Cities: The key to living sustainably in the 21st century

When it comes to living more sustainably, people are bound to be reluctant, and understandably so.

After all, it’s decidedly essential in light of our climate crisis. But what kind of hippie-weirdos actually 

want to adjust their lifestyles of preference, especially when the environmental benefit of doing so isn’t readily observable? And besides, the whole concept seems futile — if we’re in so deep already, how could our individual actions possibly have an impact on climate change at this point?

Sadly, this unhealthy ethos is all too common among Americans today, and it must be transcended. When we consider the kind of large-scale social adaptation that is necessary for our species to overcome climate change, any resistance is otherwise exposed as inherently shallow, serving only to the lowest of our human facilities.

Still, some people go as far as to paint sustainable living techniques as incompatible with society in general, claiming that driving less or reducing consumption or recycling are just impractically small solutions to an immense problem.

But contrary to (somewhat) popular belief, you don’t need to be some Thoreauvian and live off the land and grid to be sustainable. In fact, the key to living sustainably, practically and productively in the 21st century could be the exact opposite: live in a city.

I know what you’re thinking: “Cities … What? Aren’t those, like, by definition, the least environmentally healthy places on the planet?” Allow me to lay down a few base statistics.

Right now, our world’s human population is about 7 billion; by 2025, that number is predictedto be closer to 8 billion; and by 2050, it is estimated we could be living in a world with 9 billion other human beings.

With these statistics at hand, the next logical question is, “Where will this rapidly increasing population possibly live?”

In answering that, let’s consider the expansion of the U.S. urban population since the 1950s, when 64 percent of our population lived in cities. By 1980, that number had jumped to 74 percent, and currently 82 percent of people in the U.S. live in cities. By 2050, that number is estimated to reach 90 percent.

This trend toward a booming society of dense city dwellers will likely be a great thing for two main reasons. For one, greenhouse gas emissions will generally decrease since city dwellers have been proven to emit fewer greenhouse gases on average than those living in rural or suburban towns.

And secondly, with an increase in dense cities, there will be a subsequent increase in social and economic productivity, resulting in a better, more innovative world for us all. As renowned city scientist and former Santa Fe Institute President Geoffrey West puts it, “Cities concentrate, accelerate and diversify social and economic activity. … The bigger cities get, the more productive and efficient they tend to become.”

And as far as density and health concerns go — since I know there are plenty of city skeptics out there — the notion of rural or suburban communities being healthier than urban communities on average is entirely baseless. Sanitation, clean water and waste disposal were indeed egregious health issues in colonial America, but times have changed and so have the quality of our cities, which are now perhaps the healthiest places for 21st century Americans to live.

This is not only due to the fact that fewer greenhouse gas emissions mean a healthier environment for us all, but also because city dwellers on average have better access to health care, are more physically active and are less likely to be obese than those living in rural or suburban towns.

But admittedly, even with the imminent growth of urban populations, individual sustainability practices are still not enough to adequately address climate change. That is not to say we don’t need to consume less or migrate to more urban environments — we certainly do and certainly will have to, but we must not let these passive actions substitute for more direct ones.

Sweeping initiatives toward more renewable energy development need to be made if we are to combat climate change at all. And because politicians have been markedly silent on the issue, mainly due to their puppeteering of the fossil fuel industry, the responsibility ultimately lands in the hands of the citizen to make their voices heard by voting or otherwise.

Originally published in The Maneater

Is fracking whack?

With the changing of the times, the dwindling of our planet’s natural resources and the abhorrent display of human improvidence during the last half-century in our quest for cheap energy comes a funky new term in our cultural lexicon: fracking.

Shorthand for hydraulic fracturing, fracking is the newly popularized, albeit controversial, method of extracting natural gas from beneath Earth’s crust.

The process, for all simplicity’s sake, can be understood twofold: First, a hole is drilled miles into the ground. Then millions of gallons of highly pressurized, chemically treated water is shot down through the hole to fracture underlying rock and free immense pockets of natural gas. From there, the gas travels through the borehole, where it is collected and used as a cheap fuel, accounting for nearly one-quarter of all U.S. energy.

But wait, why the sudden hoopla over natural gas anyway? First off, it’s considered the “cleanest” fossil fuel, releasing half as much carbon dioxide upon combustion as coal or oil, and as it turns out, the U.S. is sitting on a lot of it.

The numbers vary depending on whom you ask (especially if you ask the natural gas industry, infamous among energy-analyst circles for grossly overestimating our reserves), but rational estimates tend to hover around the figure that we have enough frackable natural gas to lastbetween 11 and 21 years, based on current consumption rates.

Additionally, an abundance of cheap natural gas would lower energy prices for Americans,stimulate local economies and provide a more environmentally friendly fossil fuel (oxymoronic as that sounds) to ease our nation’s transition to more renewable energy sources.

But don’t jump on the frackwagon just yet — there are still some major safety issues with our current fracking practices. Remember those millions of gallons of highly pressurized, chemically treated water I mentioned earlier, which play such a vital role in the entire fracking process? Well, the harsh chemicals are added to help dissolve sediment and make the whole process a lot easier, but they have a knack of contaminating local residents’ water supplies, rendering the water poisonous, potentially lethal and — in some cases — even flammable.

Anyone familiar with the 2010 Oscar-nominated documentary "Gasland" knows what I’m talking about. Although the natural gas industry tends to brush off accusations of water contamination, citing a lack of sufficient evidence, a striking number of anecdotal cases and some recently published scientific studies tell otherwise.

The main reason why the natural gas industry can slither away from such evident breaches of public safety is because of a particularly heinous legislative loophole in which fracking is exempt from regulation under the Safe Water Drinking Act. Congress passed the measure in 2005 under the reprobate urging of then-Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of major gas driller Halliburton. And the revolving door spins on.

Another key environmental concern in the face of fracking comes with regard to a major by-product that is improperly stored, namely toxic fluid. The fact it’s a by-product is not so much a concern because that can be expected from the use of so many different chemicals. However ,the way it’s stored — in open pits that can overflow or leach into the soil — certainly is.

Lastly, while natural gas emits half as much carbon dioxide as other fossil fuels upon combustion, it isn’t so benign when it's leaked straight into the atmosphere, releasing a striking amount of methane, the most dangerous greenhouse gas.

If fracking development is to be expanded — and it almost certainly will be, considering the statistics at hand and the general puissance of the fossil fuel industry — then safety flaws such as these must be addressed.

Currently, there are bills in both houses of Congress that would close the SWDA loophole, and the Environmental Protection Agency is conducting comprehensive field research in order to more thoroughly establish safety regulations.

This is exactly the direction in which we should be heading with franking. As development increases, so should oversight.

Of course, at the end of the day, natural gas is still a fossil fuel and is certainly no cure-all. However, its capacity to provide a cleaner bridge fuel while our nation invests in more renewable sources is something that must not be overlooked.

Originally published in The Maneater