that maybe, just maybe, human­ity might need these polar cities in the year 2500 or so.

    Most peo­ple think I am being too gen­er­ous with that date, and quite a few sci­en­tists in the field have emailed me over the past 12 months say­ing “2500” is wrong, it is too far dis­tant, “the trou­bles” will hap­pen much much sooner than that. OUCH! DOUBLE OUCH!

    So we might need them in 2121 or 2323 or 2424, who knows. I still think we won’t need them, if at all, until at least 30 gen­er­a­tions down the road. Again, this is all mere spec­u­la­tion, not a pre­dic­tion. Dr Love­lock seems to think the “end”, what­ever that is, will hap­pen much much sooner. But I think we still have a long long time to go.

    So the impor­tant thing now, while just con­tem­plat­ing the very con­cept of polar cities, is to act indi­vid­u­ally in our daily lives to lessen our car­bon foot­prints, change our lifestyles to less con­sumerist “burn! slash! con­sume!” economies and many other ways that activi­tists around the world are talk­ing about.

    We need to lis­ten to the sci­en­tists. They are on the front lines. The sum­mer Arc­tic ice is melt­ing. There is con­cern. But it’s a drip drip drip process, it hap­pens so slowly, in very small incre­ments. In our own life­times, here and now, there is not much to worry about. Life will be fine for another 30 gen­er­a­tions, I feel.

    But while we have time and energy, why not “plan”, even in a thought exper­i­ment kind of way, for what might come later. Like the Boy Scout motto says “Be Pre­pared.” That’s my think­ing, too.

    But I remain opti­mistic. Fin­gers crossed. Check back with me in 10 years…

    And once again, huge props to Deng Cheng-hong, the artist in Tai­wan who came up with those amaz­ing “blue­prints” of what a polar city MIGHT look like. MIGHT. Nobody knows for sure. That 1959 car­toon from the Chicago Tri­bune is cool, too.

    Thank you, sir, for blog­ging about polar cities in such a pos­i­tive life-affirming way. !!!

  • By coin­ci­dence, a blog­ger in Lon­don posted this today, too:

    “Arc­tic Ice and Polar Cities”

    http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/arctic-ice-and-polar-cities/#comment-419

    Web­Posted on March 4, 3008

    by Robert Kyr­i­akides in the UK

    In 1997 152 nations agreed that the Arc­tic region would be an inter­na­tional ter­ri­tory. The coun­tries bor­der­ing this region – Rus­sia, The USA, Canada Nor­way and Den­mark (through Green­land) agreed to limit their con­trol to 320 kilo­me­ters from their coats. In June last year the then Pres­i­dent of the Russ­ian Fed­er­a­tion, Mr Putin, laid claim on behalf of Rus­sia to much of the Arc­tic Ocean, includ­ing the North Pole.

    Since then all these coun­tries have been study­ing under­sea geol­ogy and invest­ing in geo­log­i­cal sur­veys to see whether they can also extend their ter­ri­to­r­ial claims, because if they can show that their country’s con­ti­nen­tal shelf extends into the arc­tic they can also lay claim to some of the arctic.

    Now, every one of the nations bor­der­ing the Arc­tic has planted flags on ice or land – the tra­di­tional way of claim­ing undis­cov­ered ter­ri­tory, and increas­ing patrols around “their” land.

    What has changed in the last ten years? Well, what­ever your views about cli­mate change may be, the arc­tic region has warmed up, with both the sea warm­ing and the ice cover reduc­ing. It does not take much imag­i­na­tion to realise that the frozen wastes of the arc­tic may soon yield not only hab­it­able land but also their under­ly­ing min­eral and fos­sil fuel wealth.In the sum­mer of 2007 the ice in the Arc­tic sea was only 4.92 mil­lion square kilo­me­tres which was 400,000 square kilo­me­tres less than the pre­vi­ous low mea­sured in 2005.

    On aver­age the arc­tic has lost 10% of its ice every decade, although the area of ice does shrink and grow each year, the trend is def­i­nitely for less and less ice to cover the Arc­tic sea. As you would expect, aver­age tem­per­a­tures are increas­ing but the increase in the Arc­tic region is about twice the rate in most of the rest of the world.

    Less ice means warmer tem­per­a­tures. Ice reflects back about 60% of solar radi­a­tion. When it melts and becomes sea only 10% is reflected back. Unfor­tu­nately, the ice will prob­a­bly melt more quickly than we expect and that will mean the loss of an impor­tant eco sys­tem, the loss of some species of ani­mals. These things are bad.

    How­ever, there will also be oppor­tu­ni­ties that come with the loss of ice, and that may include sur­vival. One thinker, Danny Bloom has sug­gested that we might well find sur­vival of our species in polar cities.

    His idea does not of course seek to address global warm­ing, but sets out a pos­si­ble blue­print of what we may have to build if the cli­mate changes rad­i­cally. You can see what his ideas may look like here: http://pcillu101.blogspot.com/ .

    Of course while much of the Arc­tic region, if the ice melts, will be cov­ered in water, there will be land; there will be islands and land once the ice has gone which might be hab­it­able. Whether they will be habited largely depends on what life is like on the rest of the planet.

    In the mean­time we have to cope with what we have. We need to burn much less fos­sil fuel; we need to regen­er­ate the forests, stop wast­ing resources, stop pol­lut­ing and try to min­imise the effects of the harm we cre­ate, so that as a species we cre­ate less harm.But most of all as a race we must use our imag­i­na­tion and our cre­ativ­ity to solve the prob­lems that our imag­i­na­tion and cre­ativ­ity generate.

    http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/arctic-ice-and-polar-cities/#comment-419

  • Matthew,

    A blog­ger in the UK posted this today, too:

    “.…How­ever, there will also be oppor­tu­ni­ties that come with the loss of ice, and that may include sur­vival. One thinker, Danny Bloom has sug­gested that we might well find sur­vival of our species in polar cities.

    His idea does not of course seek to address global warm­ing, but sets out a pos­si­ble blue­print of what we may have to build if the cli­mate changes rad­i­cally. You can see what his ideas may look like here”

    : http://pcillu101.blogspot.com/ .

    http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/arctic-ice-and-polar-cities/

  • Got this email today from a reader in Florida of your post:

    “Dan ,

    I”m inter­ested in the local envi­ro­ment around the polar cities. The 1959 car­toon shows domes sur­rounded by ice while pre­sum­ably the rest of the world is a desert. Wouldn’t a more likely event be arc­tic zones with
    trop­i­cal temps with gen­eral pop­u­la­tions fill­ing them?”

    Answer: yes, of course. The car­toon was a 1959 sci fi car­toon in a Chicago newspaper.

    NOTE:

    [The Jan­u­ary 25, 1959 Chicago Tri­bune ran this pic­ture of the “Polar City of the Future” as a part of the Closer Than We Think! series.

    As Alaska joins the union, more rapid devel­op­ment of the vast open spaces of that new state can be expected. Experts are already study­ing the prob­lems involved in cre­at­ing the pop­u­la­tion cen­ters that will be nec­es­sary for tap­ping the hidden-wealth of the area and build­ing the defense out­posts that may be required.

    One pos­si­bil­ity would be to con­struct arc­tic cities under great domes of trans­par­ent plas­tic or glass, where spring­like tem­per­a­tures could be main­tained. Such domes are already in use at the Glas­gow Cen­tral Sta­tion in Scot­land and at a big down­town plaza in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

    How would iso­lated polar cities, ringed by ice­bergs and moun­tains, be sup­plied? Our armed forces have a solu­tion — the diri­gi­ble. Recently, the Navy told how its blimp ZPG-2 suc­cess­fully flew food and other sup­plies to an ice island team of sci­en­tists only 500 miles from the North Pole.]

    http://www.paleofuture.com/2007/06/closer-than-we-think-polar-city-1959.html

  • http://robertkyriakides.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/arctic-ice-and-polar-cities/

    A blog­ger in UK posted this analy­sis today, too.

    Har­monic convergence!

  • nice job! very good questions.

    i like to think of how polar cities would be orga­nized. espe­cially with such advanced plan­ning, it could be incred­i­bly effi­cient, and there would be all kinds of architectural/aesthetic things to try that have never been done before.

    the whole thing could be like one well-researched kin­ship garden!

  • Alisha
    Ilove your com­ments! You are on the right track, what we need to do, in a col­lec­tive way, is address these ques­tions of how to orga­nize such polar cities, how to gov­ern them admin­is­ter them, guard them, defend them, grow food for them, find fuel for them, find trans­port for them, find com­mu­ni­ca­tion tools for them to other polar cities scat­tered around the world, a list of 100 ques­tions come to mind. Please contribue:

    1– 100 ques­tions for polar cities in the future.

    http://100qest101.blogspot.com/

    RE: “i would like to think about how polar cities would be orga­nized. espe­cially with such advanced plan­ning, it could be incred­i­bly effi­cient, and there would be all kinds of architectural/aesthetic things to try that have never been done before. ” YES YES YES! GOOD THINKING! I LOVE IT! (DANNY)

    “the whole thing could be like one well-researched kin­ship garden!”

    PLEASE TELL ME MORE ABOUT THE CONCEPT OF KINSHIP GARDEN. IT IS A POWERFUL TERM. DID YOU COIN IT. I LOVE IT. TELL ME MORE. EMAIL ME
    [dan­bloom at GMAIL]

  • I see now. Inter­estintg con­cept to apply to polar city plan­ning. Thanks for the insight, Alicia!

    DANNY

    RE:

    ”What is Kin­ship Gar­den­ing? And Why Do It?”
    Excerpted from Dr. Mush­room Kapuler

    To give us insight into the fab­ric of life. The mosaic puz­zle of liv­ing organ­isms has a deep inter­nal pat­tern. This pat­tern is sim­i­lar amongst all liv­ing things, espe­cially between plants and ani­mals. Using the his­tory of gen­er­a­tions to orga­nize gar­dens is a way to gen­er­ate visions into the higher order struc­ture intrin­sic to life.

    To pre­serve a broad and deep sam­pling of plants by estab­lish­ing gar­dens that max­i­mize diver­sity. The idea is to explore the fab­ric of life by plant­ing gar­dens that have as many dif­fer­ent kinds of plants as pos­si­ble. Thus we achieve sev­eral things simul­ta­ne­ously; con­ser­va­tion, diver­si­fi­ca­tion, edu­ca­tion, explo­ration and discovery.

    To estab­lish sanc­tu­ar­ies that are har­monic sub­sets of the world flora. The destruc­tion of habi­tats con­tin­ues world­wide at an incon­ceiv­ably rapid pace. The more we explore, the more we destroy. The result is the loss of whole com­mu­ni­ties of organ­isms. Our gar­dens can become alter­na­tive envi­ron­ments for the refugees from the strug­gle for the Earth. By using kin­ship lay­outs we develop new pos­si­bil­i­ties for growth, sur­vival and suc­cess.
    Pro­mot­ing peace through per­ma­cul­ture, one seed at a time.

  • Funny, how some jour­nal­ists work. When I sent some news about polar cities to a free­lance writer for Wired mag­a­zine, he replied:

    “Sorry for not repling ear­lier. I’m slow on email some­times. A lot of it comes in.….. I like the polar cities idea. It’s obvi­ously very cool.….. But it came
    out last year, you know? Any updates or new ren­der­ings or some­thing?.….
    I’d love to write some­thing with some new bits to the idea.….”

    So I sent him a per­sonal note with Matthew’s new post with the Love­lock infor­ma­tion, and this Wired reporter wrote back, some­what nastily:

    “I don’t think I want to be on your dis­tri­b­u­tion list. No offense,
    but I don’t need that much polar cities in my life.”

    So you see, it’s an uphill bat­tle get­ting the main­stream media to pay atten­tion, even scant atten­tion, even foot­note atten­tion. Thank God for the Blogosphere!

    Another reporter in DC wrote to me today, re the same feel­ing: “.…good luck
    with your polar cities project. I doubt that ”fear, denial, or pol­i­tics have
    much to do with scant press cov­er­age” so far. More with news
    judg­ment. One needs more than a good idea to get a news splash, some­times.
    Luck is part of it. Also, it helps to have clear evi­dence that the idea is
    gain­ing trac­tion from donors, major insti­tu­tions, etc., to set it apart
    from the myr­iad other wild ideas out there.”

    So with­out a name attached to this news story, such as Richard Bran­son or Bill Gates, or top sci­en­tists at a top uni­ver­sity with PHDs after their names, the main­stream media does not want to touch this story with a ten foot pole. I under­stand. It’s very interesting.”

    Yet another journo said to me: “Thanks, Dan, but I will pass on your story. .… the
    main rea­son for not doing a story is that your idea hasn’t passed a
    “seri­ous­ness” test — that is, being taken seri­ously by some­one who could
    place it on a path to fruition.”

    SMILE.

    Thank God “patience” is my mid­dle name!

    - Danny

  • Now some­one famil­iar with kin­ship gar­dens explains the term for me:

    “I recently read about kin­ship gar­dens some­what by acci­dent. They are gar­dens mapped and designed so as to max­i­mize bio­di­ver­sity and keep rare plant vari­eties alive.

    Plants are planted accord­ing to fam­ily, so they are near­est to the plants they are related to.

    Plants are also strate­gi­cally arranged for cross pollination–certain plants cross pol­li­nat­ing cre­ate stronger genetic vari­eties, oth­ers lead to weaker ones.

    There is a lot of research going into map­ping kin­ship gar­dens and they are sup­pos­edly a very pow­er­ful way that home gar­den­ers can com­bat the ero­sion of biodiversity.”

    Thank for that email! It’s a use­ful term for think­ing about plan­ning of polar cities, too. Cool!

  • A really good resouce for global warm­ing issues, both pro and con, is at DOT EARTH blog at the New York Times web­site, writ­ten by Andrew Revkin. I visit there daily.

    Today, one com­ment says: (re the con­tin­u­ing debate in the media and in soci­ety at large over whether (weather) global warm­ing is really hap­pen­ing or just a hoax)

    “I totally under­stand the imper­a­tive of jour­nal­is­tic fair­ness. But to repeat­edly air the opin­ions of these doubt­ing Thomases is an unin­ter­est­ing, unin­for­ma­tive over­dul­gence of that prin­ci­ple. It is like debat­ing the mer­its of iso­la­tion­ism after the Japan­ese bombed Pearl Har­bor. The world is respond­ing to our pro­longed inac­tiv­ity on the topic. It’s time to move on this issue.”

  • “Human nature at work. We resist doing any­thing involv­ing uncom­fort­able change or sac­ri­fice unless we’re pushed to do so by some­thing even more uncom­fort­able. So the human race will prob­a­bly not get seri­ous about cli­mate change until the con­se­quences are so severe and obvi­ous that the needed reme­dies become less painful (but only in com­par­i­son). This will prob­a­bly hap­pen in about a cen­tury. Expect­ing really mean­ing­ful progress on the issue prior to that implies that one expects human ratio­nal­ity, coop­er­a­tion with shared sac­ri­fice for a long-term goal, and belief in sci­ence will trump sim­ple short-sighted self-interest and max­i­miza­tion of short-term gain. Can any­one think of a pre­vi­ous time in human his­tory when such a thing has hap­pened? I can’t!”

    — Posted by Robert Fran­cis at doT earth today

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/the-never-ending-story/#comment-15741

  • Juliam who is 43, said in her post at NYTimes:

    “I do not own a car and haven’t owned a car since I was 22, I walk every­where even dur­ing the long months of win­ter, I eat meat only once a week if that, I shop very lit­tle and will not have kids or own pets.

    And, I know that we humans, and other forms of life, over the next cou­ple hun­dred years will crash and burn as a result of Global Warming.

    The Earth will sur­vive, the envi­ron­ment will refresh itself over mil­lenia, life will evolve again (maybe). Humans are arro­gant to think that we “can” or “should” sur­vive indef­i­nitely. Why should we?

    So why do I live as I live? Why not just say “f— it” and live high on the hog con­sid­er­ing we are going to hell in a handbasket?

    Because to me: it doesn’t feel right to live as a vora­cious consumer.

    I have been a greedy pig at times: and I didn’t enjoy liv­ing like that. All the dri­ving around, buy­ing every­thing, stuff­ing my face and con­sum­ing left me feel­ing fat, heavy, mis­er­able, unhealthy and depressed.
    And I was leav­ing a long wide wake of stink behind me.

    I feel bet­ter in so many ways, liv­ing light. I also get to work less, since my whole life is cheaper to sup­port. I only have to work 6 hours a day. My life is so much less stress­ful com­pared to oth­ers I know “in the rat race”.
    I read, walk in the park, paint, hang out, talk with my friends: do things that are free and don’t cre­ate all that many CO2 gasses. I stopped fly­ing around the place in air­planes. I don’t even watch TV any more.
    I’m only 43.

    It’s too bad that we are destroy­ing the envi­ron­ment. It was a beau­ti­ful place, the world, and we wrecked it. What igno­rant idiots we really are.

    “Edu­ca­tion” has been so over­rated. We didn’t learn much that was use­ful, after all, did we? Our schools and uni­ver­si­ties could have taught us how to live in tune with nature.

    Despite all the study­ing, learn­ing, degrees, acad­e­mia, info, research and every­thing all hi-tech and hi-speed: the world is a worse place.

    We are too busy shop­ping for gad­gets and squab­bling over ter­ri­tory and resources to bother with sus­tain­abil­ity. Our edu­ca­tions, sadly, were based on “earn­ing mon­ey” and “com­pet­ing with the Jones’s”. What a drag. Now we’re all addicted to earn­ing and com­pet­ing. And few of us “get ahead” any­how. After all the earn­ing and com­pet­ing, most of us are in big debt. What a con. What a waste.

    Us humans are not good for Earth. Col­lec­tively, we kill and destroy every­thing. The nat­ural envi­ron­ment will breathe a sigh of relief when we are gone, or almost gone. ”

    — [Posted by ”Julia” at John Tierney’s blog at NY TIMES.com ]

  • Matthew,
    I redid a few things today in order to make this “idea” more under­stand­able to read­ers. I still get a lot of mis­un­der­stand­ing from read­ers, so here is a new way to look at this:

    PRESS RELEASE

    Green blog­ger uses “polar cities” as edu­ca­tional tool
    to raise pub­lic aware­ness about global warm­ing issues

    CYPERSPACE — A lone blog­ger in Tai­wan is using the Inter­net in a novel way to help raise aware­ness about global warming.

    Green media activist Danny Bloom doesn’t believe humans will ever have to live in so-called “polar cities” (a term he coined in 2006), but he is using a series of computer-generated blue­prints of a polar city as an edu­ca­tional tool to help raise help pub­lic aware­ness about the cli­mate crisis.

    Cre­ated by Tai­wanese artist Cheng-hong Deng, the polar city images have appeared on hun­dreds of web­sites and blogs around the world — in Eng­lish, Japan­ese, Korean, Span­ish, French and Chi­nese, Bloom, a 1971 gradute of Tufts Uni­ver­sity in Boston, says.

    The 58-year-old green activist says he is using the Inter­net in a novel way to get his mes­sage across.

    The mes­sage? “If we don’t actively tackle the very seri­ous prob­lems that con­front the world now, in terms of global warm­ing, then there is a pos­si­bil­ity that future gen­er­a­tions might have to take refuge in such polar cities. I never want to see these polar cities become real­ity. So the images Deng has cre­ated for my project are meant to be a warn­ing about global warming.”

    Bloom says he has shown the images to internationally-acclaimed cli­mate sci­en­tist James Love­lock in Britain, who is known for his pes­simism and doom­say­ing about global warm­ing. Love­lock told Bloom by email: “It may very well hap­pen and soon.”

    “I hope polar cities are never needed for sur­vivors of global warm­ing in the far dis­tant future,” Bloom says. “These images are meant to be a wake-up call for those who are still sleep­walk­ing through the cli­mate crisis.”

    Bloom empha­sizes that he has no agenda, polit­i­cal or sci­en­tific, in terms of solu­tions to global warm­ing, and says that he just wants to par­tic­i­pate in the global dis­cus­sion about cli­mate change in his own per­sonal way. “I am just using Deng’s images to sound the alarm, a visual alarm.”

    He says that his Inter­net cam­paign, which began a year ago with a let­ter to the edi­tor of sev­eral news­pa­pers in North Amer­ica and Europe, has had the result he is look­ing for.

    A young blog­ger in Tahiti saw the images, blogged about them in French, and said that while he found the polar city blue­prints to be fas­ci­nat­ing, they made him just want to work harder in his daily life “to help fight the cli­mate cri­sis so that the worst case sce­nar­ios never happen.”

    POLAR CITIES BLUEPRINT:
    http://pcillu101.blogspot.com

  • It is very unlikely that mankind will cut their emis­sions so fast and dras­ti­cally that either abrupt cli­mate change or run­away global warm­ing will be avoided.

    Accord­ing to Dr James Hansen of NASA, any fea­si­ble plan­e­tary res­cue plan must include a method of remov­ing CO2 from the air.

    The last severe global warm­ing episode, 55 mil­lion years ago, ended when ocean life kicked into high gear and removed the excess CO2 from the air over tens of thou­sands of years.

    I sug­gest the low cost, highly scal­able, and tech­no­log­i­cally fea­si­ble method of remov­ing CO2 from the air called “biose­ques­tra­tion.” We can improve nature’s abil­ity to remove CO2 from the air.

    See my blog at http://www.myspace.com/dobermanmacleod for more infor­ma­tion. Accord­ing to Dr James Love­lock, when the CO2 con­cen­tra­tion in the air reaches 500 ppm, we will rapidly return to the hot­house cli­mate of 55 mil­lion years ago when most life died. If that hap­pens, the few sur­vivors will be sen­tenced to the prison of Polar Cities for generations.

    “We now have evi­dence from the Earth’s his­tory that a sim­i­lar event hap­pened fifty-five mil­lion years ago when a geo­log­i­cal acci­dent released into the air more than a ter­ra­ton of gaseous car­bon compounds…we have already put more than half this quan­tity of car­bon gas into the air…and as a con­se­quence the Earth is now return­ing to the hot state it was in before, mil­lions of years ago, and as it warms, most liv­ing things will die.” (The Revenge of Gaia)

    “But get­ting bil­lions of humans to make seri­ous cuts in CO2 emis­sions any­time soon may be even less real­is­tic polit­i­cally. As Dr. Love­lock and Dr. Rap­ley write: Processes that would nor­mally reg­u­late cli­mate are being dri­ven to amplify warm­ing. Such feed­backs, as well as the iner­tia of the Earth sys­tem — and that of our response — make it doubt­ful that any of the well-intentioned tech­ni­cal or social schemes for car­bon diet­ing will restore the sta­tus quo. What is needed is a fun­da­men­tal cure.” (New York Times, Oct. 1)

    “A rapid cut­back in green­house gas emis­sions could speed up global warming…because cur­rent global warm­ing is off­set by global dim­ming — the 2–3ºC of cool­ing cause by indus­trial pol­lu­tion, known to sci­en­tists as aerosol par­ti­cles, in the atmos­phere.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/29/eaclim129.xml

    “Last time Earth suf­fered a carbon-induced fever, it was the oceans that helped saved the day…the last severe global warm­ing episode 55 mil­lion years ago was accom­pa­nied by sev­eral thou­sands of years of ocean plant life kick­ing into high gear…unfortunately, this process is slow and thus lags the buildup of car­bon in the atmos­phere…“
    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/12/26/global-warming-ocean.html

  • A post else­where on the Net says:

    http://blog.apocalypse.org/2008/01/23/the-new-beachfront-properties/

    Humor depart­ment:

    “The New Beach­front Properties…”

    Look­ing for good prop­erty val­ues in the post-apocalyptic world? Florida beaches will prob­a­bly be gone, so you’ll need to head fur­ther north — way north, accord­ing to Dan Bloom, whose con­cept is to build “Polar Cities”.

    Look for the first to open in Nor­way in 2012 — yes, that should be a ding for all you 2012 enthu­si­asts, because that makes as much sense as any other 2012-doomsaying.

    But: will they have Starbucks?

  • And more humor here:

    “The World Is Doomed, Head For The Hills”

    Dan Bloom thinks the world is screwed. Who is Dan Bloom you ask? Some sci­en­tist or expert on global warm­ing? No, he’s a writer that doesn’t own a com­puter and lives in Tai­wan teach­ing Eng­lish. Prov­ing it doesn’t take a sci­en­tist to believe Mother Earth is pack­ing up her bags and call­ing it quits. Dan is also the one that came up with the idea for these awe­some Polar Cities.

    Basi­cally he thinks that in no longer than 500 years (and pos­si­ble way sooner) the world’s pop­u­la­tion will be dec­i­mated and only a few hun­dred mil­lion peo­ple will sur­vive in these specially-designed cities in the Arctic.

    Well damn, Dan, way to put a damper on my usual ‘Get Drunk and Watch The Price Is Right’ Fri­day rit­ual. Scream­ing at the idi­otic con­tes­tants really lost its lus­ter with this depress­ing news. Oh my god you bet­ter bid $601 or I swear I’ll kill you! Oh you lost? Really? Well maybe it’s because YOU’RE A BONEHEAD ASSCAP AND DIDN’T BID WHAT I TOLD YOU TO. Jesus the peo­ple are stu­pid today. It’s like half-wit vs. quarter-wit day on The Price Is Right. I bet these are the same morons respon­si­ble for destroy­ing the damn planet. God I hate them so much.

    A few more pic­tures of the con­cep­tual cities after the jump, in case you’re build­ing a sweet Habi­trail for your ger­bils and want to use them for reference.

    [and then he shows a photo of a Habi­trail cage for ham­sters. Who knew?]

Leave a Reply