There’s a big problem with the argument that people don’t have to give up some of their standard of living in order to live sustainably. It depends on which people you’re talking about. Unfortunately it doesn’t really apply to the decision makers and developers who build buildings and determine what cities will look like. Their standard of living is already absurdly high and it’s subsidized by wasteful polluting energy sources, the wars we fight over them, the industries that subsidize those sectors, the exploitation of workers, the exploitation and ruination of land and climate and the disaster capitalism that profits from it, the list goes on and on, etc.

To live sustainably we’ll need to upend certain energy/political power structures (oil/weapons manufacturers/conservatives – for example) that are very wealthy and who’s leaders live incredibly lavish and therefore wasteful lifestyles.

While it’s true that average people’s lifestyles would probably be overall better (more healthy and enjoyable) if sustainability were more common, the rich people who build buildings and who run our planet would have to sacrifice a fair amount of their luxurious lifestyles (including ridiculous things they even take for granted at this point like 4th homes) in order to pay for these better buildings and better cities for the rest of us.

That’s the underlying problem. Optimism isn’t enough to change the bottom line on why things aren’t changing despite the market necessity for them to change. The people who’ve got their thumbs on the scale aren’t going to let up. They’ve made that patently obvious in conservative politics recently.

Maybe in Denmark the wealthy are willing to be better humanitarians, and that’s great, and it’s probably why they have the happiest people on the planet according to the yearly ranking. But in America, China, Germany, etc… the wealthy aren’t willing to give up anything. They only want more. And they want it by forcing average people to make more sacrifices, not fewer.

We’re certainly not seeing any hint that our wealthy are seriously interested in making the lives of average people better via green buildings, cities, working conditions, etc. Why? Because it’d mean their absurdly cheap profit driven developments would have to cost more. Their investors won’t accept smaller dividends.

Some of our more liberal leaders are always advocating for a better life for the 99%, but they’re overwhelmed by the number of wealthy people in America who are just callous and corrupt and wasteful, and became rich precisely because they were callous and corrupt and wasteful.

Is it just me, or did he in fact not explain how to not give up a portion of our comfortable lifestyle? To me he just said that we must not, then just presented his projects. The projects are good projects, but they do not address, that for example: the Copenhagen-Malmö area do have the possibility to construct this type of infrastructure because of economical strength of the region. The same does not apply to other, not as rich parts in the world. His proposals are only possible in a economically unbalanced world. Sweden / Denmark are vitally dependent of other countries doing their dirty work for them, for example production of goods on terms Scandinavians themselves would never accept.

…Moving a sculpture from Denmark to China is a very sustainable idea…

By the way, Bjarke has a bike, but also he owns a Porsche.

Can you see the hypocrisy?