Green living: city or countryside?

Leo Hickman: Does living in an urban centre have a smaller environmental impact than living in a rural area? Having resided in both, I have often wondered whether living in a city has a smaller environmental impact than living in the countryside. I suspect it does, but it would be nice to have a definitive view, one way or the other. R Lassiter, by email At first glance, it would certainly seem logical that city-living is the greener option – if it is, indeed, an option. Surrounded by public transport, you don’t need to own a car. And by living in dense, compact housing, you should need less in the way of resources and energy. The economies of scale and superior efficiencies available in a city should, in theory, always trump those in a rural environment. There certainly seems to have been a slew of books and reports arguing much this point in recent years. I once interviewed the New Yorker’s David Owen about his book Green Metropolis: Why Living Smaller, Living Closer, and Driving Less are the Keys to Sustainability and he made a very compelling case. But he also admitted – like myself – that he doesn’t now live in the Big Smoke, which suggests there is still some way to go to convince people to remain in these hubs of eco-efficiency once they have the opportunity to leave. I have also visited Donnachadh McCarthy ‘s home in south London which displays what can be achieved when you take urban eco-living to the absolute extreme. (In the context of a westernised lifestyle, of course.) It’s hard to imagine Donnachadh achieving quite the same results in a rural setting. But there must be some environmental positives to country-living, surely? You can grow your own food, should you desire. And better source renewable solid fuels, such as timber. But, as David Owen points out, if everyone moved from cities to the countryside, it would likely trigger an environmental crisis as there just wouldn’t be enough land to go round for everyone to live the “good life”. So this question must also raise wider issues of equity about the ownership and availability of land and other natural resources. So, as urban populations swell, as is the current global trend , what future role will the countryside hold? Will our green expanses beyond the ‘burbs exist solely to supply cities with food and energy? Perhaps, in a way, they already do? Or is this issue a little more complex and nuanced that we might otherwise imagine? This column is an experiment in crowd-sourcing a reader’s question, so please let us know your views and experiences below (as opposed to emailing them) and I will join in with some of my own thoughts and reactions as the debate progresses. I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate too. • Please send your own environment question to ask.leo.and.lucy@guardian.co.uk. Or, alternatively, message me on Twitter @LeoHickman Ethical and green living Carbon emissions Waste Travel and transport Leo Hickman guardian.co.uk

Posted by on May 3, 2011. Filed under News, Politics, World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.