by Loren Schmidt

Over the last few centuries, the world has undergone a distinct period of urbanization – a trend that is on the rise. According to the United Nations, more than half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, rising from 1/3 of the world in 1950. It is predicted that by 2050, urban areas will house 2/3 of the global population.

Urbanization has a variety of implications but most notably, it has a considerable effect on global climate change. In fact, cities account for 71-76% of CO2 emissions from global final energy use. So, it is no surprise that the proliferation of urbanization is of serious environmental concern. It is at this nexus of urbanization and global climate change that a solution was born: the eco-city.

The ambition of the eco-city is to improve the lives of people and society through environmentally minded urban planning and management. In this way, the eco-city both harnesses and protects natural systems, preserving the environment for future generations. It is meant to remedy the detrimental effects of urbanization. This doesn’t just include compensating for environmental degradation, but also social inequalities. 

There are, essentially, two eco-cities: the eco-city in theory, and the eco-city in reality. In theory, the eco-city is a utopian ideal. They run on clean energy and cutting edge technological innovation. They boast carbon neutrality and a self-contained economy. They are catalysts for a new society, in which both the environment and the people reap the rewards. But which people and at what cost? In reality, the utopian eco-city falls short.

We’ve seen new-build eco-cities cropping up all over the world from China to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to the United Kingdom. At face value, this seems like a positive – countries all over the world are shifting their focus to environmental sustainability. However, it wouldn’t be the first time that political agendas used the environmental crisis as a smokescreen (or in this case, greenwashing) for profit. 

“If the legitimate ambition of the eco-city is to improve the lives of people and society through environmentally sustainable urban realities, it cannot do so without the consideration of all classes of people. It is only through genuine inclusivity that the environment can truly be preserved for all future generations.” -Loren Schmidt

 Let’s consider the case of Abu Dhabi’s eco-city, Masdar City, created in 2008. Masdar City boasts itself as a hub for green innovation and solutions, with an eye to the future. But a peek behind the curtain reveals a much greater incentive driving its creation. Most of the seed capital for Masdar City came directly from the government of Abu Dhabi, but it was built by Masdar, a subsidiary of Mubadala Development Company and the city’s namesake. According to Masdar’s company website, their mission is “to help maintain the leadership of the UAE in the global energy sector, while supporting the diversification of both its economy and energy sources for the benefit of future generations.”

 At its heart, Masdar City is an attempt by Abu Dhabi to move away from an oil-based economy; the eco-city, and thereby climate change, is an economic opportunity. The eco-city enables them to take advantage of the world’s increasing need for green technologies. So, ultimately, Masdar City (not unlike other eco-cities) is a tool for capital accumulation; it is both a business and a product to be packaged and sold. Unfortunately, as we’ve seen time and time again, profit grabbing, more often than not, leads to exploitation (as can be seen in Amazon’s warehouse controversy). In the same way, eco-cities fail to account for collateral damage: the reinforcement of marginalization within disproportionately vulnerable populations.

 So, what exactly are the social repercussions of eco-cities? Social hierarchies can be seen within all urban spaces, and much like an ecosystem, are influenced by a wide variety of factors. Because of this, there is no eco-initiative that is socially neutral. When it comes to reinforcing inequality, eco-cities are not immune.

 Masdar City, as is the case with so many eco-cities, is advertised as an elite community. Likewise, this is the city’s intended audience. The marketing and communications campaigns of many an eco-city address climate anxiety, certainly. However, they also emphasize the protection, innovation, and comfort of their design. That is… as long as you can afford it. If we consider the cost of eco-city construction (it was estimated Masdar City could cost upwards of $22 billion), then it should come as no surprise that the real estate within the eco-city is similarly exorbitant. The unfortunate reality is that these superior amenities (in this case green homes) result in higher prices. In this way, the eco-city has become an eco-enclave – a gated community of sorts. As a result, the eco-city becomes unobtainable by the working class, promoting a sense of othering and social hierarchy wherein only the wealthy social elite enjoy the right to a green lifestyle and future.

 Not only can we see social hierarchies in the accessibility of the eco-city, but also in its implementation. Masdar City runs primarily on solar power, of which there is an abundance in the Emirati desert. Yet despite its high-tech and innovative design, high levels of dust and humidity tend to coat the solar panels and block direct solar rays. If the panels are blocked, they cannot function as intended. Thus, in the materialization of eco-cities such as Masdar City, there is a (deliberately) unseen labor force that needs to be credited with its realization. Gökçe Günel, author of Spaceship in the Desert: Energy, Climate Change, and Urban Design in Abu Dhabi, refers to this unseen labor force as “man with a brush”. It is the “man with a brush” who is required to wipe dust and mud from the solar panels and ultimately keeps the city functional. 

 “Man with a brush” is a fundamental and invaluable component to the eco-city. Yet, as often blue-collar and immigrant populations, they are the people who are excluded from enjoying the life offered by the eco-city. He is the man thought by the city’s visionaries to be disposable. While Masdar City claims to help humanity fight climate change and energy scarcity problems, it seems to do so with an exclusive definition of humanity.

 There is a certain irony (or perhaps the word is injustice) in the exclusivity and social hierarchies seen within the eco-city. Unfortunately, those who have done the most to cause the climate crisis are those who will ultimately have access to this utopian escape. Meanwhile, those who disproportionately suffer its effects are forced to exist outside of its privilege. These are marginalized populations, such as the “man with a brush”, who increasingly navigate economic hardship and political instability. Considering the enclosure of the eco-city and the maintaining of social hierarchies, eco-cities fail to consider sustainable solutions that account for this segment of the population, insofar as the “man with a brush” continues to be exploited.

 While the eco-city itself is not necessarily the cause of disproportionate levels of vulnerability to climate change and its effects, it undoubtedly perpetuates this pre-existing reality. However, environmental and social justice are not mutually exclusive. If the legitimate ambition of the eco-city is to improve the lives of people and society through environmentally sustainable urban realities, it cannot do so without the consideration of all classes of people. It is only through genuine inclusivity that the environment can truly be preserved for all future generations.