So I have long deemed myself as a conservative and I still do. I believe in free trade, small government, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms. I believe the constitution was a great document and I think we should stick to it. Despite my strong conservative leaning, there are a few things that I feel that us conservatives are afraid of just because the idea sprang up on the liberal end. What I want to talk about in particular is the green movement. Sometimes it seems like a lot of us conservatives want to avoid anything to do with environmentalists pursuits because it would associate them with liberals.
I just don't see how the green movement needs to conflict with the conservative agenda. The green movement is a movement against waste. If you asked a person if they were in favor of using more than they needed they would all say "No." Yet, if you were to ask somebody to make an effort to drive less you may not get the same reaction.
I must admit that I am guilty of some hypocrisy. I live a grand American lifestyle. I commute to work back and forth 80 miles a day and I like to take long showers. I am the kind of consumer that the green movement is trying to stop. But I have heard the call and I want to make an effort and maybe even a few sacrifices in order to make a contribution.
The biggest contribution we could all make to help preserve our environment and conserve resources would be to stop driving. If we stopped driving we wouldn't need huge freeways. If we stopped driving we wouldn't have traffic. If we stopped driving pollution would disappear.
But of course that idea is ridiculous because we all live 10 to 20 miles away from where we work. We need to survive, so we need to work. To get to work we need transportation. In America if we want to get somewhere we need to drive. Our vast country has been designed for cars. Asides from our oldest cities which are relatively small and depend on public transportation, people expect that they will have to drive to where they need to go. Most good job opportunities are normally inconveniently located a fair distance from our home and require some sort of commute.
I grew up in the Mojave Desert on the outskirts of the Inland Empire. It was a place people moved to because of the affordable housing. A person could get double the square footage for a home where I lived for the same price they would pay to live closer to the cities or the coasts. It was great that the housing was cheaper but I knew people that would commute nearly 2 hours each way to get to their work. That is nearly a tank of gas every day. Not only that, but when everybody has a big lawn and a swimming pool we use 10 times as much water as we actually need. The luxury we live in is astounding and we don’t even realize it.
My Solution, Live in a City:
Why is it that the American dream is to live in a big house with a big car and big yard? Why can't we live in a big apartment, use public transportation, and use the local park? Is life really diminished by living in a smaller space? If more people were OK living in apartment buildings then we wouldn't have traffic like we do today and good public transportation would surely follow if enough people would use it. We could fit so many more people into such a small space and have so much more land to use for other things.
VS.
An apartment may not come with the yard and it may be a little smaller than what you could find in a house but that doesn't mean your life will be less enjoyable. Life isn’t diminished by having less. In reality it is enriched in some ways. A while back I totaled my truck, lost my cell phone, had my heart broken and found myself feeling more liberated than ever. Knowing I had nothing to lose was one of the most empowering feelings I’ve ever had. Having everything for ourselves is the wrong dream to aspire to. Moving into an apartment doesn't have to be a huge sacrifice. The only thing I see that will need to be sacrificed is a yard. If you are concerned that you will never be able to own your apartment then try finding a condo! For those that feel the city is not safe then they should consider moving into a safe part of the city!
You will spend less money on gas. You will spend less money on cars. You will spend less money on water. You will have an entire city as your front yard. You will have big parks nearby to use. You will be just as happy as if you were to live somewhere else.
I think people with an insatiable love of nature and the outdoors are justified in purchasing a traditional home out where they can go explore nature. But for those of us that like nature but don’t need to be out in nature all the time can just take weekend trips.
Apartments and skyscrapers shouldn’t be viewed as symbols of environmental destruction but should rather be viewed as beacons of environmental preservation and efficiency. Per person, cities use far less resources and are much more efficient. When a lot of people live in a city it is possible for the government to provide good public transportation which leads to a decreased use of cars which decreases our dependency on oil and frees up the freeway. In the next 50 years our population will probably double but the infrastructure will probably not be able to keep pace. For us to do something about this we need to be willing to use less.
I don’t think we need to reduce the quality of our lives to preserve resources at this point because there is still a lot out there, but as the only intelligent creatures on the planet it falls upon us to be the responsible stewards of the earth and prepare for the future. If people would be willing to forgo having a yard we could potentially live a much more sustainable life with much less waste.
.jpg)
