3 ms·
The larger point it true, but the really rural areas actually, to my surprise, had pretty good per-capita carbon tax emissions on the maps I saw. It's the subur
by Ericson2314 5y ago
The larger point it true, but the really rural areas actually, to my surprise, had pretty good per-capita carbon tax emissions on the maps I saw. It's the suburbs that measured as by far the worst.
I guess there is just nowhere worth driving to all the time.
So don't get me wrong it's still massively subsidized, and we should stop doing that and make more parks instead (especially on the east), but it's not so polluting.
- ttyprintk 5y agoSome differences: Suburbs use more than half their water on lawns; water that is treated and often pumped Availability of renewable power is limited by neighborhood rules and acreage
- Ericson2314 5y agoLawns are not so bad east, with it's plentiful water. The real scourge is the driving. Suburbs are fundamentally more like cities than agricultural rural ares in terms of the interdependence / non-self-reliance of housing units. (No, your aspirational basement workbench that isn't used to satisfy basic needs count for much.) They offer a simulacrum of rural life to, originally, white flighters, that doesn't count for anything. Giving the need for transport, and the great distance everything is from everything else, driving is unavoidable. What gets sacrificed then is the spontaneous interactions with other human beings and tiniest casual trips, as the big essential stuff saturates the road's and peoples time for traveling. It's a terrible way of life.