Priligy online now, save money

MAY 08

Recent Comment

"I appreciate knowing that there are efforts from all over to make thin..."

View all Comments

Are Environmentally-Friendly Suburban Homes Really Green?

The Wall Street Journal offered an intriguing challenge to four top architectural firms -- Mouzon Design House, Rios Clementi Hale Studios, Cook + Fox, and William McDonough + Parnters -- design the green house of the future. The teams cooked up some intriguing designs full of eye-catching concept art and visit web site buy levitra online cheap all the only for you buy levitra online from canadacheap levitra tablets right hot topics -- solar power, heat pumps, carbon nanotubes and more.

So why are some environmentalists complaining about the competition and the concept of a "green suburbia"?

Roger Lewis of the Washington Post offers an intelligent and considered rebuttal to the WSJ piece, writing, "Focusing on hypothetical designs of free-standing houses can even be a distraction. It can mask a more serious aspect of the challenge: the diminished sustainability of bying viagra online cheap us low-density, residential subdivisions in suburbia where most free-standing houses of the future are likely to be situated."

He states, "No matter how green individual homes are, suburban sprawl is intrinsically anti-green. It generates infrastructure inefficiency; car dependency and rising fossil fuel demand; carbon-emitting, time-wasting road congestion; and, despite availability of inexpensive land at ever-greater distances from jobs, escalating development, construction and public service costs."



The article provides an intriguing reminder that green architecture isn't always as green as it seems. And cities, often associated with pollution, are potentially the greenest societal direction of them all.

Here at Ecogeek we often cover green architecture and building technology, both in the city setting and in suburbia. As there will always be some people who yearn for suburban or rural settings, both design approaches have merit. However, when it comes to the greater good, or greater green perhaps, cities arguably present the most environmentally friendly, lowest impact, living opportunity.

From electric vehicles to urban agriculture, the city has arguably the levitra for sale usa greater potential for green communities, with minimum land use, greatest energy efficiency, and lowest environmental impact. And with the U.S. population's exodus from cities to surburbia reversing for the first time in five decades, the timing is ideal for green city architecture. So let's move the focus onto greening cities, but let's not blindly throw out suburban efforts wholesale, either.

Hits: 16950
Comments (31)Add Comment
0
No
written by Eric, May 08, 2009
"car dependency and rising fossil fuel demand; carbon-emitting," this is assuming that in the future when these houses are being built, that everything else is as it was now.. If we've got electric cars, and those cars are powered by wind and solar power plants, then I dont see a problem with suburbs.. everything that makes them not green can be addressed and greened up.. I dont think we all want to move to cities, that'll suck! I'll move out of the city if that happens haha
0
Eric is right
written by Joshua, May 08, 2009
I had a problem with the exact same thing. We won't always rely on fossil fuels. I do want to move to the city now, but I am an 18 year old that just wants a life. I do know for a fact that I will not always want to live in the city. That house shown on top is something I have always dreamed of living in.

We can't just rethink Suburbia, just like we can't just rethink the City. It all has to be reshaped, and rebuilt.
0
...
written by Flahooler, May 08, 2009
I think Mr. Lewis fails to consider that the environmental footprint of a large city extends well beyond the city limits. Fresh water is diverted dozens, if not hundreds, of miles to supply residents needs. Electrical power that is generated throughout the http://panaceahealthsolutions.com/order-cialis-online-canada region is funneled into the city. Trucks, rail, planes ... all bringing people, food, resources into the city from the surrounding areas, while the waste is trucked or pumped out to be disposed of levitra next day delivery as someone else's problem. Green living? I would say that large cities are some of the biggest scars on the landscape. Smaller, distributed, well-planned communities have a much greater potential to combine environmental stewardship with improved quality of life.
0
...
written by Karkus, May 08, 2009
That picture points out another problem with typical suburbia. The curvy streets cause houses to be oriented in random directions.
The traditional NSEW grid street system (in the western US) ensured that half the houses had the optimal passive solar orientation, with the long side of the house facing south, for maximum winter solar gain (and best orienation for installing solar cells or water heating)

In typical suburbia, houses are oriented randomly. The saddest part is when you see modern houses that were obviouly designed to take advantage of passive solar, but are oriented the how to get viagra perscription online wrong way.
0
Some people like to live in less dense a
written by BobS, May 08, 2009
Some people like to live in less dense areas, and we're not going to change - get over it...
0
...
written by Julian, May 08, 2009
For me, the logic of Mr Lewis and co is the antithesis of ecogeekery. It's the sort of generic pack viagra old school, 'my way or the highway' type of environmentalism that rightly makes people nervous. There will always be a mix of cities and suburbs, public and private transport, progressives and conservatives.
You can't force people to change, but you can give them compelling reasons to do so, which I believe is what this site is about.
0
Its true suburbs are never green
written by kynes, May 09, 2009
I live in NYC but I yearn to move out so I can be near nature but the problem is that all the suburbs built around here are on very fertile arable land. Thats a problem in it of itself.
0
...
written by Bob Wallace, May 09, 2009
The OBVIOUS solution to our environmental woes:

We've all got to hot bunk in dorms in massive high rises. If we put the bottom mattress on the floor we can get four high with eight foot ceilings.

Sleeping in eight hour ships means 12 people per on mattress footprint. Adequate insulation would mean the need for no heat source other than body heat.

Then we keep the communal kitchen running 24/7.

If everyone is limited to a strictly scheduled 20 minute mealtime and i use it levitra ed two meals a day we will need only one bowl and one spoon per 36 people.

Oh, what, you want a bit more 'quality of life' than that?

OK, how about we look for ways to give ourselves the http://www.aumm.nl/cialis-no-prescription-canada the type of life each wants while maintaining a variety of lifestyles?

We could do that....
0
...
written by Lindsay, May 10, 2009
It's an interesting subject to debate. I know the 'burbs get slammed a lot by the peak oil folks, but with a south-facing backyard and a mix of square foot gardening and permaculture, you can grow all the fruits and veggies (and some grains to boot) your family needs for a year. YouTube the "Dervaes" family if you haven't already.

Through solar panels on the roof and learn to get by with less power (as a society, we're absolutely ludicrous with our power consumptions), and you can be off the grid with energy too.

While the densely populated areas have benefits (the ability to get around without a car is a huge one), I do think you give up any real opportunity for self-sufficiency in that setting.

Personally, I choose to live in the "close-in" suburbs to get the best of both worlds.
0
Going Green
written by j, May 11, 2009
Hello everyone,

I saw the generic viagra next day delivery article about going green and being more eco friendly which is great. Many people are seeing that the planet is in trouble and sfachc.org that we need to act now in order to help out. I think with global warming creeping up on us, I think it is very important that we become more aware of trying to lower our carbon emissions, and try and do right by the planet. I think we can all do our little bit extra to try and help! At home I always shut the computer down rather than putting it to sleep, and always turn off electrics rather than leave them on stand by. These tips may seem small, but if everyone pulled together then I think we could really make a difference to the world. Another hint I have is that I now use e-Cards rather than buying paper cards. Not only are you saving money if you choose a free site, but more importantly, you are helping the environment by saving paper, and therefore less trees need to be chopped down! I have done my research and finally found the best free Environmentally Friendly e-Card site. It is really easy to use, which is great if like me you are not very good with computers! I really like this particular site as there is just so much choice. I know e-Cards are not for everyone but think of where to buy cialis online idaho the environment it really is a great way to help out and do your bit!
0
Article is essentially correct, IMO
written by Yo, May 11, 2009
I'm an Australian (I grew up in Aussie suburbia, quite similar to US suburbs, I reckon) who now lives in Edinburgh, Scotland. I live in an apartment, and though I do miss having a private back yard, I love living in a small-footprint city. Most things are within walking distance, though the city also has a great bus network. I can also easily cycle everywhere. My wife and I don't own a car.
We do hire cars on weekends sometimes, and it's amazing - in 10 minutes we can be out of the city and driving through fields. In fact, my cycle commute to work (less than 10 miles) takes me out of the city and through the countryside.
At some stage, we'll move back to Australia and into the suburbs, but golly, I'm gonna miss cities like this!
0
in the Chicago Suburbs
written by ed, May 12, 2009
there's no way that I'll trade my suburban house to a city apartment.

my house cost 50% less than a house in Chicago that's 50% smaller. Many suburbanites in the Chicago area moved out of Chicago because of the high cost and generic levitra online pharmacy high taxes.

if you think that people are going to leave their suburban home just so they can say they are "green" then you are mistaken.

I am a suburbanite, but I can assure you that I live "greener" than a lot of people that live in the city of Chicago.

just because we live in the suburbs does not mean that we are not green...Chicago doesn't even have an effective recycling program - they're blue bag recylcing effort failed miserably. our suburb has recycling collection for plastic, metals, wood, yard waste, car fluids (oil, coolant, etc), etc. compare that to Chicago where recycling efforst have failed every time the city tries to implement it.

my power consumption is also a lot less compared to when I lived in Chicago. houses that are spread out get good ventilation from the environment compared to a city apartment building where tennants ramp up their ACs in the summertime due to poor ventilation.

so before we cast judgment on how suburbanites are not so green, do a little bit more research. some cities (like Chicago) are not that green compared to their suburban counterpart.
0
Great comments!
written by Jack Moins, May 12, 2009
Hi Guys,
Thanks for the comments. I by no means meant this piece as a blast against green suburbanites. As I said "let's move the focus onto greening cities, but let's not blindly throw out suburban efforts wholesale, either"!

I think that cities have a lot of opportunity to improve when it comes to green architecture. I think in time both cities and suburbs can be improved. The main point here is that cities are perhaps not always as "dirty" as they are portrayed.

BTW, I think Karkus raised a great point about solar orientation and suburban developments. Hopefully builders get their act together on this.

Everyone else, great comments too! Let me know your own green living suburban/urban experiences, and why you think your lifestyle is great!

Cheers,
Jack
0
thanks for the clarification
written by ed, May 12, 2009
thanks for the clarification Jack....I guess my comments were for those who are too judgmental of us suburbanites (based on their comments).

many just don't have the original levitra proper research and simply think that cities are better than suburbia. it is proven that cities causes an area to heat up more compared to a suburbian sprawl. heat signatures of cities are higher, power consumptions are higher, more waste/garbage that are not recycled, and pollution/smog are higher. Chicago has been touted as a "green" city with all their efforts in wind turbine technology but the fact of the matter is that they are nowhere close to being green as many of mexico viagra their suburban towns are.

a suburb that follows a building code that respects that environment is a lot better than a massive city that can't even implement an effective recycling program. concrete takes more power to produce as well as the steel that's used to strengthen it. wood frame houses in suburbia are more energy efficient and since it is wood frame it uses a lot more renewable materials for building than a concrete building.

many here don't take into account the entire big picture. a suburban house with a lawn does more in curbing CO2 emissions than an apartment that simply sucks up electricity. a suburban house with a small plot of land can have trees (I have ten trees on my small-not-even a quarter acre pice of land), especially fruit trees and vegetable gardens (three vegetable beds in my backyard) that give their owners "green" food that doesn't take gallons of gas/diesel to transport and are chemical/pesticide free.

there are more roof space in suburbia that can be fitted with solar panels and wind turbines (the only thing that prohibits me from getting these are the cost but as soon as they become affordable they'll be on my roof, for now, my trees and lawn alone more than offset as much as 50% of my family's carbon footprint) compared to the small roof space of an apartment building with lots of tenants sucking up energy. a suburban house can be self sufficient compared to an apartment building that will never be able to eliminate their carbon footprint no matter what they do.

so for those who think that cities are more environmentally friendly than suburbia, a little more research is in order....I think many of you are too young and idealistic to see the big picture.
0
...
written by ed, May 13, 2009
I went through the 1995 heat wave in Chicago where over 100 people died in their homes....curiously, no one in the suburbs died.


check that, not 100 people, over 600 died that year.....that's the Urban heat island effect in action. to this day, Chicago spends large sums of money running cooling centers for residents during the summer time (I'm not saying they should stop this....human life is more precious and cialis profesional this is money well spent in my opinion, unless something can be done to counter the Urban heat island effect). how much carbon that does dump into the atmostphere?
0
...
written by ed, May 13, 2009
now I pose this question:

what's better, a suburb compose of http://www.aagon.de/cialis-in-uk houses spread out and to allow better dissipation of heat and planting of trees and other vegetation all of which contibutes to a more effecient home or a city that triggers urban heat island effect and causes it to use more power and emit more green house gasses.

cities are not necessarily greener compared to a well planned suburb. THAT'S A FACT!

now leave us suburbanites alone! LOL!
0
Too much
written by Bob, May 13, 2009
The problem with the design in the rendering is painfully obvious, and it matters not where it is located.

Too many square feet of yard. Too many square feet of house. Too much materials. Too much volume to heat and cool. Forget grass, it takes too much water (in most places. If you are lucky enough to have the water, have a ball).

In short, too damned much of everything. And for those who "won't give it up", your mental horizon is too close. In 2020, we won't. In 2050, yes, we will, because we won't have a choice and we'd better start planning farther out. Actually, you won't have a choice. I'll be long dead.

The Japanese (among others) have had to find ways to improve efficiencies because of limited space and limited energy resources. In the coming decades, everyone will have to do what they've been doing. Does that mean no suburbs? No. But even the cheapest generic cialis 'burbs in Japan are compact and efficient, commuting is mostly by rail, and only the most wealthy can afford something even remotely like the above design.

Such will be our future, and free choice won't be that much of an issue for most people. Economics will choose for most. Besides, by the time it's necessary it will seem a lot less obnoxious. I lived in Tokyo for a year and order generic cialis enjoyed it. And that is someone who grew up in the 'burbs of southern California. Imagine: a year without a car for someone from SoCal. Yet, it was easier, cheaper, and less aggravating. Do I want that sort of density? No, I don't, and we have enough land that we'll probably never have to pack in quite that tightly, but we will be doing everything we can think of to increase efficiency in everything we do. We'll have to.
0
Fragmentation
written by Rob, May 14, 2009
Development that fragments habitat, encourages conversion of native landscape to turf grass or other non-natives, is uninformed by careful consideration of ecosystem services, and fails to acknowledge the concept of carrying capacity has largely been the hallmark of both urban and suburban America. The legacy of such development is still unfolding, but there is time to influence that legacy. Green building is essential, changes in our patterns of consumption are essential, and a holistic approach to managing growth is essential. In addition, as long as federal and state policy continues to support the "last great highway projects" of the 20th century, rather than the first great transit projects of the 21st century, our efforts to more effectively manage growth will be severely diminished.
0
Tried 'Em All...
written by Carol Shetler, May 14, 2009
I've tried 'em all, folks, living in a tiny rural town (age 0-19), the big city (age 19 - 38) and a midsize suburban town (age 39-present). I'll take my current location over the cialis professional 100 mg others and here's why:

In the tiny town where I was born, I had to ride my bike or walk everywhere, including a 2.5-mile hike one way to my high school from Grade 10 on. We had almost no services or restaurants worth mentioning then, no cinema after my 10th birthday, and one tiny library. I was a lot healthier then, but at a tremendous cost to my social development. By the way, there are now 87,000 people living there, in a lively, well-developed community (instead of 8,700) and I'd move back there in a minute if I could get a good-paying job there.

I suffered terribly from air and water pollution when I lived in a big city (2.5 million pop.)with almost-monthly allergies, migraines and hormone reactions to chemicals and toxins in the water and www.omroepgroesbeek.nl air. I spent a lot of my time at the doctor or in Emerg. Rooms due to these health problems.
These days in that big city, the infrastructure is suffering serious damage due to overbuilding. Some of the newest condo developments are in areas that rely on 60-year-old electrical systems and 80-year-old water and sewage piping. Electrical outages and water main bursts are becoming commonplace. The big city is the LAST place I would choose to reside right now, no matter what my income.

Since I have moved to a town of just over 150,000, my migraines have virtually disappeared, as have almost all my respiratory allergies and hormone problems. It's such a treat to drink the tap water here, which tastes great for most of the year. It gets a bit of algae-taste in really hot humid weather, but a Brita filter takes that right out. I can walk or take the bus to do basic shopping and go to the movies, the library and my health care clinic. A reliable commuter train gets me into the heart of the big city in just over an hour.
I have a lot of close family here, which also makes life more enjoyable in this mid-size town. The green services are the best of any area I have lived in: recycling, composting, Energy Star housing, backed by a community that believes in these green ideals.

So you can keep your big cities and your little bitty rural towns, I'll keep my mid-size town life. It's the best quality of life, and the greenest in my view.
0
Real Facts
written by Patrick, May 17, 2009
I've read all the posts, and find it rather depressing that only two people, Bob and Rob, share any sort of sustainable vision. I subscribe to the Wall Street Journal and levitra blood thinner read the mentioned article in full and believe their designs where less than satisfactory; they are similar in many ways to the hydrogen fuel cell car -an economically impossible dream that would allow us to continue wasteful habits. Imagine what could be done if all the technical gee wiz factor of those four designs were focused on the city sphere.

The love of suburbs comes from the desire to mix nature and maintain the social aspects that humans have evolved with, but it satisfies neither. People end up living in relative isolation in a butchered remnant of nature, and when real nature appears in the form of Cougars, Wolfs, snakes, or forest fires; they panic and kill or cry on television.

For starters, you cannot compare all suburbs to one city -Chicago. There happen to be plenty of greener cities, in fact I've never seen anything praising Chicago's environmental record. Even so, if it's research you want here it is:

"Walkable, mixed-use, transit-oriented communities generate far less greenhouse gas emissions per capita than low-density suburbia. One 2006 study of greater Chicago found that the average household in a low-density auto-dependent exurb generates about 11.5 tons of CO2 annually. A household in a suburban area that is served by commuter rail generates 9 tons on average. And a household in Chicago itself or in one of the nearby rail-connected walkable suburbs generates just 2.5 tons of CO2 annually—only 22% of the amount attributed to the exurban household."

-Preston Kroener, Oct. 22, 2008
source: http://www.jetsongreen.com/200...-find.html

There is no suburb in existence or planned that will have a smaller per capita environmental impact than a densely populated mixed use city where the inhabitants can walk to work, shops, entertainment, you name it. I noticed a common argument that suburbs are less energy intensive to cool in the summer -but what about heating in the winter? All those individual homes leaking heat like a sieve. The city we need to build will have vegetated roofs(minimizing or eliminating the best buy tramadol heat island effect while increasing insulative properties), be pedestrian friendly, and have a nearly optimized purpose driven design.

The best way to increase carbon sequestration on your lot Ed, would be to tear down your house, tear up your driveway, move to the city, and let your water thirsty imported lawn duke it out with the natives. -By the way don't think sequestering carbon by mulching your grass clippings is coming anywhere close to meeting half of your homes carbon emissions. If we use a figure given by the Lawn Institute for a well maintained turf of 700 lbs of CO2 sequestered per acre per year you would need a lawn of over 16 acres to replace half of your carbon footprint -this is actually overly optimistic as you would most definitely not be mowing 16 acres of grass with a walk behind reel mower; too manage that much grass you would most likely need a tractor in the 40+hp range thereby necessitating more carbon to attempt to "sequester" carbon. My guess is that it would never become a net positive for carbon sequestration.
A side note: lawns are the single largest crop in North America and lawnmowers are some of the dirtiest combustion motors still produced -try firing one up in your garage with the door closed and see how long it take for your eyes to burn, that is if you don't pass out due to carbon monoxide fumes first.

If people want to live in nature they should be carrying out a productive role as farmers, sustainable lumbermen/women, or anything else requiring the mindful use of our resources -anyone else wishing to live there should pay an appropriate annual carbon tax that would fund economically feasible renewable energy projects supplying densely populated areas.

I find this excessive championing of the suburbs to be indicative of someone who is trying to convince themselves.

"Ignorance is not not knowing, it's knowing what isn't so."
-Mark Twain
0
...
written by ed, May 18, 2009
I find this excessive championing of the suburbs to be indicative of someone who is trying to convince themselves.


and I find this excessive judgment of suburbs without all of the data finalized and considered simply misguided.

"Walkable, mixed-use, transit-oriented communities generate far less greenhouse gas emissions per capita than low-density suburbia. One 2006 study of greater Chicago found that the average household in a low-density auto-dependent exurb generates about 11.5 tons of CO2 annually. A household in a suburban area that is served by commuter rail generates 9 tons on average. And a household in Chicago itself or in one of the nearby rail-connected walkable suburbs generates just 2.5 tons of CO2 annually—only 22% of the amount attributed to the exurban household."


I don't see where sequested carbon from vegatation in the suburban town is taken into account. again, compared to an apartment that has no vegetation, a suburban house still has an infinitessimal amount of carbon sequestered no matter how small it is if it is compared to an apartment. as I've also stated in my previous posts, my power consumption is a lot less in my current house than when I lived in the city. care to explain how that is?

many of you start quoting single articles without thinking about the whole equation.

There is no suburb in existence or planned that will have a smaller per capita environmental impact than a densely populated mixed use city where the inhabitants can walk to work, shops, entertainment, you name it. I noticed a common argument that suburbs are less energy intensive to cool in the summer -but what about heating in the winter? All those individual homes leaking heat like a sieve. The city we need to build will have vegetated roofs(minimizing or eliminating the heat island effect while increasing insulative properties), be pedestrian friendly, and have a nearly optimized purpose driven design.


now where's your data to support your claim here? a wood frame house is easier to heat than a concrete building. as I have stated before, my data is my own power consumption which is less now than when I was in the city. where's your data?

I also happen to know someone who's business is installing green roofs. green roofs are great for the city and I hope to see more of it in Chicago. while I do say that it is good for the city since it does alleviate some of the urban heat island effect, green roofs do take more water to maintain compared to a suburban lawn....why? since the roof evaporates water quicker than a garden on ground level. overall, a green roof will offset cost of water factoring in the reduction of power consumption of an AC, but how many apartments in a high rise of many floors would benefit from that small green roof at the top of the high rise? again, some data are needed here.

The best way to increase carbon sequestration on your lot Ed, would be to tear down your house, tear up your driveway, move to the city, and let your water thirsty imported lawn duke it out with the natives. -By the way don't think sequestering carbon by mulching your grass clippings is coming anywhere close to meeting half of your homes carbon emissions. If we use a figure given by the Lawn Institute for a well maintained turf of 700 lbs of CO2 sequestered per acre per year you would need a lawn of over 16 acres to replace half of your carbon footprint -this is actually overly optimistic as you would most definitely not be mowing 16 acres of grass with a walk behind reel mower; too manage that much grass you would most likely need a tractor in the 40+hp range thereby necessitating more carbon to attempt to "sequester" carbon. My guess is that it would never become a net positive for carbon sequestration.


grass in itself will not give you a positive net on carbon sequstration. as you may have noticed, I don't have just grass on my property. I also have food crops that are harvested and cheap viagra cialis india trees. now, again, as I've stated in previous posts, what part of an apartment sequesters carbon? NONE.

A side note: lawns are the single largest crop in North America and lawnmowers are some of the dirtiest combustion motors still produced -try firing one up in your garage with the door closed and see how long it take for your eyes to burn, that is if you don't pass out due to carbon monoxide fumes first.


then instead of condemning these owners, educate them to use electric mowers.

all I'm saying here is that the jury is still out. as you've mentioned, not all cities are green, and not all suburbs are green...but I do speak from experience that my power consumption is a lot less compared to when I lived in the city but I do live efficiently. I do see that many suburban and city dwellers need more education on how to live green and since that is the case, no one can make an argument that one way of living is better than the other.

you can have your cities, I'd stay in my suburban home, thank you very much.
0
...
written by ed, May 18, 2009
instead of pitting one group of people against the other (suburbanites against city dwellers), step back and look at how both could be educated to live more efficiently. condemning the suburbs in support of an inefficient city is mindless activism.

when Chicago gets an effective recycling program going, solves the heat island effect without adding billions of dollars more to the power consumption, stops the run off of salt into our waterways (salt used to melt ice during winter), ensures the levitra sales online safety of their residents (chicago among the cities with the highest crime rates), lowers their cost of living, then maybe you'd see more suburbanites moving back to the city. until that happens, the suburban areas in Chicagoland are there to stay. there are a lot of factors to consider when moving to the suburbs, if you ask a lot of the people in the chicago suburbs why they moved out of the city, you'd probably start to understand instead of riding on the idea that simply being green is enough reason to stay in the city.
0
you dont understand the word problem
written by celeste, May 18, 2009
Hi, im from argentina, in south america.
I believe that The United States is one of the countries mas contaminates in the world, precisely because they do not want to change your way of life. You consume 100 % mas energy that Latin America, since they can see in the following page "http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/consumoenergia.html"
The majority of you doesnt want to change his way of life, except reducing a bit his consumption.
They are really slightly solidary with the rest of the world and really you dont understand your participation in the current problematics. I think that they are necessary to see other realities for really understand.
0
Suburban fantasies for all?
written by Kimberly, May 21, 2009
I'm finding the defense of the suburbs versus the cities pretty laughable. While it's a lovely fantasy that having your own big back yard and spacious, breezy home is somehow the more sustainable option, the reality is that this doesn't really compute with 6.5 billion people.

In fact, America's population continues to grow apace, and I can imagine it's hard to see from the roomy comforts of suburbia that having four kids, two cars and a long daily commute is a luxury that cannot be shared on a large scale without massive sacrifices. Sacrifices like forests, biodiversity, affordable food...

I grew up in the countryside, with acres of forest that we cared for with great attention. I later moved to the suburbs of Denver, where I took the bus but everyone else I knew drove out of convenience. I moved myself to San Francisco, where I chose my apartments based upon proximity to fun stuff to walk to and public transport links, and now live in London where the same mentality applies. None of my peers here own a car--it's hideously expensive and cialis online discount a lot of trouble. Few of us have yards or gardens, either--though all of us recycle, grow plants in pots and enjoy massive, beautiful public parks.

While I personally long for the forests of my youth, I know that having that much space per family can only work if there are far, far fewer families on this planet. In the meantime, sustaining the http://www.hasselaar.nl/cheap-canadian-pharmacy fantasy that suburbs are superior in any way other than personal comfort is a delusion seriously out of sync with global environmental--and, I'd argue, economic--issues.

We should certainly work to improve the greenness of the suburban areas; however, we should also acknowledge that this is not, nor should it be, a way of life that everyone can attain, that can be environmentally sustained across large numbers, and it is definitely not a right and not in the greater good.
0
Earthships?
written by Earthship Biotecture, May 24, 2009
already designed and been building for the last 40 years. Earthships. Fossil fuel free, modern living... www.earthship.com
0
Eco not so friendly
written by Fred, June 24, 2009
Well I'm pretty sure that our eco friendly opportunist will come up with something.
0
suburban challenges
written by Tim Snyder, September 30, 2009
Suburban developments definitely present difficult challenges. We can begin to make these environments more permaculture-like by encouraging people to grow their own vegetables, practice limited animal husbandry, and (most immediately) make their homes much more energy efficient.
0
Greening Our Homes.
written by Sabrina Ahmed, June 12, 2010
Suburban or City life, it doesn't matter. Everyone, everywhere should be doing their part to decrease their effect on the environment... and I know some things (like re-greening your entire home) or even building a green home from scratch can get mighty pricey but there are small things we can do as individuals every day that can lessen the impact.

I do think that as part of the Green community it is important that we all share ideas and resources with each other so that we can each further our own efforts to 'be Greener'. Having said that I encourage all of you to visit http://www.greeneutopia.com

The site has helped me and my family educate ourselves on what we can do on an individual level to conserve the planet's resources for further generations. It also has an online store with a great selection of Green and Sustainable products at very affordable prices... and has saved me a lot of money that I would have spent elsewhere on something less effective.

http://www.greeneutopia.com
Good Luck and levitra canada online pharmacy Go Green!
-Sabrina
0
Reduction of my personal energy use?
written by Dave, June 30, 2010
I am wondering if I replace my windows and put in this new insulation in my attic is it really going to help reduce my energy consumption. The windows have a R value of 6, and the insulation is called a radiant barrier.

Thanks
Dave
0
Goodness gracious
written by Anna, January 21, 2011
Check out the table titled "Million Btu per Household" and stop making excuses.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001_ce/ce1-8c_urbanrural2001.html
0
Glad to see community efforts
written by Jill Jensen, March 16, 2011
I appreciate knowing that there are efforts from all over to make things more environmentally friendly. In our Basement Waterproofing we always try to do the same.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?