6 ms·

> Nobody considers the carbon impact of building a 400sqft / 350mp home today, the lawn, the asphalted driveway, etc. They'll build it, drive a Prius or a Model

by bpizzi 6y ago

> Nobody considers the carbon impact of building a 400sqft / 350mp home today, the lawn, the asphalted driveway, etc. They'll build it, drive a Prius or a Model X, and sleep thinking they save the world one car at a time. There may be a big difference thought: you build your home once or twice per lifetime (even less if we look at it on a macro POV), whereas you spit C02 in the atmosphere every single day by commuting to work. I won't do the math, but I'd bet the second scenario as a far more CO2 cost that the first one.

close04 6y ago
My point was that people literally do not think of the impact of their other actions because all they see around them is "buy an EV to save the climate and show you care". The average new passenger ICE car puts out ~120g CO2 per Km (a smaller car/engine even less). [0] At EU's 12000Km/year driving average that's <1.5t CO2/year. A house (in the UK but likely representative) is estimated to generate 50-80t of CO2 to be built. [1][2] One can assume that since building a house is already very expensive very few will actively use the even more expensive "greener" materials and construction methods. The lifetime footprint will also be considerable between watering the lawn, heating the house, keeping the lights on, etc. And living in a suburb means you'll pretty much have to use a car because public transport can never efficiently cover spread out neighborhoods of individual houses. I've read estimates that an ICE generates ~24t CO2 over its lifecycle while an EV generates ~18t. A hefty 25% reduction but still considerable. Yet all you hear is "buy an EV" because manufacturers push for it and people like their status symbol and virtue signaling. Their other actions contradict their purported intention of trying to clean up. The charitable interpretation is that people don't understand how things contribute to pollution and the media coverage of EVs does little to dispel that. If you want to tackle CO2 emissions one of the best ways is to include the tax in every product and service according to its share of emissions. *Full disclosure, I drive a small ICE car to the tune of ~0.5t CO2/year. And while this will change soon I am fully aware I am not saving anything but my public image even if my overall carbon footprint is likely way below average. [0] https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/average-co2-emissions-from-new https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/average-co2-emissions-f... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/14/carbon-footprint-house https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20... [2] https://citu.co.uk/citu-live/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-house https://citu.co.uk/citu-live/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of...
- bluGill 6y ago
  The problem with public transportation in suburbs isn't the spread out nature of them so much as the lack of straight lines to run transit on. While it is annoying to wait that long, a bus every 10 minutes can be self supporting in the suburbs, but you can only get that frequency and ridership if everyone rides it and nobody will do that unless it is reasonably fast to get to the destination. The crooked roads in most suburbs mean that the bus is slowly winding around. Not only do cars corner better, but they also spend less time winding because they leave the local neighborhood for a main road which isn't bus friendly. Don't get me wrong, density is better, but putting the blame on lack of density gives suburbs an excuse they are not worthy of.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Lack of density is the root cause, so it is correct to blame lack of density. There exists no way for public transportation and suburbs to coexist, barring discovery of a zero cost no pollution fuel. The environmental and economic benefits of public transportation are only unlocked if everyone uses it. If sufficient people have alternatives, such as personal cars, then it weakens political demand for public transportation, as well as economic demand. And of course, being spread out means spending more fuel per person, which is also not economical.
    - bluGill 6y ago
      Lack of density is a negative, but I disagree, it is not a root cause. The old street car suburbs of the early 1900s did just fine then, and as transit systems look at them again they come back. Of course modern suburbs are less dense, but they could still work if the form was correct. If you take a modern suburb, pack 10 story mixed use buildings on the land and force people to live there. You would have the densest city in the world (remember we forced the population), but transit ridership would still be poor. People would walk most places (unless disabled) because the transit system wouldn't go anywhere you couldn't walk in about the same time. Only by adjusting the road form so you can get someplace in a reasonable amount of time can transit work. Density is the difference between there always being a bus/train in sight and needing to check the schedule before going anywhere. Having to check the schedule is annoying enough, but a otherwise good reliable transit system can still overcome that.
globular-toast 6y ago
You spit CO2 in the atmosphere every day by heating/cooling the house.
- dangravell 6y ago
  Depends on the performance of the house. Very little 'spitting' if it was built right (e.g. Passivhaus)

by bpizzi 6y ago

close04 6y ago

My point was that people literally do not think of the impact of their other actions because all they see around them is "buy an EV to save the climate and show you care". The average new passenger ICE car puts out ~120g CO2 per Km (a smaller car/engine even less). [0] At EU's 12000Km/year driving average that's <1.5t CO2/year. A house (in the UK but likely representative) is estimated to generate 50-80t of CO2 to be built. [1][2] One can assume that since building a house is already very expensive very few will actively use the even more expensive "greener" materials and construction methods. The lifetime footprint will also be considerable between watering the lawn, heating the house, keeping the lights on, etc. And living in a suburb means you'll pretty much have to use a car because public transport can never efficiently cover spread out neighborhoods of individual houses. I've read estimates that an ICE generates ~24t CO2 over its lifecycle while an EV generates ~18t. A hefty 25% reduction but still considerable. Yet all you hear is "buy an EV" because manufacturers push for it and people like their status symbol and virtue signaling. Their other actions contradict their purported intention of trying to clean up. The charitable interpretation is that people don't understand how things contribute to pollution and the media coverage of EVs does little to dispel that. If you want to tackle CO2 emissions one of the best ways is to include the tax in every product and service according to its share of emissions. *Full disclosure, I drive a small ICE car to the tune of ~0.5t CO2/year. And while this will change soon I am fully aware I am not saving anything but my public image even if my overall carbon footprint is likely way below average. [0] https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/average-co2-emissions-from-new https://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/average-co2-emissions-f... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/14/carbon-footprint-house https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/20... [2] https://citu.co.uk/citu-live/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-house https://citu.co.uk/citu-live/what-is-the-carbon-footprint-of...

bluGill 6y ago
The problem with public transportation in suburbs isn't the spread out nature of them so much as the lack of straight lines to run transit on. While it is annoying to wait that long, a bus every 10 minutes can be self supporting in the suburbs, but you can only get that frequency and ridership if everyone rides it and nobody will do that unless it is reasonably fast to get to the destination. The crooked roads in most suburbs mean that the bus is slowly winding around. Not only do cars corner better, but they also spend less time winding because they leave the local neighborhood for a main road which isn't bus friendly. Don't get me wrong, density is better, but putting the blame on lack of density gives suburbs an excuse they are not worthy of.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Lack of density is the root cause, so it is correct to blame lack of density. There exists no way for public transportation and suburbs to coexist, barring discovery of a zero cost no pollution fuel. The environmental and economic benefits of public transportation are only unlocked if everyone uses it. If sufficient people have alternatives, such as personal cars, then it weakens political demand for public transportation, as well as economic demand. And of course, being spread out means spending more fuel per person, which is also not economical.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    Lack of density is a negative, but I disagree, it is not a root cause. The old street car suburbs of the early 1900s did just fine then, and as transit systems look at them again they come back. Of course modern suburbs are less dense, but they could still work if the form was correct. If you take a modern suburb, pack 10 story mixed use buildings on the land and force people to live there. You would have the densest city in the world (remember we forced the population), but transit ridership would still be poor. People would walk most places (unless disabled) because the transit system wouldn't go anywhere you couldn't walk in about the same time. Only by adjusting the road form so you can get someplace in a reasonable amount of time can transit work. Density is the difference between there always being a bus/train in sight and needing to check the schedule before going anywhere. Having to check the schedule is annoying enough, but a otherwise good reliable transit system can still overcome that.

globular-toast 6y ago

You spit CO2 in the atmosphere every day by heating/cooling the house.

dangravell 6y ago
Depends on the performance of the house. Very little 'spitting' if it was built right (e.g. Passivhaus)