The world is urbanizing. I'm almost done writing a book on the environmental consequences of this trend. My "Green Cities" book explores whether urban growth mitigates or exacerbates local and global environmental indicators such as air pollution and greenhouse gas production.
I've thought about a variety of ways that urbanization affects the environment but today the New York Times has an article suggesting a pathway I hadn't thought about.
Dr. David Suzuki, a zoologist turned environmental activist, has this to say;
"Even though Canada has a lot of wilderness, 85 percent of us live in cities," he said. "We don't understand ecosystems."
He makes this point with anecdotes and examples anyone can understand. For example, he recalled, when he wanted to do a television program about air pollution, he waited for a smog alert day and took a film crew to a hospital emergency room. "It was packed with old people and children," he said. "What blew us away was how many of these people were being driven to the hospital in an S.U.V. Because they live in a shattered world, it never occurs to them that the way they live is creating the problem."
Dr. Suzuki said he used to urge people to think globally, act locally. "That was a mistake," he says today. "When people think globally, they feel helpless."
Instead, his Nature Challenge outlines 10 simple steps - like eating meatless meals one day a week or using nontoxic lawn products - and urges Canadians to commit to three of them."
IF I understand what Dr. Suzuki is saying he is suggesting that urbanites are "disconnected" from nature. This sounds like a testable proposition. My son and I enjoy watching his videos that show "where our food comes from". As a lifelong urbanite, this was news to me.
While Dr. Suzuki's general point has some merit to it, farmers are major polluters in the United States. Ample Nitrogen use, chemical fertilizer and disposing of animal waste. I have not seen an analysis of who has a larger day to day "ecological footprint"; the urbanite or the farmer?