In December 2006, protestors claming to represent the interests of the environment established residence in a grove of mature oak trees adjacent to Memorial Stadium in Berkeley, California. Their objective: to prevent the University of California from removing the oak grove to construct an athletic training facility. Supporting them in their endeavor are such reputable organizations as the Sierra Club, the California Native Plant Society, and the California Oak Foundation. The tree-sitters even have a website for their cause: http://www.saveoaks.com.
On the surface, the action of the protestors could seem like a bold, principled action to protect an important terrestrial ecosystem. Indeed, the felling of a mature oak grove is not an act to be celebrated. However, due to unintended consequences of the protestors’ actions, they are greatly damaging the cause of environmental protection, and producing a net loss to the environment.
In my previous post, I summarized our key arguments. Today, let’s examine the unintended consequences to understand what went wrong, beginning with the problem of promoting sparse development:
Reason 1: Promoting Sprawl
Protestors believe they are protecting the environment by impeding the construction of the athletic center on the site of the oak grove. But what would happen if protesters successfully prevented the construction on the site of the oak grove?
The university will still build the athletic center, and would need to find an alternative location to do so. What consequences would such an alternative carry? The short answer is:
Because it would promote sprawl, an alternative placement of the athletic center would actually be worse for the environment. How could this be?
- Close proximity preserves campus walkability. The university claims that the oak grove is the most suitable site for the athletic center, since the center needs to be close to Memorial Stadium to provide athletes with accessibility to classrooms and other nearby athletic facilities. From a human standpoint, this is a sensible, credible claim, since the athletic center would best serve the needs of student athletes if it were conveniently located in close proximity to academic and athletic facilities.
- Alternative sites would also displace ecosystems. An athletic center built at an alternative location would impact an ecosystem of its own (unless the location were a brownfield, in which case expensive remediation would be required); like the oak grove, this ecosystem would also be damaged or destroyed by the building of the athletic center. However, as opposed to the University-favored oak grove site, an alternative site for the athletic center would be located at additional distance from the existing athletic and educational facilities.
- Distance replaces walkability with energy-intensive transport. With an athletic center located at an additional distance from facilities (alternative sites thus far suggested have been Golden Gate Fields Racetrack in Albany, Edwards Stadium on the opposite end of campus, or the Oakland Coliseum), athletes would no longer be able to walk to and from the athletic center and other athletic and educational facilities in a sufficiently brief time span to allow them to attend classes and fulfill other obligations. At a minimum, this would force the university to establish a shuttle service from the current to new location, and encourage some athletes to drive cars to and from practice and training sessions. These buses and cars would burn oil, further lining the pockets of oil companies and spewing carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the air. Not exactly a favorable outcome for friends of the environment.
Although it seems counterintuitive to many environmentalists, dense development is actually far more environmentally friendly than sparse development (i.e., sprawl). Americans have approximately twice the ecological and carbon footprint of our comparably wealthy European counterparts in large part because our inefficient use of land resources causes us to drive automobiles for the vast majority of our daily transportation needs. Let’s examine the following simple example:
Colonia, a newly discovered island, has an area of 100 acres, all of which are inhabitable but currently covered by wilderness. Along comes a colonial ship carrying 100 families on board. Which settlement model would be environmentally more efficient and preferable:
- Option A, where each family were assigned a one-acre plot with which to do as they pleased; or
- Option B, where the 100 families settled into a town with a land area of two acres, used eight acres for agriculture and resource production, and left the remaining land unsettled?
Not only would Option A’s Colonia damage the environment far more severely, it would also be far more expensive to construct and maintain than Option B’s efficient arrangement. Instead of wasting their wealth on transport necessary to perform basic tasks, the inhabitants of Option B’s Colonia would be free to spend their money elsewhere.
Unfortunately, America has largely followed the development path of Option A’s Colonia. In fact, the description of Option A bears striking resemblance to homesteading, the original method of settlement of much the western United States.
Our residences are separated from our workplaces, social spaces, and commercial destinations by distances far greater than we can reasonably walk. We rely on oil-hungry, pollution-spewing cars to accomplish even simple tasks like purchasing groceries. In order to reverse car dependency, we must institute intelligent land use policies that prevent sprawl, develop densely, and promote walkable, livable communities.
Once we follow the dense development path, we will be both:
- Healthier, due to increased exercise and decreased pollution; and
- Wealthier, due to the time and money we reclaim from traffic jams, collisions, insurance, and fuel costs.
New building construction on any site will displace an intact or partially intact ecosystem, but construction under a dense development strategy conserves resources, reduces pollution, and provides health benefits as indirect consequences. The construction of the athletic center on the oak grove site would preserve walkability for student-athletes and support staff, while the construction of the athletic center on the proposed alternative sites would encourage vehicle use.
Therefore, from an environmental and economic perspective, an athletic center sited next to an existing stadium is far preferable to a sprawling campus extension or an off-campus, commute-necessitating site.
In my next post, I will examine the opportunity cost of tree-sitting.
Furl this page 
No comments:
Post a Comment