Disruption

Someone I was talking with at the post-lecture reception said that a lot of us were already at the place that Professor Sennett is talking about. I think that's true, but not so many, otherwise you couldn't have Ford Motor Company advertising about the green SUV. (See "SUVs Are Not Cool, Unless They’re “Hybrid Hybrids”," from Streetsblog.

The point isn't driving more green, it's living more sustainably.

For awhile I used the term Sustainable land use and resource planning (SLURP), because I really don't like the term smart growth, although in some sense I suppose the best term is compact development. By definition, compact development has work and residential destinations located within, and mobility is optimally oriented to non-automobile forms.

The reason I get so tired of people talking about green buildings is because the real point is energy use overall, and as long as you drive to and from your green building, does it really matter?

I am thinking that "green" is the new "new urbanism"--meaning terms that have become so overused and mis-calibrated so that they end up not meaning that much.

E.g., as long as new urbanism is mostly about building new subdivisions on previously undeveloped land, it adds to the problem.

As long as green buildings are located in areas where they add to the automobile load, they don't add much benefit to the system.

Just like the Center for Science in the Public Interest, with regard to health behaviors, says "the most important health behavior you can change, after not smoking, is to eat less fat," the most important sustainable living behavior you can adopt is to (for the most part) not drive an automobile.

Next would be to not use materials that consume tremendous amounts of energy in order to be created,