I hadn't thought of the utility use/accessibility that you'd brought up, interesting.
But just to elaborate on the land conservation that I'd brought up, the location matters, conserving 90% of the areas people don't want to live doesn't make up for developing other habitats because those other habitats that developers like to develop are also important, if not arguably more important since maintaining these ecosystems can actually allow more people to live by them.
For instance mangrove forests protect Florida coastlines from storm surge, by cutting them down and not conserving a decent proportion of them your cities can get fucked by storm surge. Or in the case of Southern California by developing habitat that has small burns regularly you risk having large uncontrollable burns now next to development when you put out every small fire.
For instance mangrove forests protect Florida coastlines from storm surge, by cutting them down and not conserving a decent proportion of them your cities can get fucked by storm surge.
I agree. Although this then becomes very regionally specific and functionally we're talking about making the exigent city sustainable rather than just maintaining the biosphere generally speaking. In theory, you can have it both ways with even more artificial infrastructure. The only economic question is whether you think a man-made jetty or other barrier is more cost efficient than simply not tearing out all your mangroves.
Coastal real estate (particularly vacation real estate) also tends to be much more densely developed than inland properties. Building a twenty story high rise on the coast isn't superior to a McMansion, particularly if the high rise is accompanied by a mile-long stretch of peer buildings. Hell, the McMansion might be better simply because the resident is more likely to preserve the natural character of the property they just purchased.
Although this then becomes very regionally specific and functionally we’re talking about making the exigent city sustainable rather than just maintaining the biosphere generally speaking.
I agree that it's regional specific on some level, cities protected by mangroves in Baja or India can be treated the same as in Florida, though not everywhere has mangroves. But it's important to maintain them because most people live along waterways so maintaining wetlands for their ecosystem services is generally important.
The only economic question is whether you think a man-made jetty or other barrier is more cost efficient than simply not tearing out all your mangroves.
That's fair, but it's also more than just pure economics, when you remove these ecosystems it's difficult to bring them back so there's a hidden cost of making a miscalculation. It's also regional in the west you can maybe afford to build a levy and maintain it, but in other parts of the world it could make more sense "economically" to leave them there, presupposing that economics are the only thing to take into consideration, which I don't think you were saying but far too often people disregard the intrinsic value of maintaining nature.
Building a twenty story high rise on the coast isn’t superior to a McMansion, particularly if the high rise is accompanied by a mile-long stretch of peer buildings. Hell, the McMansion might be better simply because the resident is more likely to preserve the natural character of the property they just purchased.
I see where you're coming from but I think the car culture associated with suburbanization (McMansions) is a greater factor when you have fewer high rises.
I'm an ecologist from Southern California, it's a suburban hellscape. People wouldn't know this, but Southern California is a biodiversity hotspot, there are more species of plants and animals per area there than in most parts of the planet. It's also highly and unnecessarily developed, which fragments many of the unique ecosystems that occur there, putting them in danger of going extinct largely due to the way that we develop. It's not due to habitat development perse, just the way we choose to develop under a capitalist organization of the economy.
I hadn't thought of the utility use/accessibility that you'd brought up, interesting.
But just to elaborate on the land conservation that I'd brought up, the location matters, conserving 90% of the areas people don't want to live doesn't make up for developing other habitats because those other habitats that developers like to develop are also important, if not arguably more important since maintaining these ecosystems can actually allow more people to live by them.
For instance mangrove forests protect Florida coastlines from storm surge, by cutting them down and not conserving a decent proportion of them your cities can get fucked by storm surge. Or in the case of Southern California by developing habitat that has small burns regularly you risk having large uncontrollable burns now next to development when you put out every small fire.
I agree. Although this then becomes very regionally specific and functionally we're talking about making the exigent city sustainable rather than just maintaining the biosphere generally speaking. In theory, you can have it both ways with even more artificial infrastructure. The only economic question is whether you think a man-made jetty or other barrier is more cost efficient than simply not tearing out all your mangroves.
Coastal real estate (particularly vacation real estate) also tends to be much more densely developed than inland properties. Building a twenty story high rise on the coast isn't superior to a McMansion, particularly if the high rise is accompanied by a mile-long stretch of peer buildings. Hell, the McMansion might be better simply because the resident is more likely to preserve the natural character of the property they just purchased.
I agree that it's regional specific on some level, cities protected by mangroves in Baja or India can be treated the same as in Florida, though not everywhere has mangroves. But it's important to maintain them because most people live along waterways so maintaining wetlands for their ecosystem services is generally important.
That's fair, but it's also more than just pure economics, when you remove these ecosystems it's difficult to bring them back so there's a hidden cost of making a miscalculation. It's also regional in the west you can maybe afford to build a levy and maintain it, but in other parts of the world it could make more sense "economically" to leave them there, presupposing that economics are the only thing to take into consideration, which I don't think you were saying but far too often people disregard the intrinsic value of maintaining nature.
I see where you're coming from but I think the car culture associated with suburbanization (McMansions) is a greater factor when you have fewer high rises.
I'm an ecologist from Southern California, it's a suburban hellscape. People wouldn't know this, but Southern California is a biodiversity hotspot, there are more species of plants and animals per area there than in most parts of the planet. It's also highly and unnecessarily developed, which fragments many of the unique ecosystems that occur there, putting them in danger of going extinct largely due to the way that we develop. It's not due to habitat development perse, just the way we choose to develop under a capitalist organization of the economy.
That's all very fair and true and I agree.