Climate change has been a big issue over the past few years with governments across the world debating how they can contribute to reducing carbon emission. That may be a step to reduce climate change on a bigger scale, but what about on a lower level?

In essence, climate change isn’t just about reducing carbon emissions. It’s only part of the solution. One thing that I’ve observed over the last decade is the increased amount of city infrastructures such as housing units and major arterial roads. You may be asking why I’m even mentioning urban development when it doesn’t contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions. Well, maybe not the housing units but the arterial roads certainly do.

Adelaide, Australia – October 30, 2013

Lets just say, for argument’s sake, that the government decides not to build an expressway in the middle of the city. We can be sure of one thing – construction workers won’t be uprooting trees to clear the land in order to build the expressway. We know for a fact that trees act as a filter for carbon waste. They absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen. That is a scientific fact. So, in essence, the untouched trees are already providing part of the solution to the climate change issue.

Now, again lets assume that unoccupied houses are not bulldozed to clear the land to build residential units and commercial buildings. Most of these houses will contain a front and backyard – which are more likely to have trees in the middle of both. With a quick drive around the city these days, you’re more than likely to see that these poor houses have been knocked down and trees uprooted to make way for monstrous housing units that, not only look ugly, but leave little room to replace the trees that have been uprooted in the first place. By the same token, these residential housing units and commercial buildings could have saved already established trees if they hadn’t been built in the first place.

While people may argue that governments reducing carbon emission are still the best way to go in order to reduce climate change, they can not ignore the fact that the demolition of council land to make way for the concrete jungle destroys any chance of redemption Mother Nature had to begin with.

Of course, trying to convince housing developers not to uproot trees for the sake of saving the environment may be an uphill battle. After all, it is their livelihood and they will argue that people need to have somewhere to live. However, what is the point of building somewhere for people to live if the city they live in becomes unbreathable from carbon emissions?