I recently
wrote that urbanism is one of the most powerful approaches to environmentalism,
a fact that often seems forgotten in the rush to rooftop solar, greywater
systems, and electric cars. All of those
other environmentally-beneficial tools are great and I fully encourage their application,
but their function is often to mitigate the deleterious effects of drivable
suburbia, compared to well-executed urbanism which eliminates the effects of suburbia.
Furthermore,
because we like to rationalize behaviors we suspect are inappropriate, we
sometimes fool ourselves about the extent of our mitigations, such as “I drive
a hybrid so it’s okay if I live in a 5,000 square foot stucco mansion fifteen
miles from town.” The reality is that
the hybrid is great, but mitigates only a bit of the increased environmental
impact of the lifestyle.
Perhaps
because I have a touch of masochism, I like collecting stories of the false
environmentalism, the kind of environmentalism to which author Thomas Friedman refers
when he argues that the U.S. is throwing a green party when what we really need
is a green revolution. In a recent post,
I told a false environmentalism story about bamboo floors in a Silicon Valley home.
I came
across another great example during a trip to Tennessee several years ago.
Through an
unexpected set of circumstances, I found myself on a guided tour of the former
home of country singer Barbara Mandrell and her family. The Mansion at Fontanel is an impressive
structure, a 27,000 square foot home sited in a woodland about ten miles from
Nashville with a banquet hall that can serve 100 guests, an indoor pool with a
cover that doubles as a dance floor, and a vast collection of music memorabilia
such as a guitar signed by the Eagles.
It even has
an indoor shooting range intended for handguns in which Kid Rock supposedly once
became over exuberant and sprayed the thick walls with an automatic weapon. The scattering of angled impact points seems
to support the story.
But even as
I was wandering along with the tour group, noting the many gee-whiz amenities,
I was pondering the environmental realities of a rural 27,000 square foot home
for a five-person family.
It must have
been a point that others had raised because the spiel of the tour guide soon
offered the story that the family were such dedicated environmentalists that
Mandrell’s husband, Ken Dudney, had flown to Minnesota to personally select the
trees to be felled and hauled to Tennessee for the home.
Even if we
assume that Dudney had a sufficiently qualified eye to select the right trees
for home construction, let’s try to count the environmental fallacies in that
statement:
- · Wood building materials were hauled from Minnesota when more locally sourced materials could have seemingly met the need.
- · Rather than allowing a professional forester to select the trees to be harvested for the long-term health of the forest, the trees are being selected based on building needs.
- · The only environmental benefit was better home insulation, which could have been equally well achieved with extra roles of insulation from a local building supply store.
Does that
mean that outsized rural homes are always an environmental disaster? Not necessarily. I’m generally fine with people who’ve had
personal success being able to spend their money where they wish as long as they
pay as many of the true costs as possible and don’t leave a lot of external
costs for the rest of us to cover.
With regard to
Fontanel, those costs would start with the difference between the pump cost and
the true cost of gasoline, including all environmental and geopolitical impacts
and estimated by others at perhaps $8, for every gallon used hauling trees from
Minnesota and for conveying family, construction workers, maintenance staff,
and guests to the rural setting.
I can’t
begin to estimate those costs, other than being certain that the tab would be
huge, perhaps big enough to encourage folks with large chunks of disposable
income to acquire elegant penthouse condos in the city, with enough room for lots
of memorabilia, and to build relationships with nearby restaurants for those
occasions when entertaining a hundred good friends is necessary.
It’s been
four years and I still cringe when I think of my afternoon in the Tennessee
woods.
I’ve long
been thinking of a post on urban murals.
A Petaluma project soon to be implemented has motivated me to move the
idea to the top of my list. I’ll tackle
murals in my next post.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
Actually, the cost of over consumption has no price. There is only one earth and the resources are finite. We should not use more than we need regardless of whether we can afford to pay for it and it's estimated impacts. Ultimately, it means someone else will go without.
ReplyDeleteI agree with William. Our world and environment are in too much of a mess to let people with big money do whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteBill and Lori, thanks for the comments. Philosophically, I understand and generally agree with your point. But how do you implement your vision?
DeleteDo you cease all use of petroleum fuels and bring civilization to a halt? Obviously not, at least in the short term.
Do you impose rationing and try to limit the secondary (black) market? It's the more planned economy/socialist remedy, but could quickly become messy and even unlawful.
Or do you bump the price of gasoline until demand is brought down to an acceptable level, with the bump coming in the form of taxes to address the environmental and geopolitical costs of petroleum and perhaps also, although not mentioned above, an extraction control tax (a save-some-for-future-generations tax)? Paired with stronger drilling limits (why are there drilling rigs in the Arctic?), it would be the tidiest solution to implement. Yes, the rich would be able to secure more gasoline transportation, but they can already buy bigger houses, nicer cars, and better artwork. Although if you want to discuss reducing income inequality, that would also be fine. In a different blog.