In Search of a City: What It Means to be Green
I keep reading about the development of “green” buildings on the outerbelt. Can a building really be “green” if it is part of an environmental catastrophe? Low-density sprawl consumes a huge amount of energy and land. Any environmental benefit from waterless toilets must surely be offset by the acres of SUVs parked outside the bathroom.
My favorite “green” company is Wal-Mart. The company that destroys walkable retails districts, fuels auto dependency, and probably belches more carbon into the atmosphere than any entity in the world from its shipping operations, now sells square milk cartons and concentrated detergent as part of its “green” initiative. Thanks, Wal-Mart!
In my mind, “green” is more than a few building or inventory modifications. “Green” is a lifestyle that involves owning less stuff, buying local, living in smaller houses and lots, and using public transit, bicycles and sidewalks. It is living close to work and within walking distance of retail services. It is recycling neighborhoods, including retail space, rather than building new.
“Green” takes some effort. A “green” Wal-Mart is an oxymoron.
Tags: "green" intiatives, Retail