Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Green discussions are often about green tech, certified building materials, organic products, and so on. But isn't the greenest approach to simply use less?
An apartment instead of a house. Walking or using transit instead of driving. Buying less stuff. Not flying very often. Not putting the heat up too high.
We should still advance tech and use sustainable materials of course. But should we consider using less at least as important?
The greenest approach would be a small homestead living off the land raising food like our ancestors did with a mule drawn plow. We could go further back but I don't think that's what you mean. Because even living in a city apartment you're still depending on the energy, water, waste, transportation, and agriculture infrastructure to keep you living a modern civilized lifestyle.
It's mostly about being a responsible steward. The way it is marketed is a lot of green washing propaganda. The same corporate types espousing 'green' stuff are mostly about expanding product lines. If environmental concern was truly an issue there would be a concerted effort to avoid planned obsolescence and dilution of quality. When economic business model metrics don't align it cannot be addressed.
See, the corporate globalist types are for efficiency in churning product to increase velocity and increase their marginal unit profit. Then there is the disconnect between most green / environmental proselytizers and their behaviors and actions (hypocrites). See countless spokes people (Al Gore / to Greta Thunberg) continuing to have massive carbon footprints.
The greenest approach would be a small homestead living off the land raising food like our ancestors did with a mule drawn plow. We could go further back but I don't think that's what you mean. Because even living in a city apartment you're still depending on the energy, water, waste, transportation, and agriculture infrastructure to keep you living a modern civilized lifestyle.
That would use a ton of land. For all the problems the current system has, at least it creates a decent amount of food per acre and avoids the need for two billion single-family houses and two billion septic systems.
If many of us used less and many lived in apartments vs. houses, didn't drive, etc., those issues would shrink by a lot.
China has some areas where it's all small-scale farms but apartment buildings line the roads. People might have to walk a quarter mile to their plots. This would avoid some of the issues I'm talking about.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57734
Some of that is already happening for some people, and not by choice or for "green living." It's the cost of homes and apartments, making some cities allow or even promote tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, and
apodments. Meanwhile, the developers are still building 2,800-4,500 sf single family homes on minimum sized lots for those that can afford it. Those near us are selling out at over $2 million. Meanwhile we are flying less because TSA and the gridlock at our airport is so frustrating. We eat less beef because we prefer pork, and we keep the heat lower because the gas/electric bill is $300+ in winter.
That would use a ton of land. For all the problems the current system has, at least it creates a decent amount of food per acre and avoids the need for two billion single-family houses and two billion septic systems.
If many of us used less and many lived in apartments vs. houses, didn't drive, etc., those issues would shrink by a lot.
China has some areas where it's all small-scale farms but apartment buildings line the roads. People might have to walk a quarter mile to their plots. This would avoid some of the issues I'm talking about.
Well there are just under 4 billion acres of arable land, so it works out. Think of all the saving by not needing major roads or transportation. No big cities. The conflict is about the greenest living vs maintaining quality of life. Maintaining the urban lifestyle takes a lot of resources. I'm all for conservation in the classical sense and recognize there are solutions that dont require everyone to adopt an austere urban lifestyle.
If land use was more efficient, some of that arable land could return to plains and forests. I'd rather use less of it.
Hemlock, I'm a big fan of Apodments and ADUs. They're the only ways the market can produce housing without subsidy at a reasonable cost in an expensive city. The prices will get better over the years as well, much like today's units from the 80s. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.
Sammamish will always grow (inside the GMA boundary) but the Seattle region is sprawling a lot less than it used to.
And yet those celebrities and government officials who preach about global climate change all live the complete opposite of how you described. They own multiple mansion type homes that have utilities constantly running regardless of if they’re occupied or not. They own multiple vehicles, including gasoline powered vehicles. They fly in private jets to climate change conferences. Some of the homes they own are on the water front while claiming the oceans are rising. They live so far removed from their claims that one would suspect they don’t actually believe what they’re selling.
Some may have investments they hope will come to fruition through legislative actions. Some are so far leftist that they actively want western nations to fail to benefit certain nations or political and economical ideologies. Some have a blind hatred towards the oil and gas industry that they will do anything to stop them entirely even if it means hurting people of the world.
It’s easy for those of a certain income to say,…just buy a small home and an electric car. Those of certain income and location can’t just do this. They must buy or rent the best home they can afford and, regardless of size of home, aren’t energy efficient at all. Buying a vehicle is the same issue. They’re buying what they can afford and they CANNOT afford an electric vehicle. I do the best I can with what I can afford without sacrificing the comfort of my wife who has ongoing health problems. Both our vehicles average around 30 mpg in town driving. I’ve made improvements to my home to reduce the heating and cooling cost. We use the curbside recycle available to us. We don’t use lawn fertilizer nor lawn watering.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
