4 ms·

> This might mean that those living less sustainably may have to pay more. I would strongly urge you to be careful with this language. Don't be so quick to ass

> This might mean that those living less sustainably may have to pay more. I would strongly urge you to be careful with this language. Don't be so quick to assume folks living rural/suburban lifestyles are living any less sustainably. These folks are what make city living possible in the first place. And city folk have plenty of huge-CO2-footprint problems of their own that everyone conveniently forgets, because it isn't literally dumping gasoline into an automobile.

criddell 8y ago
> Don't be so quick to assume folks living rural/suburban lifestyles are living any less sustainably. I wasn't thinking only of carbon footprint, but also of things like electricity and water hookups. The cost to provide basic utilities in rural areas has to be a lot higher per capita than in the city.
icebraining 8y ago
> I would strongly urge you to be careful with this language. Don't be so quick to assume folks living rural/suburban lifestyles are living any less sustainably. If they aren't, they don't have anything to worry about when very unsustainable practices are abolished. > These folks are what make city living possible in the first place. A minority are, and they'll have to charge more for those services. > And city folk have plenty of huge-CO2-footprint problems of their own that everyone conveniently forgets, because it isn't literally dumping gasoline into an automobile. What are some examples of those city-specific CO2 problems?