Environmentalism & Development Series, Part Three: The Aspirations and Impacts of Green Development
In this third part of our Green Development series, we discuss some of the ways that development can be “green” as well shed a light on how even “green development” can impact the environment. You can read Part Two, Misconceptions About Environmentalists Opposing Developments by clicking here.
Development projects, whether they are residential, commercial, or industrial, can be needlessly impactful on the surrounding environment, as well as the global environment without prior planning and mitigation. Even the actual building has impacts. Construction materials need to be harvested, machines need to be operated, and the development site prepared. So, in a world that constantly is remaking itself, how are we to development while mitigating these impacts on the environment?
The movement for sustainable development is driven primarily as a response to climate change. Sustainable development does not just focus on environmental impacts, but also considers social and economic impacts as well. Green development is a pillar of sustainable development. Green development focuses on reducing consumption of resources, reducing emissions, and preserving the environment, and safeguarding animal habitats as best as possible. Green development is not an aspirational goal, but it is needed to ensure the continued survival of humans and animals alike.
The green development movement is fundamentally a scientific one which corresponded with increased knowledge about human impacts and initially prompted governmental action. For example, the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, which was enacted in 1970, requires federally funded development projects to complete Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements before proceeding with the project. While the agencies are not limited to choose the most environmentally friendly or least-impactful option, it does force the government to consider, and make a scientific evaluation over, environmental impacts when creating development plans for projects. The Endangered Species Act, also enacted in the 1970s, requires similar scientific evaluations. It requires any governmental agency that carries out, funds, or authorizes projects that may affect a listed endangered or threatened species to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure their activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, or destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat. (Also look at Clean Air Act; Clean Water Act; Coastal Zone Management Act; Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, etc.)
In large part, at least in the United States, environmentalists saw great success in preserving and protecting the environment after people took notice of what was happening and science caught up to warn of us the dangers of our actions. However, those initial success have paved the way for polluters and destroyers to argue about the necessity of green development. They may rhetorically ask, “If the river is no longer on fire, the farmland no longer destroyed by acid rain, and the air of cities are not as visibly smoggy, then why do we still need to do more?”
Part of the reason is that there has been a general erosion of laws that prevent dirty development. Another is that the previous rules that guided developers never considered climate change. While the science on pollution in air and water as well as impacts to ecosystems had made great strides by the time many of the environmental laws were enacted, our knowledge of the human impact on climate change was still developing. For instance, outside of the research labs, climate change would not be discussed as a serious concern for decades. This aversion has carried well into the period where some politicians now deny the objectivity of science and science-based approaches to our governance.
However, the impacts of these changes are already noticeable in regions where erosions of safe, green, and sustainable development practices have taken place. Look no further for direct evidence of this than the suffering and destruction inflicted upon the communities and victims of Hurricane Harvey in Texas.
The argument against green development is always one of costs, but it is crucial to factor in everything that should be in the equation. For example, the costs and impacts of flooding in Texas will always weigh in favor of green development. Preparation is expensive, but it is less expensive than paying to clean up after the damage has been done.
What actual actions can make developments green?
- LEED Certification. LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is the most widely used green building rating system in the world. The program provides a framework for designing and constructing buildings that are highly efficient and sustainable. LEED certification is available for nearly all types of buildings.
- Incorporating natural environmental concerns, such as cohabiting among native wildlife and highlighting existing landscape quality and features.
- Incorporating reclaimed or recycled building materials as well as minimizing pollution and emissions at the construction site.
- Analysis of housing density and increase in suburban sprawl; including analysis of impacts to communing and transportation requirements.
- Incorporating energy generation into the development.
- Landscaping choices to reduce resource use and increase ecosystem viability for native species.
Green development is not simply restrained to residential or commercial buildings, but also extends to sources of energy generation, infrastructure, or other projects. Obviously, development projects to build a new coal-fired power plant would not be green, but there is more to consider than the type of energy or project. Renewable energy generation, such as solar panels and wind turbines, are so cost-competitive that even some developers who traditionally relied upon fossil fuels are choosing to incorporate renewable energy into their business models due to the profitability.
However, renewable energy sources still impact the environment. For example, solar power generating stations may end up being built on hundreds of acres of desert ecosystems far from cities that require roads, powerlines, and other infrastructure that divide up sensitive habitats in addition to clearing the hundreds of acres needed to install the panels. Even setting up solar power generating stations on what was once agricultural farmland can have a negative impact to the environment for wildlife and soil quality. Wind turbines, likewise, can be installed in sensitive ecosystems or in migratory bird pathways that end up killing already imperiled and endangered species. Even sourcing the rare earth elements and materials for solar panels and wind turbines can cause significant environmental degradation if procured from unscrupulous strip mines using immense fossil fuels that divert and pollute water resources. Each of these impacts can be mitigated with reasonable cost measures:
- Windmills can be built outside of migration routes, use vertical turbines, small scale turbines, offshore, or use shrouds to minimize bird strikes.
- Solar panels can be installed in smaller scale installations, on rooftops, along roadways, or other non-invasive methods.
- Materials for energy projects can be sources from more sustainable mining projects and increased recycling projects can be implemented to repurpose rare earth elements from old electronics.
- Mines can have strict reclamation requirements and not be allowed to self-bond to ensure sourced materials don’t cause ecological degradation or pollution.
In sum, there is no one single path that developers must take in pursuing green development; instead, it requires consideration of many factors and many impacts in order to choose way to develop that doesn’t cost us our future. The green development movement is fundamentally scientifically sound but also balances environmentalist principles alongside economic reward. Green development, therefore, is not only fiscally responsible, but also facilitates a more harmonious existence between humans and the natural world that not only secures our future but creates a brighter one.