June 22, 2008
Deep Ecology
Tags: environment, sacramentoI’ve been thinking a lot lately about deep ecology. The concept of “deep ecology” is highly philosophical, but at the application level, in a superficial nutshell, deep ecology is a fundamental shift in behavior and attitudes to bring them to a point where they are more in harmony with the environment. Shallow ecology is doing things that, while beneficial, primarily enable you to feel good without really changing your behavior. For example:
- Shallow: Recycling.
- Deep: Using less crap.
- Shallow: Buying a hybrid.
- Deep: Giving up your car.
I bring this up because of an article I read today on Yahoo! (via CNN Money): “One Way to Handle Gas Prices: Move” The article describes a school teacher who gave up her quaint farmhouse 62 miles from work and rented a place in town. Granted, the move was motivated by economic, rather than ecological, factors, but it had the added bonus of reducing her “carbon footprint” (to use the cliche of the day) in a somewhat deep manner: she redefined what she needed to live the life she wanted.
If gas were still a buck fity a gallon she never would have made that choice.
I don’t know how big a trend this is — and the article does mention that the people making these choices tend to be renters because its easier to break a lease than sell a home. Still, if I were in the housing market right now (wait, I am), I’d pay a premium for a home that enabled my wife and I to minimize our commuting and ideally, ensure at least one of us wouldn’t need to drive to work. I’m sure I’m not the only one.
Gas prices may even drive people to buy some of the over-priced, underselling properties in the greater-downtown area. I still think they’ll need to lower their prices, but it could happen.
Maybe gas prices will renew interest in super high-density living in Sacramento. And maybe this time they’ll plan to build to a scale more suited to the area.
RSS Feed
These homes are a little smaller, but reasonably sized and much more affordable:
http://www.realtor.com/search/searchresults.aspx?mlslid=70091235&ml=3&typ=7
I don’t think driving is bad per se (says the guy who lives in the suburbs) - it’s more distance and efficiency that’s the issue. It’s better to drive a truck 3 miles than a hybrid 30.
I’ll admit to being a total cynic, but I’ve always believed that money is the only thing that would push most people into responsible environmental decisions. I feel for people who genuinely can’t afford $4.50 per gallon, but I actually think it’s good for everyone else. People are getting rid of fuel inefficient cars and using mass transit. The political climate is ripe for spending money on building transit rather than roads. None of this would have happened without gas prices increasing like they have.
June 22, 2008 @ 10:52 pm
I’m not a no-car person either (seeing as we have two), but I’m all about reducing vehicle miles traveled, which are a factor of both distance and the number of cars on the road. More people using mass transit, living closer to work, carpooling, or even ditching their car, is a good thing.
As much as it pains me to pay almost 50 bucks to fill my Saturn, higher gas prices are a good thing environmentally because you’re right — higher gas prices are making people redefine what is “comfortable.”
June 23, 2008 @ 7:33 am
And I think those homes are terrific.
June 23, 2008 @ 7:39 am
I notice that all of those new projects are dropping their prices: the “high $300K” Tapestri Squre units were for sale for “mid $400K” last year (and none of them sold.)
Meanwhile, historic homes in the same neighborhood *are* selling for those kinds of prices, even though many are the same size or smaller, with similar lot densities.
(Shallow: Buying a brand-new infill house with “green” features built on the wreckage of an old building. Deep: Buy an old house made of century-old old-growth redwood, within walking distance of your job, and take simple steps to make it even more energy efficient.)
Expensive gas is suddenly making people realize the value of living close to work–and, potentially just as important, the value of using farmland at the edge of cities for farming instead of suburbs.
June 23, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
Farming on farmland? Now that’s just crazy talk.
June 23, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Shallow=Buying a hybrid? I am going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there
Ok maybe buying a 45mpg hybrid is not as environmentally noble as “giving up [one's] car,” but shallow? Nah. Then again, as the owner or a Prius since 2005, I am admittedly a bit biased. Unfortunately I am in no position to give up my car–unless there is an easier way to manage the diverse needs of a family of five. 
June 23, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
Joe, I hear ya. We’re just a three person household and we “need” two cars. There’s the daycare issue, and the working in opposite directions issue, and the fact that my job sometimes requires me to travel issue (okay, that last one is bogus because I can always use a state car).
I do transit/bike to work when I’m working in town, and I could even walk.
Still, we’re a society that is still built on driving and it takes a very, very deep ecologist to overcome the challenges such a structure poses. If we didn’t have a child, we could make much better environmental choices, I guarantee. We’re getting better, but it’s going to take a long time before we can work that out.
June 23, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
I think Joe is taking the term “shallow” a bit out of context–it’s not that buying a hybrid is a bad thing, but that it’s a way to extend the current paradigm (living in a distant suburb based on freeways and individual cars) instead of changing the paradgim (living closer to where you work so you don’t need freeways or cars as much.)
A couple of years ago a co-worker and Prius driver asked me why I didn’t own one (I drive an 18 year old wagon that gets around 20 MPG city.) He commuted every day from Elk Grove, around 20-25 miles round trip, while I commuted from the edge of East Sacramento/Midtown, around 5 miles round trip. So even with a Prius he’s using twice the gas I was. These days I live even closer to work, so I walk or take light rail 3-4 times a week. So my gas use for work comes to about half a gallon a week.
Shallow ecology is necessary and important: it’s the basic level, and it gets people into the idea that using up resources at a ridiculous rate isn’t that great of a strategy. But changing the way we build cities means more than just changing to a more fuel-efficient car–it means building more fuel-efficient cities.
June 24, 2008 @ 10:01 am