Lucas Parrish - Econ 330

Edward Glaeser’s Triumph of the city: How cities make us Greener

-
Author and economist, Edward Glaeser writes in his book Triumph of the City the
relationship between urbanization and human lifestyles. He depicts urban density to provide
the clearest path to prosperity from poverty explaining, “it turns out the world isn’t flat; it’s
paved” (Glaeser p2). Giving credit to our system in how it has become our greatest invention in
maintaining an adjusted populace. More specifically, Glaeser argues that urbanization actually
helps promote a greener lifestyle for both humans and their environment. By living more
compactly, it will leave the environment better off from an excess of carbon emissions. When
we reside in apartments, take the bus, or ride our bikes in the workplace, we greatly save on
energy and produce far less discharge. Making it clear that suburban populations contribute
more to the carbon footprint than metropolitan districts. This idea is because dense living such
as apartments are connected together producing less heating and cooling than most standard
mid-class houses. Cities also have a wider range of public transit that relieves the environment
of the excessive need for vehicles. These vehicles in abundance take up more space and
contribute more to pollution than carpooling systems like buses or trains. Cities can ensure a
greener function by building up, and allowing preservation of the environment in outer regions
to be left alone.
Cities generally get a bad reputation when compared to other living conditions.
They can be seen as overpopulated, dangerous, dirty and near impossible to secure a place
with today's unlivable wages. Textbook places like Los Angeles noticeably show the effects of
pollution including smog, high heat and depletion of drinkable water. People can also easily
compare the high city traffic to the majority of the carbon emissions that seems to hurt
Glaeser's main argument. However, it is important to note the Lorax fallacy when comparing
cities to pollution. Such as the comparison to the book, The Lorax that depicts a city
capitalizing and destroying a once beautiful landscape for production. This fallacy claims that
cities are bad for the environment causing environmentalists to fight high-density development
to preserve green spaces. With this idea, conservationists that prevent construction in places
like the Bay Area are contradictory allowing development in exurban areas, leading to people to
drive out more. As we know, lower population density means more people traveling which
increases emissions. There are some environmental policies that recognize one aspect of a
problem but end up hurting the solution they had in mind. Glaeser suggests embracing
incentives like Ken Livingstone’s congestion charge, which adopts a global emissions tax. By
charging people for environmental damage, the money could also tie back into general support
to combat global warming. Introduced in London and Singapore, the tax significantly improved
city bus commuting, rather than single-drive vehicles.
However, there are other issues holding back the development of denser and more
affordable housing in cities. A majority of current residents and especially homeowners oppose
new expansion when their property is on the line. The term nimbyism (Not in my Back Yard)
becomes an issue for people not willing to allow their real estate to change or cut down to
Lucas Parrish - Econ 330

include more compact buildings. For example, people could welcome or demand for a new
health clinic but resist the idea of it being built near their home. Blocking any new infrastructure
from being built that in turn freezes neighborhoods with past architecture.
With the many problems in California cities, there is an underlying reason people adopt
habits that turn their state brown. Efficiency allows for people to conduct their way of life as
simplified as possible. When new things are introduced to make things more useful It is easier
to integrate into culture. The Jevons paradox states that when natural resources become more
efficient, the amount of that resource being consumed increases. This is especially true for
gas/coal powered engines that adapt into the main source of energy. When these gas powered
engines become more efficient, people will use more gas. Developing as a bad habit when
thinking of global emissions. Complementarity corollary as furthering a passive reliance to this
efficiency such as going through a drive through for food. Ultimately, using complementary
goods to this resource.
To turn this back around, urbanization can help solve a lot of these problems if they are
looked at a little closer. There is this notion that environmentalists live among trees and move
into the countryside to promote a healthier lifestyle over those living in the city. Unintentionally
hurting the landscape by their presence by not confining themselves to secured locations.
However, we do need to interact with nature as we are just a part of it, “Enjoying nature is
something of a luxury good, which may explain why environmentalism has grown stronger as
mankind has gotten richer”(Glaser p203). When we plan to create green spaces far away from
where people live, they will have to drive (and pollute) to get there. The most affordable solution
is to bring the countryside into the city with better urban planning. Introducing greenbelts may
serve urban growth when providing cities with parks, walkways, or waterfronts to bring in
nature. The reason why the majority of Americans move into suburbs is the combination of city
and nature that measures for the best landscape and experience. The dream is to be
surrounded by greenery that could be the dominant way of merging country into the city.
Nature benefits the most when people are far away from it. There is too much trouble in
imagining cities being the best case for environmental support when it's the most preferable
approach for a greener world. Glaser’s arguments for a denser lifestyle serve several benefits to
combat climate change and use alternatives for transportation. The United States is very
vulnerable to a destructive environment, and urbanization offers the cleanest path to prosperity.