From the carbon footprint of New Yorkers and the tiny fridges of Copenhagen to my own musings on rural green elitism, the consensus—here on TreeHugger at least—seems to be that city living trumps country living when it comes to environmental sustainability. But the debate is not over, and prompted by a readers' query, Leo Hickman over at The Guardian is busy crowd sourcing answers to this very question. His own take is that there must be some benefits to living in the country:
But there must be some environmental positives to country-living, surely? You can grow your own food, should you desire. And better source renewable solid fuels, such as timber. But, as David Owen points out, if everyone moved from cities to the countryside, it would likely trigger an environmental crisis as there just wouldn't be enough land to go round for everyone to live the "good life". So this question must also raise wider issues of equity about the ownership and availability of land and other natural resources.
As always, I suspect the answers are not going to be black and white. Head on over to The Guardian to weigh in with your opinions on whether it is greener to live in the city or the country, or feel free to continue the debate below.