Garden Cities and ‘Green Evolutionary Settlements’
Ebeneezer Howard’s plan for Garden Cities
Finding ways of living, that do not challenge life on Earth, is urgent and difficult – and it is urgent. I interrupted
this to write Climate change:It’s still worse than you think
because what follows is influenced by a horror of what
we are doing. ‘We’ meaning us in the rich world – and
we have set bad examples for so-called developing nations
Rereading ‘It’s still worse’, I find it rather limp. The
situation is so bad that probably even Kevin Anderson,
one of the most ‘alarmist’ scientists, is a bit softcore.
But note what he says:
“If you drink half a litre of beer with
a politician or scientist they will tell
you how bad it is – but if you put a
microphone there they will tell you
some optimistic nonsense about
My “It’s still worse” reports just a few of my frustrating
experiences in grappling with the official mainstream
line. They (whoever ‘they’ are) aren’t being straight
The situation is quite desperate.
I’m glad I’m old and will die before the worst.
Here I compare the well established idea of Garden Cities with a different, ‘Green Settlement’, approach.
I enjoy the view from the top of the Clapham Omnibus.
I’m in the middle of writing a piece on Green Settlements and just realised that some of the argument is driven by the urgency of climate change but the mainstream media and many scientists – who tend to be media favorites – won’t tell us the awful truth. Politicians speak to issues that they hear on the doorstep or get from focus groups – focus groups that will be unaware of the urgency.
This is a placeholder for a more considered piece – If I ever get around to it.
Land is now worth £5.4 trillion, which amounts to 53pc of all wealth in the country. This is up from one-third of net assets in 1995, and means land is close to its record high share of 53.3pc of total worth, which it hit in the boom years of 2006 and 2007.
Housing wealth makes up 17.8pc of the UK’s net worth, and added to land this takes the two to a total of 70.7pc of net assets.
Agrees further that an equitable sharing of the environmental costs and benefits of economic development between and within countries and between present and future generations is a key to achieving sustainable development;
One of the consequences of the UN resolution is: One nation must not have a high carbon lifestyle and rely on other nations to have low carbon lifestyles. That’s not “equitable sharing”.
It’s hard to see that the lifestyles of motorists are compatible with continued life on Earth.
Let me give an example: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation got researchers at the University of York to look at the new development at Derwenthorpe, York, using their REAP Petite software. Derwenthorpe was meant to be sustainable and have a low carbon footprint but it achieved a planet-destroying footprint of 14.52 tonnes CO2e per resident per year. This was worse than the average for York as a whole, which was still planet-destroying at 14.30 tonnes CO2e.
I have a series of posts on DontLookNow.org looking for solutions to the housing crisis. Solutions should be cheap, friendly and don’t screw the world up. Using the Sherlock Homes method of eliminating the impossible, the best answer so far seems to be car-free estates of wooden prefabs – with inbuilt market gardens.
Improve these prefabs with modern cross-ply timber…
‘If you drink half a litre of beer with a politician or scientist they will tell you how bad it is – but if you put a microphone there they will tell you some optimistic nonsense about climate change.’