3 ms·
Bollocks. It takes amazing amounts of oil to get the cheap stuff to the cities. The only reason these are more 'efficient' is because of arbitrary pricing - i
by mmjaa 8y ago
Bollocks. It takes amazing amounts of oil to get the cheap stuff to the cities. The only reason these are more 'efficient' is because of arbitrary pricing - if we placed a higher value on oil-consumption, in terms of cost to the Earth, the cheap plastic junk wouldn't be being subsidised by our childrens future.
I know its not a popular opinion, but the things that take so much oil to make and transport and deliver to the people, are there so that city people can live another day without pitching into the abyss.
Rural living is better for the Earth. If I can walk to my neighbour and get butter, instead of driving to a shopping mall (air conditions) to buy it from a source originally half a country away, please explain to me how this is 'more energy efficient'. It makes no sense whatsoever, unless one is simply so enamoured by the luxuries of city life that one can't see the forest for the trees.
Cities are expensive to build, maintain, and they are destroying our future. Abandon!
- chx 8y agoYour problem is going to be that you not only need butter but also need a myriad other things and only a few of those can be self sufficient in a small local community. Yes, we shouldn't truck things from half a country away but that doesn't mean the energy consumption / CO2 footprint at the end of the day will be lower for a sprawl than a dense city. Yes, cutting back to medieval times, wearing homespun, most amenties supplied by the local blacksmith and cobbler and some things supplied by traveling merchants , that'd obviously be more environmentally friendly. I doubt most people are ready to do that. And also -- Malthus would like to have a word with you. No way you can supply this many people with such technology. Yes, the ultimate green solution is to decrease the amount of people living on Earth but check how China did with the one child policy.
- Nasrudith 8y agoThe funny thing is that it isn't more friendly because efficiency produces big gains - look at just how much more land is required for organic farming vs conventional practices - let alone lower tech subsistence farming which amounts to 'slash and burn and then move on when the soil has depleted', heck even cooking fires produce far worse air pollution than propane stoves. Local and small scale may 'feel cozy' but they aren't efficient - they were abandoned for a reason.
- barbecue_sauce 8y ago>>instead of driving to a shopping mall (air conditions) to buy it from a source originally half a country away You should realize that population density makes it much easier to avoid driving long distances to get things, as distribution points can be centrally located. You seem to have an issue with vehicle-dependent suburban sprawl, which is justified, but ultra dense walkable "New Urban" cities are much better at resource distribution than rural communities.
- blotter_paper 8y agoYes and no. If we're still shipping food to Wal*Marts, then yes. If we're growing food locally, then maybe no. I get the whole economy of scale and specialization argument, but not all costs are comparable. A rural community growing and eating food doesn't necessarily have to burn gas. They might be poorer than if they did burn gas to import and export crops, but they can make trade-offs to reduce gas consumption that aren't available in high-density areas.
- kaishiro 8y agoWhere is your neighbor getting their butter?
- vetinari 8y agoProbably from a cow milk and a bit of manual labor. Making butter is not a rocket science.