Environmental argument looms

Re: Remote workers benefit bedroom communities, May 2:

Mayor Peckford makes some valid points regarding forced attendance at work, but in my opinion her arguments are dwarfed by today's overriding concern: the health of Mother Earth.

When we compel attendance at the office, workers tend to live in proximity to work. Living in high-density clusters means less car use for everything from shopping to recreation. Statistically the healthiest people in the U.S. live right in downtown NYC. That makes sense when you consider that they walk everywhere because there is simply no parking. And living in a highrise is much cheaper, and more environmentally friendly, than living in a detached house. As a condo treasurer, I am acutely aware of the collective heating bill for the 100 units in our building.

It's a big bill, but on a per-unit basis. it's a fraction of what we paid when we lived in a detached house.

I grew up on the West Island of Montreal in a big house on a lot with maple trees, but every morning for 30 years, my father joined thousands of others and drove into the city to work. On the weekend, we drove to the A&P and hardware stores and everywhere. You do not have to sell me on the joy of suburban living. But the yearly fires in B.C. are a subtle reminder that the planet won't tolerate that behaviour anymore.

We need to live smarter, and that means denser. The government can show leadership by compelling attendance at work. Small-town living necessarily means a larger carbon footprint, and we simply cannot afford that anymore.

Ken Johnston, Ottawa