Post

In a lot of ways, the environmentalism of my parents' generation didn't ask anyone to sacrifice anything. People still drove (but it was a Prius), lived in the burbs (but with a beautiful garden), bought supermarket food (but bought organic). It was an aesthetic choice as much as anything. 🧵

Three great reported essays on the inter generational conflict over housing and active transportation, particularly in Northern California: First, a Berkeley-raised writer’s exploration of his parents’ generation’s complicated feelings about the proposed apartments and the Hopkins bike lane:

I grew up around a lot of these types of people. I went to high school in a college town that was famous for an early eco-development with bike paths, solar power, communal gardens, and natural drainage. It's called Village Homes.

2 reposts72 likes

It's an idyllic, beautiful place to live, and I had friends who grew up there. Hell, the streets are Tolkien-themed, with names like Rivendell, Bree, Elendil and Evenstar. The President of France even paid a visit.

But at its core, Village Homes is just a suburban subdivision with a green veneer. It's a great way to cosplay as a Hobbit, but it's actively worse for the planet than living in a steel tower on top of a subway station.

And that's the kind of generational split that we're seeing. For a lot of greying NorCal environmentalists, it's the appearance of green living that matters more than anything else. (After all, what kind of *true* environmentalist lives in the urban jungle?)

If you've spent your whole life going hiking, driving a Prius and having a beautiful garden in the 'burbs, it's horrifying to think that the guy who takes the train and lives in a steel tower is doing a better job of saving the planet than you.

news.berkeley.eduNew interactive map compares carbon footprints of Bay Area neighborhoods - Berkeley NewsData on current carbon emissions will help cities meet goals set at Paris climate summit, and show people how they contribute to global warming.