But large yards are no longer de rigueur in this country. As documented in the first post in this series, a recent survey of over 7,000 Americans ages 18 to 54 found that over 90% of renters with plans for more children wanted to own homes - but the survey did not find a preference for homes with bigger yards over smaller yards. Across every demographic subgroup, safety/low crime was by far the single most important neighborhood trait, especially for families with children or with plans to have more. Good schools ranked second for people with children, followed by walkability. Note that neighborhoods with large lots tend to be less walkable.
Single-family homes could be built on already developed lands (infill), such as abandoned industrial parks, and in some less developed areas, such as pasture previously used for cattle grazing. I envision these as dense developments that would not cause the suburbs to grow “exponentially”. The states could impose environmental impact fees on single-family home developments for funding land acquisition projects elsewhere to protect wildlife and create wildlife corridors. These fees need not be exorbitant. For example, in California the average cost of farm and ranch land is around $13,000 and $6,000 per acre, respectively. A per acre cost within that range could then be the basis for environmental impact fees for conservation land acquisition projects, passed on to developers and incorporated into the price of new homes, somewhere between $1,000 - $2,000 each, based on a lot size of 4,000-5,000 sq ft.
Several surveys have documented that most families in the U.S. and many other countries prefer living in single-family homes, detached or attached (e.g., townhouses). What’s the attraction? Here’s one explanation:
“Challenges surrounding building fewer large homes or more multifamily homes mostly relate to policy and societal norms.” - Berrill & Wilson (2022) Decarbonization pathways for the residential sector in the United States
American families are generally receptive to living in single-family homes on small lots, as long as they have at least three bedrooms. Unfortunately, densifying cities typically limit the construction of single-family homes and often bar new housing developments on previously undeveloped land (“greenfield”), creating a housing shortage for local families. Without an adequate supply of suitable housing, many of these families will end up moving away when they’re ready to buy a home.
When choosing the best home for their family, respondents overwhelmingly preferred to have at least three bedrooms. Researchers did not find not a preference for bigger yards over smaller yards.
In 2004, 31% of American voters self-identified as independents, less than either Democrats or Republicans. Twenty years later, 43% identify as independents, much higher than either Democrats or Republicans, both sinking under the weight of voter dissatisfaction at just 28% each. The trend is obvious…
“The inhabitants of a particular town are much better acquainted with its wants and interests than with those of other places; and are better judges of the capacity of their neighbours than of that of the rest of their countrymen. The members, therefore, of the legislature should not be chosen from the general body of the nation; but it is proper that in every considerable place a representative should be elected by the inhabitants.” (Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, 1748)
“Political liberty is to be found … only when there is no abuse of power. But constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it, and to carry his authority as far as it will go.” - Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws
Climate change is mostly about bad weather becoming worse over time, to the detriment of humans and the rest of the biosphere. However, one doesn’t have to believe in climate change to care about bad weather and its impacts. Nor does one need to believe in climate change to want to fix problems associated with today’s bad weather. And since problem-solving capacity builds over time, whatever is learned fixing today’s problems will help us fix similar problems in the future.
The same goes for fossil fuel companies and the meat industry. Yes, these are businesses whose main interest is profit and survival. I don’t expect them to willingly self-destruct. That doesn’t mean they can’t be allies on some environmental issues, eg, reducing methane emissions. But I don’t require that they really care about these issues. Environmental allies don’t need to be pure of motive as long as they contribute…
Granted climate change skeptics are unlikely allies in the fight against climate change, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be allies for other environmental causes. One can doubt the existence or seriousness of climate change and still care about protecting wild habitat and endangered species. Why not?
Some may feel that optimism undermines the spirit of political activism and thus makes people less open to “structural change”. This is not an unreasonable proposition: if optimism is based on positive experiences, why would anyone want to hobble a system that has improved the quality of life for so most of humanity?
What I find surprising is the sharp rise in public concern about the environment during the pre-Covid Trump administration, despite the administration’s anti-environmental rhetoric, aggressive deregulation and cost-cutting measures. Apparently, the administration’s top-down messaging was unable to override the inclination of Americans to care more about nature when bread-and-butters worries subside.
“News organizations increasingly use the terms “climate emergency” and “climate crisis” to convey the urgency of climate change; yet, little is known about how this terminology affects news audiences...[The results of our study] showed no effect of terminology on climate change engagement; however, “climate emergency” reduced perceived news credibility and newsworthiness compared to “climate change.” …No interactions with political ideology were found.” - Feldman & Hart (2021) Upping the ante? The effects of “emergency” and “crisis” framing in climate change news.
Grandiosity refers to a sense of specialness and self-importance that might lead you to:
boast about real or exaggerated accomplishments
consider yourself more talented or intelligent than others
dismiss or try to one-up the achievements of others
believe you’re above rules or ordinary limits
fail to recognize that your actions could harm others
lash out in anger when someone criticizes you or points out a flaw in your plans
— from “What is Grandiosity?”, PsychCentral
The following list is from “Adaptation Actions for Water Utilities” (Environmental Protection Agency. December 10, 2024). The EPA actually lists 49 adaptation actions and includes numerous examples and links. Read it while you can.
AI technologies can be used to analyze large amounts of data and identify patterns that aid in selecting superior plant varieties used in plant breeding to accelerate crop improvement and develop new varieties with higher yields and greater resilience to climate changes, such as more frequent and severe periods of drought.
AI Overviews are a wonderful tool but shouldn’t be considered the final word on a topic or query. They are, however, a good place to begin an exploration.
With that in mind, I’ll start subsequent Survive and Thrive posts with an AI Overview on the topic under consideration and then proceed to whatever more I’ve found out in my own explorations.
A year ago I posted Some Tips for Living in a Warmer World, which was rather long on dire predictions and short on tips. I hope to flesh out those tips in this series.
“A sanity-preserving maxim among observers of Mr Trump is to pay attention not to what he says but to what he does. Better yet, pay attention not to what he says or does but to what the courts allow him to do. By this standard, Mr Trump’s first-month frenzy is likely to fall well short of a constitutional crisis. (The Economist, Donald Trump is a reckless president, but not yet a lawless one. February 22, 2025)