Good Environmentalism…

Edward Glaeser, Professor of Economics at Harvard writes about contemporary environmentalism and some of its flaws. He says “The old mantra “think globally, act locally,” is pretty silly. Local environmentalism is often bad environmentalism, because keeping one’s backyard pristine can make the planet worse off. Preventing wind farms leaves Cape Cod’s views untouched, but increases carbon emissions.”

I do not totally agree with this statement because practicing so called “good environmentalism” is always going to be challenging. Why? Because of zero sum scenarios, tragedy of the commons and a clashing of what environmentalism should be. In fact, environmentalism advocates renewable energy such as wind farms but reminds us that wind farms should be built in places where people are not going to be bothered by them. So, building wind farms is seen as green development in some peoples‘ eyes but a problem in others‘ who may say that it undermines the state of the natural environment and can kill some birds in the process. Who is right? This makes good environmentalism challenging.

Environmentalism is all about putting the social and humanitarian interests first. Building wind farms provides an alternative source of energy thereby minimizing our dependence on conventional sources of electricity from things like coal or hydroelectric dams. Additionally, they generate economic growth. Good environmentalism recognizes the merits of such alternative energy insofar as the people are not completed affected by the development.

Glaeser’s article provides many good points to consider. All of his points in some way or another focus on how environmentalism can function concomitantly with economic growth. Many of his examples refer to the United States such as comparing the environmentally progressive California to the brownest city in the U.S. - Houston. What his post boils down to is that environmentalists want too much green space. They want natural and pristine environments untouched. So much to the point where green development may not be wanted because it can change the landscape taking away from its natural beauty.

I agree with Glaeser here that we cannot be overly anti-growth when it comes to things like green cities or renewable energy. However, we still must think critically about the trade-offs in green development such as a hydro-electric dam. Hydro-electric power (which I am not a huge advocate for) provides this ostensible “green” electricity but usually at the expense of wiping out an entire ecosystem through siltation, flooding and natural disruption. Development in green cities like San Francisco or Curitiba is totally warranted because the people are probably demanding it.

So public transit expansion, increasing densities and minimizing automobile dependency are all good steps for environmentalism because it is the nature of our human development and the course of our future. Environmentalism and good governance is all about how city governments formulate and implement policies in response to environmentally related demands and inputs from society.

Key message: Good environmentalism still needs to preach “think globally and act locally”. But, it also needs to see the merits of green development including smart growth in cities, urban sustainability and renewable energy. Environmentalism must encourage growth but this can be done in a more holistic fashion and can dictate how that growth should be done.