In the conversations about how our cities should grow, “environmentalism” is a word that gets used a lot. But not all environmentalism is the same, and not everyone who wants to protect the environment approaches that goal from the same perspective. Broadly speaking, the debate often separates people who have similar in preserving green spaces into two camps, with each voicing that concern in different ways.
First, Let’s Define Some Terms
“Green environmentalism” is the common term for what we most commonly think of when you picture a self-described “environmentalist”. This is a philosophy focused on preserving green spaces in their current state, protecting existing plant life nearly at any cost, and minimizing our direct impact on ecosystems in an urban environment.
“Grey environmentalism,” the other common term, approaches this conversation differently. Grey environmentalists take a more systems-level view, arguing that the most environmentally responsible actions are those that allow more people to live in a less resource-intensive way, even if it means changing the “natural” feel of a single neighbourhood. From my own perspective, I see most green spaces in the city (backyards, parks, gardens, trees) as pretty unnatural, manicured places that, while green, have been altered a lot from how they were before being settled on. As our suburbs face the challenges of growth in urban boundaries (greenfield development), understanding how to balance these two perspectives is one of the most critical tasks we face.
How I See The Debate
This desire to protect the green character of our communities is a powerful and understandable impulse. “Green environmentalist” arguments are often raised with good reason and the purest of intentions, which is crucial to getting urban places right. Concerns that a new duplex or apartments will destroy a mature backyard that serves as a habitat for birds and pollinators, or that more residents will overburden our existing parks, come from a genuine love for the local environment. Similarly, arguments that replacing absorbent and permeable lawns and trees with hard rooftops will worsen the “urban heat island” effect are based on valid scientific principles. This environmental perspective is critical when it comes to creating denser urban living spaces that respect existing ecosystems. From a purely local and immediate perspective, these are important concerns that deserve to be part of the conversation. The desire to protect the green character of our established communities is a powerful and understandable impulse.
However, a “grey” environmentalist perspective forces us to ask a difficult question: what is the alternative? If we continue to block new, denser developments in an existing neighbourhood, we are not eliminating the demand for housing; we are merely pushing it somewhere else. In our current system, that “somewhere else” is almost always a new, sprawling subdivision on the edge of the city, built on what was once farmland or natural habitat. Even if housing there is denser, it’s much less efficient and more expensive building neighbourhoods on the edge of town.
This is the central paradox: a “green” victory in preserving some green on a single lot can contribute to a much larger environmental loss by promoting a car-dependent development pattern that is orders of magnitude more destructive. The most significant environmental act if you look at the big picture is to create denser communities where people do not need to drive for every single trip.
Other Thoughts
From this “grey” perspective, the most environmentally friendly thing we can do is to build more housing in our existing neighbourhoods. Adding a duplex or 4 apartments or condos on a lot that once held a single-family home allows more people to live in a place that is already serviced by roads, pipes, and transit. It creates the density needed to support local businesses in mixed-use development, which in turn fosters a walkable community and reduces car dependency. While this may in theory result in the loss of some tree canopy on a single property, it prevents the paving over of entire ecosystems for new, low-density suburbs that lock in decades of high-carbon, car-centric living for thousands of residents. We can also plant new trees, even at a multiplied rate, to offset trees that end up being removed.
The path forward is not to dismiss the concerns of either grey or green environmentalists, but to integrate them into a collaborative effort that takes ecological and sustainability concerns into account in a balance, depending on the circumstances. We can and should have policies that require new developments to include features like green roofs, low energy heat pumps, solar panels, permeable pavement, and robust tree planting. But I also believe its critical to not let the desire to preserve the “green” character of our individual properties and communities prevent us from making the system-level changes needed to address our larger environmental challenges.
The most responsible environmentalism is one that defends existing green and natural spaces as much as possible, but still allows our communities to evolve. This combination helps to create more sustainable, walkable, and less car-dependent places that can be enjoyed in balance by more people. Car dependent, low density infrastructure like out current suburban development pattern wipes out much more green space than any low-rise housing complex ever could.
Leave a Reply