seeking a sustainable human society

I was surprised this morning by an article in New Scientist on the trend of increasing urban population growth. The article refers to a UN report, The State of World Population in 2007, which apparently argues that poverty and slums in cities are the result of poor urban planning and not at all an inevitable byproduct of urban growth. In fact, the report implies that it's better to be poor in cities than in the countryside because of the greater availability in cities of "education, health services, jobs, shelter and family planning."

The report is primarily addressing the growth of cities in Asia and Africa, which I know very little about. But I still think I can speak to some of the underlying assumptions that surprise me in this mindset. The idea that the availability of resources being available for the poor--human resources such as education and family planning--are offset by the massive quantities of people competing for those resources in an overcrowded city is one that I find startling, to begin with. But in a bigger sense, it's a twist on the whole concept of resources that I am at a loss to understand.

Of course, there is a greater absolute quantity of human resources in a city. But because there are also a great many more people in need of those resources, it is much easier for individuals to fall through the cracks. But more important is the lesser availability of real resources.

Humans, like every living thing on the planet, need certain resources in order to survive: food, water, shelter. And it is these resources that are in fact much less available in cities. It is easy to grow so removed from the realities of life and its cycles that you forget where food, water, and shelter come from. But food comes from plants, which need land to grow, and the more that people are crowded into small areas of land, the less there is land available where food can grow. In cities, food must always travel from somewhere to get to the people who live there. Shelter, too, comes from raw materials that need space to exist--wood, rocks, gravel. These things, too, must travel if there are to be enough inside a city to house the millions of inhabitants. And water is a problem in many cities--the depletion of aquifers and salinization of water sources in many arid climates is a direct result of too many people creating too much drain on a single water source.

But on the other hand, a single person--or even a single family--living in an otherwise uninhabited (by humans) forest will have a hard time surviving, or at least surviving comfortably. It has been done, of course, but it isn't the way that most people would choose to live, and not only because we're social animals and need companionship. The specialization made possible by towns and cities--you provide me with food and I'll provide you with shelter--has had some bad press lately, but it has still been an incalculable benefit for millions of people. The really green way to live, I think, in the minds of many, is to be utterly self-sufficient: grow your own food, build your own house. And because these actions fulfill our deepest instincts and needs, there is a strong attraction in such a way of life. The people I know who've done it, and are doing it, and more satisfied with their lives than anyone else I know. And it's my dream to live like that: to build my own house, to grow my own food, to educate my own children, to ask nothing of anyone and "owe not any man."

And yet--. I often wonder if I will really leave the city. There are innumerable benefits to living in a city, or at least in a town. Natural resources are all very well, but I want human resources as well: operas and concerts and plays, libraries and bookstores and internet, coffeeshops and neighbors and all-night philosophical conversations sparked by quotes from Dostoevsky. And at the same time, there are so many things about the city that I hate, and not just the poverty that I see daily: the pollution, the traffic (even though I rarely drive), the stress that seems to hang over everyone like a cloud, the violence, the crime. There is a beauty and a danger in cities that is intriguing, even inspiring, but it's dangerous nonetheless. Has there ever been a true city, in all the history of human life, without its share of poverty and crime? From the little I know of anthropology, I doubt it.

And so, I'm left with a dilemma. What is the best way for humans to live? What balance between human and natural resources, between space and society, is ideal for the sustainability of a human community? How big can a city grow before poverty and violence become an inevitable piece of the competition for natural resources; how small can a town be before every member finds himself caught in a never-ending cycle of working for smaller and smaller returns? As so often happens to me, I find myself returning in thought to one of the most idyllic places I've lived, and I remember the little town of Lupeni where I lived in Romania. Half the population there was unemployed, and everyone wanted to go somewhere else. But for me, there was a great deal that was perfect about that little town, or could have been. Even the poorest were seldom without a garden, and there were always resources available to them: firewood to gather and sell in winter; blackberries to sell in summer. For me, the size was perfect: it was small enough that after I'd lived there for six months, it was hard to walk down the street without seeing someone I knew. I could walk out of my apartment and turn left and be in the center of town within fifteen minutes; I could walk out of my apartment and turn right and be high on a mountain trail in twenty. It was small enough to be safe--I could walk home alone at three in the morning, without a thought for any danger--and big enough to have plenty of friends, and even a coffeeshop.

But there was no opera house in Lupeni, and I'm sure there never will be.

animals

We went to a lunch n' learn at the zoo today. What better place to host a lunch n' learn about transportation options? (Because, um, animals don't need cars?) Anyway, I never did figure out the connection between topic and place, but we did get to see some tigers and giant tortoises. Fun.

Then, I came back and saw this video, and it cracked me up:

rising cost of energy, rising cost of food

It's nice to see mainstream media finally talking about the connection between energy and food. I particularly like how Openshaw lists animals that eat corn--cow, chickens, and hogs. None of these animals eat corn in the wild; all of them are fed corn on farms in order to supplement a lack of sufficient green pasture or insect protein. But anyway.

But I found her list of ways to respond to rising food costs very disappointing. She idly dismisses gardening for yourself, ignoring the fact that growing even a little of your own food can cut back surprisingly on costs, and is a lot less laborious than most people realize. And there are many other ways to save money that are better for you and the environment than just buying bulk and substituting. So here are my environmentally-friendly ways to save money on food.

1. Grow your own. Seeds are way cheaper than processed food. When I first started gardening, I thought it was going to be a lot of work requiring a lot of expert knowledge. But, though neither of those things hurts, the truth is that gardening isn't that hard. You put seeds in the ground; you water them; you see what comes up; you eat it. As the manager of my garden frequently reminds me, it's not rocket science. And you don't need that much space--even a small, sunny deck will do for a couple of tomato plants and herbs. Little pieces add up a lot.

2. Join a CSA. It feels expensive when you look at the bill, but $20 for a week's worth of vegetables for a family of four? That's a good deal. It might not last you the entire week (depending on how fond you are of vegetables), but, especially if you can get them somewhere within walking distance, you're saving a lot on gas and hassle, too. And they're fresher than anything you'll ever find at the grocery store.

3. Eat lower on the food chain. Skip the meat; use vegetables and grains instead. It's healthier, and it's a lot cheaper. Even a few meals a week can make a big difference. And do you really need to be eating meat at every meal?

4. Avoid processed food. Most processed food are just corn syrup anyway, and since one of the reasons behind rising food costs is rising demand for corn for ethanol, processed food will see the effects of rising costs even more than other types of food. Skip the chips and packaged desserts; buy ingredients and cook something for a change. Canned goods and grains are cheap, long-lasting, and a great staple for many meals. Dress them up with some vegetables and maybe a little meat, and you'll be amazed how much you can get out of a little.

the oil drum on corn ethanol

There's a great article on The Oil Drum about corn-based ethanol. If you like hearing the facts about energy issues presented clearly and debated intelligently, there's no better place than The Oil Drum. I've written before here about my concerns on ethanol, so I won't reiterate that here, other than to say that it's nice to know lots of smart people on The Oil Drum agree with me.

One interesting piece that I hadn't really considered is the observation Gail makes that the government, by subsidizing corn ethanol instead of potato or soy, has really "selected a winner" in the field of biofuels. There goes the free market.

the kingdom of heaven is like a seed

Yesterday evening I stopped by my garden to water and weed and was amazed to discover that my beans were ready for picking. I am still always amazed by fruits and vegetables that actually ripen. It seems impossible somehow that a seed I tossed in the ground, almost carelessly (although I tend to put a lot of care into my planting, and I can never quite avoid thinking of my plants as children), could suddenly spring into life like that. It's surprising enough when the plant first begins to sprout. But when the fruit ripens, it's magic.

Our first delivery from our CSA was also last night, so we ended up with quite a bit of fresh local food. The food from the farm right now is still mostly greens (which is unfortunate, since the kale in my garden is really taking off too), but there were some squash, onions, and strawberries, too. I threw together an impromptu dinner with a can of black beans and a quick pot of rice, and we had salad burritos with green and black beans. We borrowed tomatoes from the neighbors, because ours aren't close to ripe yet.

But it was a lovely moment to finally be eating our own food again. I don't think it's an accident that so many of Jesus' analogies about heaven and the Kingdom of God had to do with seeds. Of course He was speaking to rural agriculturalists, and He used analogies from their lives. But even for us modern gardeners, there's a great deal to be learned from seeds. Like the patience required before something can grow. Like our own inability to force beauty to come to fruition. Like the truth that the purpose of something can take a long time to be realized, or even visible, but it will show itself in the end.

solutions to global warming: good and bad ideas

This is the scariest global warming solution I've ever heard. Quick fixes are always scary, but the worst thing about this is that it's messing with systems we understand very little. There's absolutely no way to predict the outcome of this kind of action, because we have no understanding of so many of the factors involved. It's like trying to perform surgery on yourself without knowing anything about germs.

On the other hand, here is a great solution, with accompanying discussion laying out many of the problems and advantages. I vote for response #4.

nature as a temple

Part of the calling of man, in a quote posted by Father Stephen: "to offer nature to God in his soul as on an altar."

what is utility regulation decoupling?

Just a little bit of research provided me with some useful information regarding utility decoupling. Baltimore Gas and Electric in Maryland apparently earns profits based on the number of customers it serves instead of the amount of power it sells. The downside of that for the utility company, I assume, is that the number of customers served has a great deal more to do with population growth than with marketing. But hey, Georgia's population is growing. Why should Georgia Power complain about getting something for nothing?

More research is in order, I think...

why people change their minds

Yesterday at the Southface Roundtable, I had some conservations about the art of convincing people on environmental issues. We agreed that there’s been a lot of change in most people’s mindsets over the past few years, and that we’re definitely seeing a turn of the tide. But we also agreed that many people still seem easily swayed in either direction, and as we were talking, I realized something.

Here it is: very few people are convinced by facts, and even fewer ever bother to research facts for themselves. Most people are convinced entirely by the loudest voice, and especially the loudest voice who speaks last. In other words, most people are convinced entirely by marketing.
So they see Al Gore’s movie—which isn’t exactly marketing, but it is mass media, which psychologically for most people comes to the same thing—and they are convinced of climate change. But the next day they hear their favorite radio talk show giving “equal time to both sides” on the climate change issue, and they’re full of doubts again. The fact that there is no scientific debate holds no weight with most people. They hear debate on television, and they have no way of distinguishing between scientific and farcical.

All of which led me to the inescapable conclusion of my true calling in life: environmental marketing. I have a lot of ideas for this. Ads showing cool kids in electric cars whizzing past the old fogie-types in their ugly SUV. Little kids with their moms biking safely to school in tree-lined bike lanes. Beautiful girls in bathing suits buying local food at the farmer’s market. You get the idea.

Of course, on the other hand, I’m not sure if I have any room to complain about how easily people are swayed, because I’m not any different. Even this post is a perfect example—I think this is my second or third post about my “new future calling in life” in the few months since I’ve started this blog. I have a new life calling every few months. So yes, I’m as big a hypocrite as everyone else. I’m influenced by whatever is hip, cool, and faddish. I’m excited about the next big thing. But hey—at least I know it.

So this is my life calling for the day, and I’ll dream up environmental ads tonight. Tomorrow, it’ll be something different. But at least I’ll still believe in human-induced climate change, which is more than I can say for some people.

sustainable atlanta roundtable with georgia power

This morning I attended the Southface Sustainable Atlanta Roundtable. I try to go every month, but—as with any event that occurs less often than every week and more often than every year—it’s always easy to put it off till next time. But this morning was definitely the one not to miss, because the agenda consisted of a discussion with representatives from Georgia Power.

If you’re not from Georgia, that might sound innocuous. But among environmentalists in Atlanta, the name “Georgia Power” is generally used as a curse word. Georgia Power is the opposition in every initiative, the lobby against every policy, the enemy of environmentalism and sustainability. So bringing them to this particular table was more than just impressive, it was bound to be a good show.

I was not disappointed. Talking with people afterwards, I found that many activists were frustrated by the familiar answers that dance around the issues. But I was happy just to hear the questions asked, and even happier to watch the three Georgia Power representatives pass the microphone around uncomfortably, looking at each other sheepishly and hoping someone else would answer a particularly challenging question.

I was particularly interested by several questions dealing with Georgia Power’s “renewable energy” portfolio. I recently signed up for a renewable energy packet for our apartment (to the tune of an extra $4.10 per month, with nothing tangible to show for it). I know I could get much more sustainable and more truly renewable energy by buying from someone else (although I’m not sure if there are any competing energy companies that sell to my apartment building). But I didn’t research it that closely anyway, because I wanted to buy renewable energy from Georgia Power. I wanted to show them there was a market for green energy.

But, sadly, of course, the “renewable” energy they’re selling me isn’t really all that green. GP never actually said precisely how much of their “green” energy comes from what sources, but it was clear from the tone of their answers that the vast majority—if not all—of it comes from landfill gas. Landfill gas! Only in a throwaway society such as ours could that even qualify as renewable; in the real universe, there’s no such thing as trash, because everything is needed. In nature, everything is recycled. What level of consumerism have we reached when the gas from our trash heaps is considered “renewable”?

But the most interesting question came at the end. An enterprising young lady inquired about decoupling. I say enterprising, because despite having spent some time studying it, I still haven’t figured out exactly what that means. But the basic idea of decoupling is to split utility company’s profits from the amount of kilowatts they sell. Because as long as profits are inextricably and directly tied to the number of kilowatts, no utility company can ever be serious about conservation. If people using less energy means they make less profits, then there’s no chance at all that they’ll truly encourage customers to conserve. How can they? And why should they? All their motivations are forced the other way.

Surprisingly, this extremely volatile question of decoupling sparked no awkward glances among the GP representatives. One of them was happy to take the microphone. “I’ll answer your question the way it stands,” he said. “Does Georgia Power support decoupling?” He hardly even hesitated. “No,” he said. “We don’t.”

Of course he went on to explain why, in an explanation that made little sense to me. But I wasn’t listening that hard anyway. The truth is, I was busy being impressed. You have to give even “the enemy” credit when he tells the truth so honestly. At least then you know where you stand.