For sure, I would hope that people do take all things into consideration before they make any such life choices, and I certainly applaud any effort to bust the myth that country living is greener. The more people want to live in productive, well-designed dense urban environments, the better.

I guess I was just concerned that the tone of your original post suggests a fairly prescriptive vision of what is/is not considered green. If we are going to bring people along for the green ride (and we have to, if the ride is going to be truly green), then we have to create a vision that suits a diverse range of people and, to some degree, their wants and needs. Many of those people will be delighted to live in a co-housing community, to work together in a community garden, or to live in a 700 square foot home. Many others will be more than happy to stump up $500,000 for a LEED-Gold certified downtown appartment. Others, for whatever reason, seem to want privacy, and the quiet of country life.

I honestly feel we can create green opportunities for all kinds of different tastes, personality types and commitment levels. It’s perfectly possible to create zero emission housing in town or country (of 700 sq feet or 2000); it’s pefectly possible to create decent mass transit systems, in town or country; it’s perfectly possible to grow vast amounts of your own food, in town or country. The first of these is probably just as easy wherever you are (though the size of the house obviously makes a huge difference), the second of these is clearly easier in town, while the third is arguably easier in the country.

I would also argue strongly that sharing surplus from your garden is serving your community. The informal economy is an absolutely vital part of any community, and plays a key role in cementing connections between people. If one person feels they are more suited to growing their own food, in their own way, then I can’t say I would begrudge them that desire. While community gardens, CSAs and the like are great, they are not without their own complications and drawbacks.

I have seen people garden plots of land collectively and produce a huge amount of food very sustainably. I have seen others trying to do the same and harvest only confusion, recrimination, and maybe a few mangy, slug eaten heads of lettuce. Likewise, I’ve seen folks take on a few acres of land and produce huge amounts of food, either for themselves and family, or for friends and community. I’ve also seen people take on similar plots and be overwhelmed, before giving up and just mowing twice a year instead.

As I drive through the country I see a varying landscape of monoculture fields, lifeless suburban lawns and the like. These areas hold vast potential for those with vision to make them more productive (as does that downtown abandoned city block). I would positively encourage those with the skills and desire to turn these wastelands green to populate the countryside. Similarly, I would positively encourage those with more urban green tendencies to take on their plot too - collectively or alone.

Each of us townies, and almost all country dwellers too, have a footprint vastly bigger than any acreage we own - most of it taken up by monocrops grown on our behalf by someone else. The Chinese have a proverb that says “the best fertilizer is the gardener’s shadow.” I think taking responsibility for producing at least some of what you consume is a beautiful thing. Whether you are suited to do it in the country or the town is, I would suggest, a matter for personal preference, but you are right in suggesting people should consider all the implications.

I just hope we can make the efforts necessary to make either choice a truly sustainable option, and I think part of that is accepting that either choice is valid.

As you said, most of these folks don’t actually plan on being “self-sufficient”,
they just want their space, which serves only themselves. Others have
intentions of growing a lot of food or becoming otherwise more
sustainable, but don’t manage to get there due to lack of funds,
change of jobs, whatever. So, the powerlines and waterlines, roads,
schools, malls, and the rest are bound to follow.

There are numerous ways to change this scenario - like creating a
healthy landscape that can feed, educate or otherwise invite or serve people or animals.
Unfortunately, most people don’t offer up their
space even part-time to the community. Sharing leftovers from a
garden with neighbors is nice but not actually serving the community.
Now, start a CSA or community garden and you’re on to something!

Planning to work online so as not to commute to a job is well-
intentioned, but things are not always that simple. Add a kid to the
mix and, well…even if you home school, there’s lots of trips to and
from doctors, dentists, sport and social events, family visits and so
on.

I agree that it’s a nice balance for people to live in different ways
—- but the sudden rush to get away and “do my own thing” is
disconcerting. I just hope people take all things into consideration
before they leap to what they feel is more affordable and/or alluring in the moment.
Even better, they could consider that combining a dream for spacious,
greener living with friends or like-minded people - as in co-housing or intentional communities - could be more
“affordable” for the environment, too.

And coming at a time when J and I are house hunting and trying to work out what the heck we are doing, it’s useful for me to think this through (especially given Carrboro house prices!). I would certainly agree with you as far as self-sufficiency being a misnomer - co-dependency is a much more inspiring and fulfilling route to take. I also agree that towns and cities, and encouraging urban density, and new urbanist approaches to walkable, liveable communities offers a huge boost for sustainability. However, I wouldn’t slam the back-to-the-landers too much, especially in this day-and-age. I’ve actually never met anyone who really was going for self-sufficiency, even when they use the term. Most people are motivated more by a desire to find time and space where they can take control of certain aspects of their lives, and they are serving their community in doing that. They often also find communities all around them in the country to plug into - it’s not just us city folk who talk to our neighbors!

A few other points to consider:

Firstly, the amount of acreage you own does not really equate to an ecological footprint, it’s what you do with that acreage. For example, if one person buys 10 acres, paves it over, or plants a monoculture lawn, that seems like a pretty disasterous result for the biosphere (and personal taste!). However, someone else might take that acreage and convert it into a wildflower meadow; a sustainably managed woodland coppice; set aside woodland; or a mushroom farm, to name a few options. Like it or not, a huge proportion of our landscapes are managed landscapes, and often these have huge biodiversity and conservation value. So people who are motivated to manage these landscapes well, and with minimal impact, should be welcomed into the countryside - they are very far from the suburban hell of days gone by.

Secondly, in general, lower impact farming and landuse requires a good deal of human labor to make up for less fossil fuels, less mechanisation and increased complexity of plantings, crop rotations, and diversity of animals etc. So well managed, diverse, permaculture small holdings are likely to be way smaller than traditional farms, and are likely to straddle a line somewhere between farm and self-sufficent gardening. If someone produces a surplus half a dozen eggs, a few jars of honey and ten trillion zuchinis (there are ALWAYS too many zuchinis) which they share with their neighbors, does that make them a farmer or a back-to-the-land householder? I’d say the distinction is pretty academic - the act of producing food for yourself or those around you is MASSIVELY liberating and of huge ecological benefit. Yes, that can also be done in the city, but the fact is that many people do not do it in the city - if folks really do move to the country, start raising their own meat, keeping some chickens, whatever, then it shouldn;t be overlooked as significant, just because they also drive a car.

In many cases, rural living may also be more affordable, allowing folks the opportunity to take control of their built environment, and with buildings accounting for a rediculous proportion of our GHGs, I don’t think we should overlook that fact - if someone can afford to build truly green in the country, or can barely afford to get get a house in the town; or if the country offers opportunities for sustainably managing your own land for energy crops etc, these factors are all important in decision making.

Also, there are ways and means to deal with physical distance. Firstly, those who take the whole back to the land thing seriously often end up supplying a huge amount of their own food, cutting down on transport to and from the store, packaging, processing of goods and shipping (and I believe our food supply accounts for somewhere like 25% of our overall footprint - though I can’t remember the exact figure). Secondly, the joys of telecommuting mean that it’s perfectly possible to live without that daily commute for many people. Thirdly, with a little forthought and cooperation, we can build systems for sustainable town AND country living - mass transit, car share, supporting independent village stores, more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels etc, all these things are tools that can be used to create sustainable lifestyles that fit a diverse range of people’s wants and needs.

I’m not saying your points about increased distance and reliance on fossil fuels aren’t important factors in considering where to live, and I do think well-designed urban living can be among the most sustainable in the world. I also know that you can grow a HUGE amount of food in the urban environment. However, I also know people living some pretty darned low-impact lives on the land. It’s just a question of how you do it. I would certainly LOVE to see more dense, urban, eco planning, but I somehow doubt that the future will be populated purely by communities of urbanites, simply being fed by a satellite community of isolated farmers. Sustainability is about diversity, adaptation and flexibility - I applaud the folks who are doing it in the city, but I also applaud those who are making a go of it in the country. Both are valuable and worthy objectives.

I’d just hate for the environmental movement to be going down that route of the prescriptive “This is how you should live” once more. We’ve done it too many times before and it doesn’t work. It’s much more productive to be knowingly aware of the challenges and benefits of living sustainably in an urban environment and, likewise, in a rural one, and then doing our damndest to help design systems, tools and methods for enabling and encouraging people to live their dreams sustainable, whether they be budding city folk, or refugees from the urban jungle. One-size-fits-all sustainability is dead in the water.

Phew- quite a rant. It’s a subject dear to my heart and a constant source of interesting pondering, so thanks for brining it up.

Cheers,
Sami