Andrew P.’s Wespeak “Could ’green’ destroy culture?” (Feb. 19) suggests that the propagation of “the green city template” may “accelerate the homogenization, and even destruction of, cultures around the world.” We should not worry that such a catastrophe could result from this new trend, but should be hopeful that it can preserve cultural diversity.
Masdar City is carefully planned to be sustainable, carbon-free, car-free, and waste-free. Do smoggy aromas, car horn symphonies or trash-festooned streets constitute valuable cultural characters? Not in my opinion. But, Andrew argues, the careful planning of urban settlements will be constrained by environmental considerations, forcing them towards homogeneity. I disagree, since the spread of green planning does not threaten to destroy existing cultural differences between people. There are many ways to achieve the environmental goals of a green city (no cars and/or carbon offsets and/or alternative power sources, etc.), so planners will have ample flexibility to incorporate culturally appropriate houses of worship, artistic design, colors, vegetation, eateries, recreation space, etc. While Andrew might view these as “superficial,” I believe they are some of the most valuable characters comprising the essence of culture.
Furthermore, green planning has great potential to preserve cultural diversity. Pollution in the form of acid rain or smog is constantly destroying cultural artifacts, something the green city can change. On a more somber note, the non-sustainability of daily actions worldwide (which may have a lot to do with the Western consumptionist model of development) threatens to drive whole peoples to extinction, rendering cultural diversity a romantic chapter in our children’s textbooks. The green revolution is one institution among few that offers hope.
Leave a Reply