3 ms·

Most pollution doesn’t come from “motors to move people”. Transportation is 14% globally and 28% for US, however that includes every kind of transportation - tr

Most pollution doesn’t come from “motors to move people”. Transportation is 14% globally and 28% for US, however that includes every kind of transportation - trucks, large ships, cars, trains, etc. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#Sector https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... Largest sector globally is industry and heat, followed closely by agriculture. Big cities may be superior in some respects, but they are also the symptom of a larger problem - it’s a lot more of us on this planet than were pre-industrial.

throwawaysea 7y ago
The downvotes for your comment makes no sense and highlights how ideologically sensitive HN has become. The biggest contributing factors to greenhouse gases and pollution more broadly are high per capita consumption (due to a modern standard of living that goes well beyond transportation) and population growth. And no, being in a city does not somehow make you magically more efficient to an extent that offsets the additional per capita impact.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  The per capita consumption is hugely magnified for people living in single family homes with yards and garages. That type of low density housing makes it impossible to create mass transit options, or even cycling and walking, all at the same time increasing distances of travel for everyone and subsequently all the infrastructure that has to be installed along that distance.
lhopki01 7y ago
I'll bite. Of those three industry and agriculture I can have no control over. Both are going to be roughly the same in the suburbs as in the cities. However heat is radically different if you live in an apartment than if you live in a detached house on a plot of land. Not only are you sharing walls with other people but also your living spaces tend to be much smaller. Smaller also tends to mean less 'stuff' which means less industry to produce such stuff. Smaller also tends to mean less building material which again reduces industry. That combined with the much reduced energy costs of transportation means that city living is much better for the environment than outside the cities.

throwawaysea 7y ago

The downvotes for your comment makes no sense and highlights how ideologically sensitive HN has become. The biggest contributing factors to greenhouse gases and pollution more broadly are high per capita consumption (due to a modern standard of living that goes well beyond transportation) and population growth. And no, being in a city does not somehow make you magically more efficient to an extent that offsets the additional per capita impact.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
The per capita consumption is hugely magnified for people living in single family homes with yards and garages. That type of low density housing makes it impossible to create mass transit options, or even cycling and walking, all at the same time increasing distances of travel for everyone and subsequently all the infrastructure that has to be installed along that distance.

lhopki01 7y ago

I'll bite. Of those three industry and agriculture I can have no control over. Both are going to be roughly the same in the suburbs as in the cities. However heat is radically different if you live in an apartment than if you live in a detached house on a plot of land. Not only are you sharing walls with other people but also your living spaces tend to be much smaller. Smaller also tends to mean less 'stuff' which means less industry to produce such stuff. Smaller also tends to mean less building material which again reduces industry. That combined with the much reduced energy costs of transportation means that city living is much better for the environment than outside the cities.