What was particularly interesting about this article about a potential new city in the United Arab Emirates is how relevant the proposal is. Just a month ago, scientists in the United States determined that if things do not change significantly, the Persian Gulf will be inhabitable by humans by 2090. Their research showed that cities such as Abu Dhabi could potentially reach temperatures of 145 fahrenheit on a consistent basis during the summer (rather than on extreme cases of heat wave) if things do not change. Clearly, while global warming will cause my coastal countries to submerge further under the ocean, landlocked desert countries will get much hotter.
That is what makes this proposal for Masdar so interesting. It shows that there is a clear understanding amongst the people who are most affected by global warming that things need to change. However, the concern might be that something like Masdar might be too ambitious and that there might be more efficient, faster ways to reduce carbon emissions in that part of the world. Furthermore, something like Masdar has very little affect on stopping negative environmental practices in the countries that actions need to actually take place in.
Looking up other potential cities that might adopt large scale environmentally green practices, you also find the city of Baoding in China. The city happens to be one of the most polluted in the country, but China is currently investing billions into the city to alleviate problems as well have the city serve as a potential template for how other cities might deal or reverse climate change. Personally, the idea of implementing green practices into an existing city seems much more appealing and efficient than creating a new city from scratch, especially in a country that does not need a new city. Given the context of Masdar potentially being in a desert and requiring an incredible amount of resources, this proposal seems more like a ridiculous publicity stunt than a realistic way to deal with climate change.
