Re: [pf] we took the wrong track, in the '50s and '60s

by Sharon Flesher

08 December 2000 02:55 UTC

Betsy wrote:
> This was Alan Thein Durning in one of his books, I think it was _How Much
Is
> Enough?_, or maybe it was in an article. He was referring to, and I think
> specified, the European lifestyle of about 20 years ago, not today, as
Europe
> today is looking more like the U.S. than it used to. I believe it was
mainly two
> things that Durning felt made that lifestyle Earth-friendly and
sustainable:
> smaller living space per person, and very different transportation
choices.
> European cities tend to be compact and therefore lend themselves to
> non-auto-use; what cars there are tend to be *much* smaller and more
> fuel-efficient than the average American car. And houses/dwellings with
fewer
> square feet are exponentially more efficient to keep warm, lit, etc. than
the
> mini-mansions that are the upscale standard now in the ex-urban U.S.
>
Thanks for the reference-reminder, Betsy.

Of course, I would agree with Durning on both points. I rattle on enough
about cars, so I'll skip that subject this time in favor of a comment on
housing. I live in a house that's much larger (1800 sq ft) than my family of
4 needs, so I'm coming at this from a certain hypocrisy. But I'm often
outraged at what many people believe to be the minimum size home necessary
for a "decent" standard of living. My next door neighbor, with one less
family member, moved out of her house roughly equal to the size of ours last
year because they were feeling "way too squished" and into one of those
ex-urban mini-mansions. Other neighbors of varying family sizes have moved
for the burbs, citing the same reasons. One neighbor I fear has made a
drastic mistake, moving because they claimed they could no long afford the
upkeep on their 100-year-old house and wanted something new, energy
efficient and maintenance free. Having moved TO and old house FROM a new
house, I tried to explain the fallacy of their thinking, but my arguments
fell on deaf ears.

Probably anyone who has ever owned or knows someone who has owned a new
house has heard enough horror tales of shoddy workmanship, etc., so I won't
regale you with mine. But one thing that totally surprised me was how much
our heating bill went down when we moved into our 100-year-old house. This
house is just slightly smaller than our previous, new house, and we have the
same natural gas company, so the rates did not change. But our heating bill
has been almost HALF what it was in the previous, new house -- and, I'm
comparing two mild winters in the 100-yo house with a mild winter in the new
house. This didn't make sense to me at first because the new house had
high-E windows and lots of insulation, while this house has lots of drafts
and 100-yo leaky windows (although we do put storms up for the winter). But
the new house had vaulted ceilings, which must have been the culprit.
Vaulted ceilings are pretty much standard fare in new houses these days.

> So it's very much a matter of design--not just individual lifestyle
choice, but
> the need to change the way the "hardware" of our society is designed and
built.

Yes, we need to attack these problems on multiple fronts. I think it's very
important that those of us who reflect on these concerns take pains to
ensure that we make responsible lifestyle choices, realizing, of course,
that we will have varying degrees of success and may choose to indulge our
desires for creature comforts in our own individual ways. People do this not
because they are martyrs or are even convinced it will make a difference
(although didn't someone -- and of course, I can't think who again -- say
that revolution is the spontaneous combustion of lots of individual
actions?), but because living in a way that they believe is *right* is
deeply satisfying and a reward in its own right. People who practice
sustainable lifestyles also can serve as a role model for others.

At the same time, we need to advocate for deep societal changes that will
enable others who have even the slightest interest to make sustainable
choices. In transportation, we advocate for "hardware" change such as
compact land-use and investment in transit. But our personal lifestyle
choices need to reflect our beliefs and our advocacy, even if it results in
some inconvenience. (The satire in the Onion this week was that 98 percent
of Americans support public transportation for other people. I could laugh
except that I suspect it might really be true!)

Sharon Flesher
CarSharing Traverse, Inc.
Traverse City, Mich.
sflesher@traverse.net

"Be the change you wish to see." M.K. Gandhi