Rural Nature Lover Paradox

[urbpan]

People who love Nature (in my most optimistic moments I imagine that this includes a majority of people) of course like to be surrounded by it. Often nature lovers are repelled by cities, and take effort to instead live in the countryside or surrounded by wilderness.

But living outside of the city causes a greater environmental impact: Trees must be cut down, roads must be built, and resources are sent out through diffuse networks. Rural people use more energy heating and cooling their homes, getting to and from work as well as running simple errands. As the population increases, whole non-urban communities are created, paving over wilderness and paving the way for more cars, more houses, more development.

In order to live where you are surrounded by natural beauty, one must participate in a system (development of rural areas) that is slowly and surely destroying that beauty.

Discuss.

Comments

New Urbanism

[turil.livejournal.com]

The one hope we still have is that the new crop of architects and planners will continue to promote sustainable "new urbanism" which is sort of sweeping the profession these days.

Added to that, homeowners themselves can help, by gently and enthusiastically suggesting more sustainable choices for their neighborhoods. A sustainable community translates directly into a healthier, more self-sufficient, and less expensive community! Who wouldn't want that? Really, I think the only stumbling block out there is our obsession with "normalcy". Many people have a low enough self esteem that they are terrified of being percieved as being abnormal, i.e., weird, hippy, poor, etc. They'll fight for their normalness, because they fear being cast out of society more than anything else. The solution to that is either help them improve their self esteem, or convince them that sustainable living is perfectly "normal"!

Once the planners and the public decide that sustainable is good, then the developers will built it, since they really don't care what they sell, as long as it makes them lots of money.

not to mention...

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

freaking complete ignorance as on the part of our neighbors who objected to a small composter because it would 'attract pests' and 'be smelly.' - obviously more so than the garbage collecting in the trash bins outdoors. Right.

Re: New Urbanism

[marmota-monax.livejournal.com]

The one hope we still have is that the new crop of architects and planners will continue to promote sustainable "new urbanism" which is sort of sweeping the profession these days.

"Sort of sweeping the profession" is an overstatement. The greater majority of architects, planners, and engineers do not subscribe to sustainable, environmentally-friendly structures, practices, plans or infrastructures. I worked for a large engineering firm for two years and it was an environmentalist's nightmare the discussions that went on in the formal meetings and lunchroom chatter.

Added to that, homeowners themselves can help, by gently and enthusiastically suggesting more sustainable choices for their neighborhoods.

Well, I don't know about your side of the Commonwealth, but that kind of talk around here is in the distinct minority. ConComs are widely disparaged by the general populace, and only a small core group support their efforts to hold off rampant development.

A sustainable community translates directly into a healthier, more self-sufficient, and less expensive community! Who wouldn't want that?

Yeah, well, you know that and I know that, but the majority of the American homeowners don't give a tinker's dam. They want their cheap goods and food from Walmart and their unnaturally green, weed-free lawn. And they don't care what impact it has on our economy or our environment. They really don't care. I talk to a lot of people of all kinds of economic strata, and this is what I am hearing from them.

Really, I think the only stumbling block out there is our obsession with "normalcy" . . . They'll fight for their normalness, because they fear being cast out of society more than anything else.

It's the biggest stumbling block we've got, because it is huge and pervasive and is ingrained into the general populace from early childhood. It will take generations to change perceptions and long-held beliefs; only catastropic events change minds and behaviours quickly.

Once the planners and the public decide that sustainable is good, then the developers will built it, since they really don't care what they sell, as long as it makes them lots of money.

But unless sustainable also becomes cheap (or unless that catastrophic event happens) then the changeover will take a long time. It's like the big promise of solar energy; when I was a kid, we were all promised cheap solar panels "in another ten or twenty years". Well, it's more than twenty years later and solar array installation is still very much out of reach, fiscally, for middle class people like me. Even with the rebates and subsidies, I can't afford a damned grid-tied solar array without some sort of further assistance. I really hope I can somehow find that further assistance.

I know I sound like an old grump, and I am definitely grumpy sometimes, but I'm also a realist. I still do believe in the good fight, though . . .

Re: New Urbanism

[turil.livejournal.com]

It certainly will take a lot of effort, and at least some time. But I don't think it's necessarily as hopeless as you make sound! New urbanism is only just becoming popular, and mostly only with the youngest, hippest folks in the field. Hopefully these kids will go into government first, where they can influence policy. My own city of Somerville has had a couple of great new urbanists in the office for housing and community development, and they have at least turned the otherwise very "old school" city government in a better direction. And the city's Climate Change Committee just helped Somerville build a showpiece LEED certified elementary school in one of the city's poorer neighborhoods. (School Departments are always happy to find new ways to save money for their system, and the people who serve on school committees are often more educated and openminded about new ideas than the general public.)

But yeah it's going to be a while. Recycling took about 25 years to become a relatively common practice. And organic food also took about 30 years to become desirable by the average person. Sustainable development is only in its infancy, but this baby looks like it's going to be a big stong kid! And studies show that, when given the choice, most people will happily choose sustainable living. People really want healthy food, water, efficient transportation, lively communities, etc. It's just a matter of making these things available and "normal".

On a personal note, solar power setups don't have to be expensive. My husband, who's a wiz with the electronic stuff, put a small 80 watt system together or a grand total of about $500. He used closeout stuff, used stuff, and one very inexpensive panel that he finstalled himself (just outside our bedroom window, on and overhang). We didn't get any rebates (I wonder if we could?). It's not at all grid tied, but is that really all that important? Our's powers nearly everything I regularly use electricity for, except a few lights, and the microwave and toaster oven (and I just built a solar oven which works surprisingly well for something made with cardboard boxes, some tin foil, and black paint). The biggest problem with our setup is that our supercheap inverter (an $8 car adaptor) doesn't like compact florescent bulbs, which we use for all our lighting.

Re: New Urbanism

[marmota-monax.livejournal.com]

It certainly will take a lot of effort, and at least some time. But I don't think it's necessarily as hopeless as you make sound!

I'm listening to NPR's "Talk of the Nation" talk program right now, and one of the guests is echoing my earlier words about only catastrophe bringing on fast change. He's talking about our national overdependence on oil.

Please remember that we live in the "bluest of the blue" states, so what you may be seeing in your town is not very typical of national trends, I believe I can safely say.

On a personal note, solar power setups don't have to be expensive.

Right. But they are.

My husband, who's a wiz with the electronic stuff, put a small 80 watt system together or a grand total of about $500. . . It's not at all grid tied, but is that really all that important?

Well, I have no skill with electronic stuff, so that's not an option. Grid tied is the best set-up for our needs, as we absolutely do not want to deal with highly toxic storage batteries. And with overflow, we WANT it to go back into the grid so that we can hopefully contribute to the permanent closing of Vermont Yankee Atomic just north of here . . .

Re: New Urbanism

[wakarusa.livejournal.com]

my husband and I go round and round the solar thing. They ARE expensive, and we are not electric geniuses, either. We would definitely like to go grid-tied when we do save up the bucks - but then, another goal is to re-roof with a nice metal roof where we could save the water into a cistern for the garden.

on catastrophe bringing change - pretty wild book by philosopher Norman O Brown titled "apocalypse and/or metamorphosis." don't even really need to read it - title says it all.