To replace your urban gray, do more sustainable redevelopment today. One project on one lot simply isn't enough to create the dramatic community-wide and city-wide changes that are urgently needed. 🏗️🌏
Companies being permitted not to operate sustainably in a comprehensive social, environmental and economic sense may try to narrowly categorize their own business continuity at nature's expense as economic "sustainability" and hide behind CSR reports, plans and targets.
@Greenflow The Canadian Forests website lists around 50 NGOs in Canada's forest sector: https://t.co/IgjcggXLQv
Some promote close-to-nature forestry and selective forest management principles.
Perhaps Pro Silva is connected with one or more of them through partnerships or associations?
Tree planting programs which involve transplanting monoculture trees that aren't maintained and don't last aren't sustainability initiatives. They're greenwashing initiatives.
@Greenflow Many thanks for highlighting this example. Some believe Slovenia's 95% natural forest regeneration is "20 times more cost-effective than artificial planting." 👇
Regenerating ecosystems for the long-term definitely goes beyond just (trans)planting trees.
https://t.co/BqthMDfumS
Do you want to live in a 'more sustainable city' or in a 'sustainable city'?
Sometimes 'more' is less. Officials may try using positive-sounding language, data, statistics, plans, promises, and future goals or targets to distract you from their lack of sustainable redevelopment.
Destroying environments of scale with unsustainable development-based economies of scale cannot continue.
Expanding environments of scale through sustainable redevelopment to permanently achieve bio-based economies of scale is the only way forward.
Doctors that help improve their cities with sustainable redevelopment can write fewer prescriptions for ailments associated with unsustainable development - including depression, obesity, consequences of vehicle collisions, and illnesses from pollution and toxicity.
Broad terms and buzzwords often hide whether funding announcements are for unsustainable development or sustainable redevelopment.
Insist on sustainable redevelopment that adds nature and makes the world better with:
- "improvements"
- "upgrades"
- "investments"
- "innovation"
Your government leaders may say they say they're investing in growth, jobs, housing and infrastructure, but...
Is it nature-erasing, waste-creating, unsustainable development? Or is it regenerative, nature-adding, sustainable redevelopment?
Insist on sustainable redevelopment.
Unsustainable development replaced forests, wetlands, wildlife and local agriculture with toxic, polluting, sprawling & harmful industries.
Sustainable redevelopment replaces toxic, polluting, sprawling and harmful industries with forests, wetlands, wildlife & local agriculture.
@rohde88 When industrial uses aren't toxic, polluting or harmful (e.g., the kind that leave brownfields behind), clean and green industry can often co-exist with residential uses. 🙂
Some say it's all about affordable housing.
For others, it's all about green energy.
Some insist it's all about climate action, while others believe health or growth are all that matter.
Sustainable redevelopment achieves ALL of these and more, so start there and work together.
When you build too much time of the wrong infrastructure, you build too much of the wrong legacy: burdened, polluted, unfriendly, unfair.
Sustainable redevelopment removes and replaces that infrastructure. Be part of the positive change. #Legacy
Even under proportional representation, authority keeps getting assigned to keeping and expanding unsustainable development.
The real issue isn't reds vs. blues. The real issue is unsustainable development vs. sustainable redevelopment.
Sustainability starts with redevelopment.
Too often, the political left and political right are like the left and right sides of the same vehicle speeding toward the same unsustainable development, which only sustainable redevelopment can fix. #Duopoly