City vs. Country: the Concrete Jungle is Greener

By: Jacquelyn Saturno

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827851.100-city-vs-country-the-concrete-jungle-is-greener.html?page=1


In the New Scientist article “City vs. Country: The Concrete Jungle is Greener” (08 November 2010) the author, Shanta Barley, starts off by stating the negative impacts that rural areas have on the environment. Her claim throughout the entire article focuses on the belief that urban areas are more environmentally friendly as opposed to living in the rural areas.

“Indeed, there are many reasons to expect that cities might actually reduce each individual's carbon footprint, all of which hinge around the fact that cities concentrate people close together rather than spreading them thinly across the landscape... This mass exodus from the countryside should lift the strain of intensive agriculture from the land, allowing forests to bounce back. What's more, the high concentration of houses and businesses in cities means it is easier for local authorities to run an energy efficient infrastructure for sanitation, running water and electricity.” (Barley 2010)

Barley believes that the environments greatest threat is the amount of clearings that are taken place for the farms that require open and clear space. Cities are dense and concentrated in a small area and therefore require little land. She has also stated that our carbon foot print can be reduced in cities because of the reduction of car use. Her last claim focuses on an economical point of view. Those who move to the city will be well-off and will have a better chance at a comfortable and sustainable lifestyle.


When I read this article I had a problem with Barley’s belief and understanding with major causes of environmental impact. Although I can’t disagree that rural areas use up more land than urban areas do, I cannot come to terms with accepting that urban areas are more environmentally friendly, based on her argument anyway. Barley blames agriculture for the loss of ecosystems that had to be removed in order for us to farm. In her article she makes an implication that the removal of farms will restore our biodiversity and increase everyone’s wellbeing. It appears that Barley has forgotten the essential importance for farming and why agriculture benefits society as a whole. Agriculture creates the raw materials that are essential to us, whether it be for food, clothing, etc. The amount created depends on the demand. The more consumed, the more produced. This requires fertilizers to grow crops faster and constantly reusing the soil in order to produce higher quantities and meet the needs of consumers; this is not very environmentally friendly. In wealthy cities, like New York, city dwellers consume more than their capacity can take. They create all this waste and continue to consume more. How will limiting agriculture keep up with the amount of intake an average city dweller has? If we remove enormous masses of agriculture land and have country-dwellers migrate to cities, as suggested by Barley, then our dependence on other countries’ raw material will take place.


In this article, one of the claims is that our ecological footprint will reduce if many more people lived in urban areas. In cities, less car pollution is created because of how condensed everything is. However, since everything is condensed, smog has been given a chance to form. The impact of smog is taken into affect almost instantly. Unlike global warming, smog is an environmental problem that has a direct effect on us. It causes harmful health risks like lung cancer and other respiratory problems. Not only does it affect those residing in cities, but as smog travels it also becomes harmful to ecosystems and rural areas that are at a far distance. The actions of people in cities are connected to the well-being of ecosystems and people throughout a nation.

In this article, another claim was made regarding the boost that the economy will encounter when families leave rural areas and reside in urban ones. There will be a greater chance for families to escape poverty and many more people will be properly educated and obtain better opportunities for a career. However, this may be true for cities with wealth and power but there are cities of the developing world that have one of the worst living conditions. This can be caused by lack of clean drinking water, overpopulation in a dense area, and the lack of consistency of garbage that is collected. Barley’s article ignores the environmental effect of what would happen if majority of the world’s population lived an urban lifestyle. She focuses only on economic growth and family benefits for those who reside in wealthy cities.


In conclusion, Barley’s argument targets towards how urban areas are more environmentally friendly than rural areas. Barley’s claims were weak without strong evidence to prove that city dwellers do not affect the environment as much as country dwellers. Neither lifestyles are perfect in sustaining the environment but it is almost certain that the damages generated by urbanization weigh more. The contribution to the enormous amount of waste that is created, the health risks and all the developing countries that wouldn’t benefit from urbanization were ignored. While the claims to back up Barley’s argument may be true, they are not strong enough to come to the conclusion that the effects of urbanization is environmentally correct and will benefit everyone.


References
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827851.100-city-vs-country-the-concrete-jungle-is-greener.html?page=1
http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8570
http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Environmental_Problems/smog_-_effects.html
http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/insight/jan-01/4.asp