Smart-growth advocates offer tips for changing your neck of the woods

16 May 2008

This week we've profiled several cities that are changing the way their residents live, work, and get around -- all with an eye toward fighting climate change and building a more sustainable future. So what can you do if your community hasn't seen the light? We asked our sources for advice, and here's what they had to say.

Kimber Lanning.

"Buy local whenever possible. Whether you're hiring someone to work on your air conditioner, buying dog food, or buying produce, buy it from your neighbor whenever you can. If you think it's more expensive, think about a city with nothing but part-time jobs with few benefits for the next generation. Now that's expensive!"
-- Kimber Lanning, founder, Local First Arizona

"Get educated. Residents should try to learn as much as possible about the particular natural, economic, and social conditions of the place where they live, and they should always consider how decisions in one dimension will affect the other two."
-- Christine Shenot, project manager, ICMA Livable Communities

Dennis Creech.

"Lobby elected officials to provide incentives to the private sector for sustainable development, including fast-track permitting for green buildings, density bonuses, and property tax 'relief' for energy upgrades."
-- Dennis Creech, executive director, Southface Energy Institute

James Elsen.

"Get out of your car. Every city in the country struggles with getting people to leave their cars behind. Walk, bike, use public transport, or skip the trip. You'll have a direct positive impact on helping your city clear the air and lower greenhouse-gas emissions, while saving yourself some gas money, decreasing your traffic stress, and getting some exercise as a bonus. Imagine: if we all just did this once a week, the impact would be huge."
-- James Elsen, founder and CEO, SustainLane

Jay Golden.

"Engage K-12 schools to include sustainability sciences into their curriculum. Children have a great capacity to affect change. When they recognize how things can be done better in our communities, they are able to harness the enthusiasm that is inherent in youth and can question the decisions we as adults make without being insulting. Additionally, we find that sustainability sciences is a great platform to get our youth excited about science, technology, math, and engineering -- similar to what the space program did when I was a child."
-- Jay Golden, assistant professor, Arizona State University School of Sustainability

"Talk to your local leaders. Sustainability is such a hot issue right now that many politicians on both sides of the fence are incorporating it into their platforms and positions. However, once another hot issue comes along, these ideas could quickly fall to the wayside, if citizens aren't vigilant. It's very important that citizens tell their elected and appointed officials how important it is to them to make the city more sustainable -- and that they want to see a long-term plan established that will not fall victim to politics or leadership changes."
-- Meghan Sharp, project manager, ICMA Livable Communities

Dean Brennan.

"Educate yourself -- go online and collect information; learn what other communities are doing and talk to staff in other communities; find the local experts in your community and ask them to make presentations to city staff and to the community. Use that information to focus your efforts to determine what your community can accomplish. Don't hesitate to ask for help -- we've found that there are a lot of people out there who are very committed to the sustainability movement and will be willing to help -- for free!"
-- Dean Brennan, principal planner, City of Phoenix

Carol Coletta.

"Get out of your car. That's the greenest thing you can do."
-- Carol C. Coletta, host/producer, Smart City Radio, president, CEOs for Cities

Story continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (4 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

watershed friendly

Smart growth needs to be watershed friendly. That means having adequate setbacks from rivers and streams, including the precious headwater streams that too often end up buried in pipes or trenched in ditches. Shade, and native species planting are important for riparian habitat to preserve biodiversity in the urban environment.

Rivers link cities and their residents most directly to the natural world. Having a sustainable city requires balance with natural areas that we depend on for services (drinking water, recreation, etc.) as well as the sheer quality of life aspect. Many cities lack adequate zoning to protect the sensitive river areas. Most also lack protections to keep roadside litter and trash out of storm drain systems which lead to the river.

Checkout Keep America Beautiful, local chapters of IWLA, and get involved in your watershed!

Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.

by 2wheeler at 12:53 PM on 16 May 2008

Meat consumption overlooked once again

Well, I suppose I'll be the one to point out that the statement "get out of your car. That's the greenest thing you can do" isn't necessarily correct.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO), "the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent than transport," not to mention that it is also "a major source of soil and water degradation," both of which are also serious environmental problems but in discussion are overshadowed by climate change. Not to mention that the meat industry contributes to incalculable cruelty, etc.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2007/08/30/5/index.html

And yes, we've likely all heard the standard arguments in response to this topic which have been extensively covered, even here on Grist, if you're interested:

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/09/17/

"Nothing would benefit humanity more than the general adoption of a vegetarian diet."
- Albert Einstein

by Schrmin at 2:18 PM on 16 May 2008

Bzzzt.

Actually, one very good source ("The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices") DOES rank not driving as the #1 thing that American consumers can do to reduce their overall ecological footprints.

The FAO figure that PETA bandies about says nothing without context:

far more humans globally eat meat than drive cars
plant-based food still has a substantial ecological cost; walking and cycling have negligible marginal ecological impacts
FAO did not examine lifecycle costs of car ownership, everything from manufacture to paving to disposal
FAO, as pointed out, does not examine non-greenhouse ecological costs

Besides, such PETA evangelism divides, not advances, the environmental cause. We need to do EVERYTHING in our power to work WITH one another to collectively address our environmental problems, instead of running around, pinning blame on one another, and confusing the message. We have to stop saying "either/or" and start saying "both/and."

by Payton Chung at 9:17 PM on 20 May 2008

I think my response was misunderstood.

I wasn't implying that one shouldn't recognize the impacts of automobile use on the environment...far from it...the less auto/fuel use, the better (I drive a 3 cylinder Geo Metro, just fyi). Instead, I was highlighting the fact that meat consumption was once again completely overlooked as being one of the leading causes of environmental degradation. Like you, Payton, I was advocating "saying both/and" by supporting the idea of not only reducing each individual's automobile/fuel use, but also the elimination/reduction of their meat-eating.

However, I need to point out that your response seems inconsistent and fairly contradictory. For one, just because PETA promotes the UNFAO report to further their own cause doesn't mean that the report has little or no value or merit...I doubt the UNFAO has any ties to PETA, or any other animal welfare org. Like any research study, the findings can be critiqued, but I'd argue they're rooted in sound science. But then you state that "We need to do EVERYTHING in our power to work WITH one another to collectively address our environmental problems, instead of running around, pinning blame on one another, and confusing the message. We have to stop saying "either/or" and start saying "both/and."" I'd say you need to take your own advice.

Instead of rejecting the fact that animal agriculture is a massively environmentally destructive business (easily on par with, if not much more so than, the transportation sector...particularly if you factor in the "non-greenhouse ecological costs," as you put it, such as its effects on land due to grazing, land use for feed production, fresh water use, waterway pollution, forest and habitat destruction, biodiversity loss, etc. - not to mention the damage from overfishing), how about accepting the evidence and supporting vegetarianism...or something close to it? Veg-ism, animal welfare, and eco-mindedness are not mutually exclusive. It seems apparent that transportation and meat eating easily top the list in the overall environmental damage they each cause, so let's reduce both...we'd all be better off for it. Because if the world stays on course and meat/seafood/dairy/egg consumption rise to the predicted levels by mid-century (Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050, while milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes...and seafood stocks are predicted to collapse by 2048, etc.), I doubt walking and cycling will save us.

Here's some more info:

http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006 ...

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.50 ...

www.earthsave.org/pdf/ofof2006.pdf ("Our Food, Our Future")

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals"
- Mahatma Gandhi

by Schrmin at 8:30 PM on 28 May 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Your Cities, Yourselves

Smart-growth advocates offer tips for changing your neck of the woods