3 ms·

There's a map here of per-capita carbon footprint per zip code: https://coolclimate.org/maps https://coolclimate.org/maps It seems to suggest that suburbs are

by mjn 7y ago

There's a map here of per-capita carbon footprint per zip code: https://coolclimate.org/maps https://coolclimate.org/maps It seems to suggest that suburbs are generally the biggest emitters per-capita. Inner cities tend to be fairly low and some rural areas are low too, though that varies (rural areas in the midwest seem to be high). If more people moved to rural areas, my guess is they'd start looking more like the suburban areas in energy usage, though.

dwiel 7y ago
Cool thanks. One interesting thing I noticed as a midwest town dweller, is that while my zip code rates quite low in population density (up there with houston) it's actually in the green as far as carbon goes. It seems that this is true of many of the smallish towns in the midwest (population < 500k). In general suburbs of large cities use vastly more carbon than towns with the same population density, not really that surprising. I guess the question then is it easier to have more small towns or to have high density cities without surrounding sprawl.
- pas 7y ago
  It'd be interesting to compare US settlements with many of their non-US counterparts.
pas 7y ago
Hm. Okay it's quite surprising that Manhattan is green. Maybe billionaires' row doesn't have it's own zip code. Also it's a US only map. It would be interesting to compare with cities like Amsterdam, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc. And of course the corresponding rural areas and small cities too.
- mjn 7y ago
  Having the lowest car-ownership rate in the US probably helps Manhattan's overall numbers. :-) Per-capita square footage (which directly impacts heating/cooling energy usage) is also fairly low by suburban standards, even in the rich parts of Manhattan. There are some big apartments on the Upper East Side, but most of them are still small compared to what you find in Westchester. I would definitely be interested in a more international version, too.

by mjn 7y ago

dwiel 7y ago

Cool thanks. One interesting thing I noticed as a midwest town dweller, is that while my zip code rates quite low in population density (up there with houston) it's actually in the green as far as carbon goes. It seems that this is true of many of the smallish towns in the midwest (population < 500k). In general suburbs of large cities use vastly more carbon than towns with the same population density, not really that surprising. I guess the question then is it easier to have more small towns or to have high density cities without surrounding sprawl.

pas 7y ago
It'd be interesting to compare US settlements with many of their non-US counterparts.

pas 7y ago

Hm. Okay it's quite surprising that Manhattan is green. Maybe billionaires' row doesn't have it's own zip code. Also it's a US only map. It would be interesting to compare with cities like Amsterdam, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc. And of course the corresponding rural areas and small cities too.

mjn 7y ago
Having the lowest car-ownership rate in the US probably helps Manhattan's overall numbers. :-) Per-capita square footage (which directly impacts heating/cooling energy usage) is also fairly low by suburban standards, even in the rich parts of Manhattan. There are some big apartments on the Upper East Side, but most of them are still small compared to what you find in Westchester. I would definitely be interested in a more international version, too.