3 ms·

The effects of COVID-19 and lockdown will increase emissions, not decrease. What we're seeing is migration out of cities, full of dense, energy efficient, apart

The effects of COVID-19 and lockdown will increase emissions, not decrease. What we're seeing is migration out of cities, full of dense, energy efficient, apartment buildings, served by public transit, to suburbs and towns, full of low-density, energy intensive, housing, with just cars for transportation. SF and NYC for example appear to have already lost 10%-20% of their population. Even where I live - a dense but fairly affordable neighborhood, in a third-tier city - tons of people are moving out. Meanwhile there's a property boom in previously undesirable low-density markets in the middle of nowhere: https://financialpost.com/real-estate/how-the-pandemic-lit-the-fire-of-a-red-hot-real-estate-market-inside-the-atlantic-bubble https://financialpost.com/real-estate/how-the-pandemic-lit-t... Flying is just 9% or so of transportation emissions, and much of that is freight; personal vehicles account for around 50%. And residential buildings already account for significantly more energy use than commercial: 12% vs 8% of all energy used in Canada: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/data-analysis/energy-data-analysis/energy-facts/energy-and-greenhouse-gas-emissions-ghgs/20063 https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/science-data/data-analysis/energy-da... Finally, don't forget about habitat loss: all these people will want housing, turning yet more strain of our remaining wilderness and farmland into socially distanced suburbs.

imposterr 6y ago
While a lot of people have moved out of metro areas, I don't think many have done so permanently. Why spend 1000s on a small apartment in the city all alone when you could ride out the pandemic at your parents' in a large suburban home? Maybe some people with families already may choose to stay in their new suburb. But young people will come back. Why? Because a large city is one of the best places to look for a partner. Or put more succinctly, people want to fuck. It might take a while for more young people to flood in, and in the meantime rent prices might dip, but I'm confident people will want to keep fucking in the future. So as long as that's there, I think cities will recover :)
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  That's a strange way of looking at things in the age of Tinder. In other words, you do not need to live in the city in order to be in the city every now and then. Those who have found out they can enjoy the positive aspects of cities without having to endure the negative ones will be hard-pressed to voluntarily subject themselves to a life of high rent and high crime, all in order to get laid when they realise they can get the latter without having to endure the former.
tuatoru 6y ago
> Flying is just 9% or so of transportation emissions Got to be wary of statistics. Last I checked (a few years ago) international shipping and aviation were not being accounted for very well, If at all. For some reason countries do not want to add those figures to their domestic totals. Edit: Not to take away from your assertion, which I agree with. The effects of the pandemic will not be unmixed environmentally. In the green corner: telecommuting and increased use of delivery services. In the brown corner: increased vehicle use and residential energy use from living in low-density areas. 1. From 2012 (time flies...): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65686/7334-int-aviation-shipping-emissions-carb-budg.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
floor2 6y ago
Have you ever been to the USA? Only a tiny, tiny percent of percent of people are served by public transit. I'm also skeptical that the average apartment building is more energy efficient than suburban housing, since the incentive of the owner (who doesn't want to pay for energy-efficient upgrades and repairs) are not aligned with the renter (who pays the monthly utilities bill). Does a rural/suburban driver spending 30 minutes driving on a highway produce more pollution than an urban driver spending 30 minutes in congested variable speed streets?
- petertodd 6y ago
  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/07/who-relies-on-public-transit-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/07/who-relies-... "City dwellers are also more frequent users of mass transit. Some 21% of urban residents use public transit on a regular basis, compared with 6% of suburban residents and just 3% of rural residents." People are moving out of the cities, not suburbs, so this will have a very direct impact. > I'm also skeptical that the average apartment building is more energy efficient than suburban housing, since the incentive of the owner (who doesn't want to pay for energy-efficient upgrades and repairs) are not aligned with the renter (who pays the monthly utilities bill). The bulk of the emissions is generated by heating and cooling, and the former is the one with the most economies of scale. Around here, heating and hot water is usually paid for by the landlord in apartments (65% and 67% based on listings I just checked). That's not surprising: the way heating is provided is most commonly via hot water boilers, which don't make sense to provide on a per-unit basis. Anyway, it's just basic physics: apartment units have much less surface area to radiate or absorb heat compared to individual houses. Takes much less energy to keep an apartment with just one exposed wall warm or cool than a house with 4 exposed walls and a roof. Here's another source on this: http://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2012-Apartment-Living-is-Green1.pdf http://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2012-Apartmen... 3x less energy usage per resident for apartments vs single-occupancy detached homes. > Does a rural/suburban driver spending 30 minutes driving on a highway produce more pollution than an urban driver spending 30 minutes in congested variable speed streets? Absolutely yes. Energy usage is a function of speed, because the energy goes to overcoming air resistance. The scaling of velocity to energy usage is about v^3. Also, as the link I provided above shows, commutes are much longer - and public transit usage much less - for detached homes vs apartments. The only reason planes make sense is they can fly so high that air resistance is lower.

imposterr 6y ago

While a lot of people have moved out of metro areas, I don't think many have done so permanently. Why spend 1000s on a small apartment in the city all alone when you could ride out the pandemic at your parents' in a large suburban home? Maybe some people with families already may choose to stay in their new suburb. But young people will come back. Why? Because a large city is one of the best places to look for a partner. Or put more succinctly, people want to fuck. It might take a while for more young people to flood in, and in the meantime rent prices might dip, but I'm confident people will want to keep fucking in the future. So as long as that's there, I think cities will recover :)

Yetanfou 6y ago
That's a strange way of looking at things in the age of Tinder. In other words, you do not need to live in the city in order to be in the city every now and then. Those who have found out they can enjoy the positive aspects of cities without having to endure the negative ones will be hard-pressed to voluntarily subject themselves to a life of high rent and high crime, all in order to get laid when they realise they can get the latter without having to endure the former.

tuatoru 6y ago

> Flying is just 9% or so of transportation emissions Got to be wary of statistics. Last I checked (a few years ago) international shipping and aviation were not being accounted for very well, If at all. For some reason countries do not want to add those figures to their domestic totals. Edit: Not to take away from your assertion, which I agree with. The effects of the pandemic will not be unmixed environmentally. In the green corner: telecommuting and increased use of delivery services. In the brown corner: increased vehicle use and residential energy use from living in low-density areas. 1. From 2012 (time flies...): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/65686/7334-int-aviation-shipping-emissions-carb-budg.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

floor2 6y ago

Have you ever been to the USA? Only a tiny, tiny percent of percent of people are served by public transit. I'm also skeptical that the average apartment building is more energy efficient than suburban housing, since the incentive of the owner (who doesn't want to pay for energy-efficient upgrades and repairs) are not aligned with the renter (who pays the monthly utilities bill). Does a rural/suburban driver spending 30 minutes driving on a highway produce more pollution than an urban driver spending 30 minutes in congested variable speed streets?

petertodd 6y ago
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/07/who-relies-on-public-transit-in-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/07/who-relies-... "City dwellers are also more frequent users of mass transit. Some 21% of urban residents use public transit on a regular basis, compared with 6% of suburban residents and just 3% of rural residents." People are moving out of the cities, not suburbs, so this will have a very direct impact. > I'm also skeptical that the average apartment building is more energy efficient than suburban housing, since the incentive of the owner (who doesn't want to pay for energy-efficient upgrades and repairs) are not aligned with the renter (who pays the monthly utilities bill). The bulk of the emissions is generated by heating and cooling, and the former is the one with the most economies of scale. Around here, heating and hot water is usually paid for by the landlord in apartments (65% and 67% based on listings I just checked). That's not surprising: the way heating is provided is most commonly via hot water boilers, which don't make sense to provide on a per-unit basis. Anyway, it's just basic physics: apartment units have much less surface area to radiate or absorb heat compared to individual houses. Takes much less energy to keep an apartment with just one exposed wall warm or cool than a house with 4 exposed walls and a roof. Here's another source on this: http://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2012-Apartment-Living-is-Green1.pdf http://www.frpo.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/2012-Apartmen... 3x less energy usage per resident for apartments vs single-occupancy detached homes. > Does a rural/suburban driver spending 30 minutes driving on a highway produce more pollution than an urban driver spending 30 minutes in congested variable speed streets? Absolutely yes. Energy usage is a function of speed, because the energy goes to overcoming air resistance. The scaling of velocity to energy usage is about v^3. Also, as the link I provided above shows, commutes are much longer - and public transit usage much less - for detached homes vs apartments. The only reason planes make sense is they can fly so high that air resistance is lower.