7 ms·

This is literally the exact opposite of what an environmentalist would want in terms of urban growth and planning. Environmentally friendly planning means you h

This is literally the exact opposite of what an environmentalist would want in terms of urban growth and planning. Environmentally friendly planning means you have housing near where people work to avoid highly polluting long commutes. The problem is NIMBY bullshit in the purest sense. People will use every excuse in the book to prevent new housing in their neighborhood. While a fair amount of the time environmental policies are abused to block development, zoning laws are also abused, parking/ land use legislation, hell I've seen houses blocked because they increase the shade in a park by 2% for half an hour during the evening. None of this is "environmentalism", its rich people standing on a high hill screwing over everyone else beneath them.

turk73 7y ago
I just love how all these Kali liberals are just such incredible hypocrites. It is astounding to watch. They blame everyone else but themselves and double down whenever challenged and then run headlong into these untenable situations. My liberal Kali relatives care about one thing and one thing only: The value of the two properties they own! They are their retirement nestegg and must be protected at all costs. Plus, they prance around like multi-millionaires based on those illiquid assets.
Aperocky 7y ago
Ah, so exactly what happened with Hong Kong and their public housing. Blocked by homeowners who don't want their real estate to go down in value. Now it's one of the most expensive place in the world with New Territory largely empty.
- api 7y ago
  Property owner cabals blocking development like this is cartel capitalism at the local level. What you have here is a cartel restricting supply to profit from scarcity.
sbierwagen 7y ago
>Environmentally friendly planning means you have housing near where people work to avoid highly polluting long commutes. Vehicle miles driven doesn't make as big of a difference as one might expect. A paper[0] I saw linked on reddit had an interesting graph: https://imgur.com/a/n7u8fGH https://imgur.com/a/n7u8fGH In this paper, what carbon emissions you lose by not driving you gain from building emissions. Maybe because the study area was New York, with more fuel oil-heated buildings? Presumably, decarbonized heating and electricity generation would make a difference, but New York state already is pretty good by that metric: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/newyork/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/newyork/ (Though nowhere near carbon neutral, or carbon negative, as would be required for keeping global warming to 2C) --- 0: Andrews, C. J. (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions along the rural-urban gradient. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560802423780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560802423780 If you don't want to buy the PDF, then visit the crow site.
- MrMoenty 7y ago
  I think part of the problem of this graph is that it attributes commercial building emissions to the municipalities in which they are placed, even though these buildings might be used by residents and commuters alike. So if you move into the city instead of commuting, you might be using the same commercial buildings a before, but their emissions are suddenly attributed to you.
- zamfi 7y ago
  I think you missed the central point of this paper. It's true that there is an offsetting factor of building energy use vs. VMT, but the reality remains that denser environments, with jobs near residents, emit less per capita -- as that graph you linked to shows. What's surprising is that at the other end of the spectrum, in rural (not sub-urban) areas, other factors (forests, etc.) combine to cause lower per-capita emissions than suburbs (and in some cases, negative per-capita emissions because of sequestration). Basically, from a carbon-emissions perspective, post-war suburbs are unsurprisingly worst, rural areas get some help from sequestration in forests (this fact being the contribution of the paper), and dense urban environments are the least-emitting.
BurningFrog 7y ago
It's not rational environmentalism, but I'm sure a lot of NIMBYs are honestly convinced they're fighting for Mother Earth, and the simultaneous explosive value increase of their home is purely coincidental. Motivated Reasoning is a hell of a thing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
- joe_the_user 7y ago
  GP: Curse those environmentalists Parent: This obviously isn't environmentally friendly or motivated and the opposite of what an environmentalist would want. You: Well, they believe they're being environmental, even if it's self serving BS (here, let define self-serving BS).
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    One realization that's helped me a lot: Yes, people talking self serving nonsense are lying. But they're primarily lying to themselves!!! Essential book: https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyday/dp/0190495995 https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyda... TED talk version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V84_F1QWdeU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V84_F1QWdeU
    - joe_the_user 7y ago
      Yes, people talking self serving nonsense are lying. But they're primarily lying to themselves! When we're talking this kind of phenomena, we certainly using language at a very high level of abstraction. But the "color" of how one expresses one's self matters even more. What "primary" means here is key, for example. People talking self-serving nonsense often believe what they're saying, maybe more than someone taking a rational position ('cause rationality involves some self doubt). The main question, in a sense is "are these people 'out to get us'?". On the one hand, one can give the defense, "they aren't consciously trying to put their interests ahead of yours and aren't trying to deceive you" but there's the other factor that this sort of strategy can be the very best strategy for people putting their interests ahead of you and /or deceiving you, which makes them your most effective enemies. I mean, if you dig deep down, the terrible people "are victims too". Does that mean you shouldn't blame them? Well, the terrible people need to be defeated and punished appropriately, in a judgmental way, to prevent them from doing the stuff we don't like and to fill those who might consider it with fear (still non-judgmentally).

turk73 7y ago

I just love how all these Kali liberals are just such incredible hypocrites. It is astounding to watch. They blame everyone else but themselves and double down whenever challenged and then run headlong into these untenable situations. My liberal Kali relatives care about one thing and one thing only: The value of the two properties they own! They are their retirement nestegg and must be protected at all costs. Plus, they prance around like multi-millionaires based on those illiquid assets.

Aperocky 7y ago

Ah, so exactly what happened with Hong Kong and their public housing. Blocked by homeowners who don't want their real estate to go down in value. Now it's one of the most expensive place in the world with New Territory largely empty.

api 7y ago
Property owner cabals blocking development like this is cartel capitalism at the local level. What you have here is a cartel restricting supply to profit from scarcity.

sbierwagen 7y ago

>Environmentally friendly planning means you have housing near where people work to avoid highly polluting long commutes. Vehicle miles driven doesn't make as big of a difference as one might expect. A paper[0] I saw linked on reddit had an interesting graph: https://imgur.com/a/n7u8fGH https://imgur.com/a/n7u8fGH In this paper, what carbon emissions you lose by not driving you gain from building emissions. Maybe because the study area was New York, with more fuel oil-heated buildings? Presumably, decarbonized heating and electricity generation would make a difference, but New York state already is pretty good by that metric: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/newyork/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/newyork/ (Though nowhere near carbon neutral, or carbon negative, as would be required for keeping global warming to 2C) --- 0: Andrews, C. J. (2008). Greenhouse gas emissions along the rural-urban gradient. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560802423780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560802423780 If you don't want to buy the PDF, then visit the crow site.

MrMoenty 7y ago
I think part of the problem of this graph is that it attributes commercial building emissions to the municipalities in which they are placed, even though these buildings might be used by residents and commuters alike. So if you move into the city instead of commuting, you might be using the same commercial buildings a before, but their emissions are suddenly attributed to you.
zamfi 7y ago
I think you missed the central point of this paper. It's true that there is an offsetting factor of building energy use vs. VMT, but the reality remains that denser environments, with jobs near residents, emit less per capita -- as that graph you linked to shows. What's surprising is that at the other end of the spectrum, in rural (not sub-urban) areas, other factors (forests, etc.) combine to cause lower per-capita emissions than suburbs (and in some cases, negative per-capita emissions because of sequestration). Basically, from a carbon-emissions perspective, post-war suburbs are unsurprisingly worst, rural areas get some help from sequestration in forests (this fact being the contribution of the paper), and dense urban environments are the least-emitting.

BurningFrog 7y ago

It's not rational environmentalism, but I'm sure a lot of NIMBYs are honestly convinced they're fighting for Mother Earth, and the simultaneous explosive value increase of their home is purely coincidental. Motivated Reasoning is a hell of a thing! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning

joe_the_user 7y ago
GP: Curse those environmentalists Parent: This obviously isn't environmentally friendly or motivated and the opposite of what an environmentalist would want. You: Well, they believe they're being environmental, even if it's self serving BS (here, let define self-serving BS).
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  One realization that's helped me a lot: Yes, people talking self serving nonsense are lying. But they're primarily lying to themselves!!! Essential book: https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyday/dp/0190495995 https://www.amazon.com/Elephant-Brain-Hidden-Motives-Everyda... TED talk version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V84_F1QWdeU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V84_F1QWdeU
  - joe_the_user 7y ago
    Yes, people talking self serving nonsense are lying. But they're primarily lying to themselves! When we're talking this kind of phenomena, we certainly using language at a very high level of abstraction. But the "color" of how one expresses one's self matters even more. What "primary" means here is key, for example. People talking self-serving nonsense often believe what they're saying, maybe more than someone taking a rational position ('cause rationality involves some self doubt). The main question, in a sense is "are these people 'out to get us'?". On the one hand, one can give the defense, "they aren't consciously trying to put their interests ahead of yours and aren't trying to deceive you" but there's the other factor that this sort of strategy can be the very best strategy for people putting their interests ahead of you and /or deceiving you, which makes them your most effective enemies. I mean, if you dig deep down, the terrible people "are victims too". Does that mean you shouldn't blame them? Well, the terrible people need to be defeated and punished appropriately, in a judgmental way, to prevent them from doing the stuff we don't like and to fill those who might consider it with fear (still non-judgmentally).