Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Happy New Year!

I will be eating Green apples and honey this year! To bad the apples we've found here in The Big Apple haven't been as good as what we get in Oregon. I'm sure I'll find something good though! Here's to a great, green, new year.


Sustainable City - The Big Apple

Reducing demand in a city of lights.  How are we asking our selves to change?  It is greener to turn off the lights if you live in a single family home, no question, but in a city that runs around the clock, around the calendar, and around the world (international markets trading on the same floor as our markets) it makes more sense to leave the lights on and just make them as efficient as possible.
This is the question that has been bugging me.  Is it more efficient to live like this, dense, constant use, intense utilization of space and resource, or to thin out our impact over a larger area, and over a larger time.
The reason it's been bugging me is not something that can be explained with math, or perhaps even by analysis or any ~jectivity.  The real question is what is best as human occupants of the earth. I will not debate the impact of humanity, or the base question of our existence and subsequent effect we have on the environment that made us; we are here, and I'd like that to continue. So the question becomes how will our impact create the best possible biosphere for our experience, and continuation. 
This is a terraforming question, and all of the answers point to biodiversity, strong natural systems, and finding balance within those parameters. This framework has been casting my imaging of New York into certain relief. The contrasting aspects of low area usage per person (incredible density) that creates intense demand for those fewer square feet results in logisitical compacting. Opportunities for efficiency jump out, like mass transit (a clear win energy and carbon wise, but a possible disaster from a public health perspective), localized demand for power generation and distribution (but does having demand and supply nearby make sense or put more people at risk), and the concentration of information and thought multiplication.
If you have never arrived in New York City by air on a clear day, by road or by above ground rail, you haven't seen the grotesque machinery that pumps the life support systems into the machine for living that this city is. For the significant size of Manhattan herself there are 6 equal areas surrounding her dedicated solely to sustaining this fair city. Giant industrial fortresses and wastelands of shipping containers, rail lines and sadly, trucks choking the air with their groans of effort to bring food and material goods to the masses. It is scary to see it in such concentrated levels, and this is the nexus point: visibility.
New York shoves it in your face and herin lies her truth. There is no hiding the piles of garbage hauled out of the same way they came in, they grow every day, and are gone every night on the sidewalk in front of every building - there isn't any other place to put it! The trucks travel the same roads as the taxis, and unload there goods at the off peak hours. It is a hustle and play, coordinated out of necesity, and it is all right there for you to see. 
Contrast this with my hometown Portland, Oregon.  Portland is a small city, designed with space and systems to function in the background of life.  There is no need to see all the push and pull because there is room enough to do it in a more seemly manor. But if you do the math (like I said I wouldn't) the truth of density and efficiency bubbles to the surface. New Yorkers use less, but feel every drop. And that is the truth of this question.
How are we asking ourselves to change? We are opening our eyes to what we do, to how we impact our biosphere, and to what we should do better.
If the world were to transform into a sustainable vision of humanity would the metropolis disapear? Would the towns be squashed together instead? No, because it takes both.