3 ms·

I realise new buildings are carbon intensive, but does anyone have the knowledge to do a back-of-the-envelope comparison of carbon emissions if these super-comm

I realise new buildings are carbon intensive, but does anyone have the knowledge to do a back-of-the-envelope comparison of carbon emissions if these super-commuters were to move in to high-density housing that enabled them to walk or cycle to their jobs.

djrogers 9y ago
That presumes they'd want to live in high-density housing, doesn't it? There is high density housing available with shorter commute times already at costs similar to low dessnity housing further out. Granted, it's not zero commute, but I' not sure how much difference that would make. Some people choose a lifestyle for their families that differs from what might be optimally efficient, for reasons that other's don't prioritize as highly.
- usaar333 9y ago
  +1 these commutes reasonably have cost (including time cost) of over $1000 a month. From a pure economic standpoint, they could afford closer housing.
chrischen 9y ago
New buildings sequester carbon, especially if it doesn’t use recylced wood. Additionally high density housing and cities are vastly more energy efficient than sprawling suburbs based on at least one simple factor: cars.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  In what sense do large high density housing projects sequester carbon? They’re typically made from a lot of steel and concrete, both of which are carbon intensive. No one will be building high density housing from recycled timber any time soon.
  - chrischen 9y ago
    Totally possible: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscrapers-timber-trend-catching-fire-duplicate-2/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscrapers-timber-... Large housing projects require less material and construction than low density housing. Why? Because low density housing is essentially doing a relatively giant housing project per person, spread over way more physical distance. People have to live somewhere, so if high density housing isn't made then they have to live in energy and resource wasting low-density housing. That being said, living in high density will always be more energy efficient as less energy is wasted on locomotion for people, less energy is needed to service garbage pickup/disposal, less electricity is needed for heating/cooling, less material to construct a habitable unit, less energy is wasted transporting people to their work, less energy is wasted getting food to people (one grocery store to serve a whole high density area rather than a large distributed network of grocery stores), less energy wasted on food delivery (delivery driver can just go to one building versus driving the car around the suburbs)... and the list goes on.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
      Yes I realise this, it’s just that you said: New buildings sequester carbon Carbon sequestration is usually meant to mean carbon emissions are locked up in something, typically CO2 pumped in to a stable geological formation. Whereas my point is that new buildings are carbon emissions insensive.
heurist 9y ago
What high-density housing?
2RTZZSro 9y ago
Implying high-density housing exists
dcosson 9y ago
From what I understand this is a hot topic in environmentalist organizations. Higher density areas do objectively have a lower carbon footprint per person. I believe this is true without even factoring in commutes, because even things like heating and water (no lawn to water, etc.) are used less when people live in denser buildings. Adding in cars of course only makes this difference bigger. But the old-school environmentalist, classic "tree-hugger" types have been going around for decades with the attitude of basically just saying no to as much as possible, any type of concrete structure or large development to them is automatically bad. Of course all this leads to is more suburban sprawl and a higher carbon footprint per person, but as long as it happens in places they don't see these people seem happy to ignore it. See for example, the Sierra club in SF which seems to now be basically a NIMBY group devoted to preventing any new buildings from going up because they might partially block views or cast shadows over existing things.

djrogers 9y ago

That presumes they'd want to live in high-density housing, doesn't it? There is high density housing available with shorter commute times already at costs similar to low dessnity housing further out. Granted, it's not zero commute, but I' not sure how much difference that would make. Some people choose a lifestyle for their families that differs from what might be optimally efficient, for reasons that other's don't prioritize as highly.

usaar333 9y ago
+1 these commutes reasonably have cost (including time cost) of over $1000 a month. From a pure economic standpoint, they could afford closer housing.

chrischen 9y ago

New buildings sequester carbon, especially if it doesn’t use recylced wood. Additionally high density housing and cities are vastly more energy efficient than sprawling suburbs based on at least one simple factor: cars.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
In what sense do large high density housing projects sequester carbon? They’re typically made from a lot of steel and concrete, both of which are carbon intensive. No one will be building high density housing from recycled timber any time soon.
- chrischen 9y ago
  Totally possible: https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscrapers-timber-trend-catching-fire-duplicate-2/index.html https://www.cnn.com/style/article/wooden-skyscrapers-timber-... Large housing projects require less material and construction than low density housing. Why? Because low density housing is essentially doing a relatively giant housing project per person, spread over way more physical distance. People have to live somewhere, so if high density housing isn't made then they have to live in energy and resource wasting low-density housing. That being said, living in high density will always be more energy efficient as less energy is wasted on locomotion for people, less energy is needed to service garbage pickup/disposal, less electricity is needed for heating/cooling, less material to construct a habitable unit, less energy is wasted transporting people to their work, less energy is wasted getting food to people (one grocery store to serve a whole high density area rather than a large distributed network of grocery stores), less energy wasted on food delivery (delivery driver can just go to one building versus driving the car around the suburbs)... and the list goes on.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
    Yes I realise this, it’s just that you said: New buildings sequester carbon Carbon sequestration is usually meant to mean carbon emissions are locked up in something, typically CO2 pumped in to a stable geological formation. Whereas my point is that new buildings are carbon emissions insensive.

heurist 9y ago

What high-density housing?

2RTZZSro 9y ago

Implying high-density housing exists

dcosson 9y ago

From what I understand this is a hot topic in environmentalist organizations. Higher density areas do objectively have a lower carbon footprint per person. I believe this is true without even factoring in commutes, because even things like heating and water (no lawn to water, etc.) are used less when people live in denser buildings. Adding in cars of course only makes this difference bigger. But the old-school environmentalist, classic "tree-hugger" types have been going around for decades with the attitude of basically just saying no to as much as possible, any type of concrete structure or large development to them is automatically bad. Of course all this leads to is more suburban sprawl and a higher carbon footprint per person, but as long as it happens in places they don't see these people seem happy to ignore it. See for example, the Sierra club in SF which seems to now be basically a NIMBY group devoted to preventing any new buildings from going up because they might partially block views or cast shadows over existing things.