5 ms·

Although there is a lot of data to suggest that per capita green house gas (GHG) emissions from urban residents are less than rural counterparts this is not the

Although there is a lot of data to suggest that per capita green house gas (GHG) emissions from urban residents are less than rural counterparts this is not the entire story. Absolute GHG emissions and impact are higher for higher incomes. GHG emissions are a function of wealth not geography. Urban areas have much higher concentraions of wealth. They also outsource much of their GHG creation to rural areas but are still the cause/consumer of it (concrete, energy, minerals, construction materials). Also the perceived reduction in GHG emissions for urban areas is only true of late stage developed nations. Developing nations, those building out new cities, do not share the per capita efficiencies of full developed nations. The reason for this is that perceived per capita GHG reductions in developed nations were paid for by high GHG emissions of their past. New data on urban sprawl (sub-urbanization) sheds doubt on the idea that even developed nations cities per capita GHG emissions are lower than rural areas. Ultimately, urbanization is a bulk consumer of Earth's natural resources and not a producer of those inputs. Put simply: Cities are eating the Earth. EDIT: Added point about sub-urban development negating efficiencies.

namlem 5y ago
It's not clear that the relationship between urbanization and emissions in the third world is that strong when you exclude China. Also, suburban lifestyles are by far the most carbon intensive. Transportation by car and heating/cooling large houses uses a ton of energy.
lmm 5y ago
Sounds like you're throwing a bunch of arguments at the wall and hoping some of them stick rather than trying to figure out what's true. Wealth is presumably fixed at first-order, so comparing equally wealthy rural or urban residents seems fairest (unless you're trying to argue that cities are bad because they increase economic growth?); if the argument is something like "emissions are only higher in rural areas because rural residents are more likely to own cars because they're wealthier", that doesn't really refute the notion that rural is worse for the planet, it just means that poor people can't afford rural lives. I can't even follow what your unsourced talk of sub-urbanization is trying to claim. The post you were replying to gave an argument for why GHG emissions would be lower in urban areas that, while not necessarily proven, at least passes the sniff test.
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  I am not thowing things. There are two primary forms of measuring GHG: -- A. Territorial GHG emission accounting B. (Absolute) GHG footprint accounting -- A. Measures GHG released with in the territorial borders. B. Measures upstream GHG released outside the territory but consumed within. -- Moving a coal plant across state lines doesn't reduce the GHG impact of a state, it merely removes the accounting from the states balance sheet. -- You can read more in the Reducing Urban Greenhouse Gas Footprints [1] paper below. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15303-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15303-x
  - lmm 5y ago
    I agree that including upstream GHG is important, but you've got to compare like with like - is there any evidence that upstream-included GHG emissions are higher for urban than for rural? What would the mechanism for that be - are urban people consuming more things (or more energy), are things for urban markets produced less efficiently than things for rural markets (why?), ...?
    - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
      Concrete usage is sufficient to illustrate the mechanism. - https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-... - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_conc... - https://www.statista.com/statistics/273367/consumption-of-cement-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273367/consumption-of-ce...
      - lmm 5y ago
        OK, so concrete and cement more generally have high environmental impact. Do cities use more of them per capita, and if so, how? (And also, who is actually benefitting from that use - are we talking about concrete infrastructure like highways that are mostly for the benefit of those living outside the city?) Given that city dwellers generally have smaller homes than equivalent rural dwellers, share walls, and drive far shorter distances, I would've thought those living outside would end up being responsible for more cement use.
gruez 5y ago
>They also outsource much of their GHG creation to rural areas but are still the cause/consumer of it (concrete, energy, minerals, construction materials). If this is true, wouldn't it lead to ridiculous conclusions like a cow farmer being responsible for the GHG emissions of all his cows?
- ollifi 5y ago
  Why is that ridiculous? If you set up a farm that releases GHG surely you are the producer of it. Oil industry spinned us to calculate personal carbon foot prints [1]. That’s a good tool, but at the same time it dissolves the responsibility. In one hand the people actually producing the harm get to blame consumer demand and consumer can aknowledge that what ever they do makes no difference in the big picture. If you go to work somewhere and release lots of gasses heating the planet you should probably think long and hard why you are doing that. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...
  - gruez 5y ago
    > Why is that ridiculous? If you set up a farm that releases GHG surely you are the producer of it. Are you saying this is actually how GHG calculations are done with respect to rural/urban, or that's how it should be counted? >consumer can aknowledge that what ever they do makes no difference in the big picture. a single consumer can't make a difference because they're one person out of 7 billion. consumers in aggregate can make a difference.
    - ollifi 5y ago
      I think trying to get average urban/rural numbers is interesting but also misleading. What matters is what is actually happening and where the harm is produced. My city is heated with district heating, which comes from coal. Thats big chunk of my personal carbon footprint and makes living in a city look bad vs rural life. I think focusing on consumers and making this about urban/rural lifestyle choices is only half the equation and to change things you need to go in and swap the power plants, farms etc.

namlem 5y ago

It's not clear that the relationship between urbanization and emissions in the third world is that strong when you exclude China. Also, suburban lifestyles are by far the most carbon intensive. Transportation by car and heating/cooling large houses uses a ton of energy.

lmm 5y ago

Sounds like you're throwing a bunch of arguments at the wall and hoping some of them stick rather than trying to figure out what's true. Wealth is presumably fixed at first-order, so comparing equally wealthy rural or urban residents seems fairest (unless you're trying to argue that cities are bad because they increase economic growth?); if the argument is something like "emissions are only higher in rural areas because rural residents are more likely to own cars because they're wealthier", that doesn't really refute the notion that rural is worse for the planet, it just means that poor people can't afford rural lives. I can't even follow what your unsourced talk of sub-urbanization is trying to claim. The post you were replying to gave an argument for why GHG emissions would be lower in urban areas that, while not necessarily proven, at least passes the sniff test.

TrispusAttucks 5y ago
I am not thowing things. There are two primary forms of measuring GHG: -- A. Territorial GHG emission accounting B. (Absolute) GHG footprint accounting -- A. Measures GHG released with in the territorial borders. B. Measures upstream GHG released outside the territory but consumed within. -- Moving a coal plant across state lines doesn't reduce the GHG impact of a state, it merely removes the accounting from the states balance sheet. -- You can read more in the Reducing Urban Greenhouse Gas Footprints [1] paper below. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15303-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-15303-x
- lmm 5y ago
  I agree that including upstream GHG is important, but you've got to compare like with like - is there any evidence that upstream-included GHG emissions are higher for urban than for rural? What would the mechanism for that be - are urban people consuming more things (or more energy), are things for urban markets produced less efficiently than things for rural markets (why?), ...?
  - TrispusAttucks 5y ago
    Concrete usage is sufficient to illustrate the mechanism. - https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-most-destructive-material-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/25/concrete-the-... - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_conc... - https://www.statista.com/statistics/273367/consumption-of-cement-in-the-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/273367/consumption-of-ce...
    - lmm 5y ago
      OK, so concrete and cement more generally have high environmental impact. Do cities use more of them per capita, and if so, how? (And also, who is actually benefitting from that use - are we talking about concrete infrastructure like highways that are mostly for the benefit of those living outside the city?) Given that city dwellers generally have smaller homes than equivalent rural dwellers, share walls, and drive far shorter distances, I would've thought those living outside would end up being responsible for more cement use.

gruez 5y ago

>They also outsource much of their GHG creation to rural areas but are still the cause/consumer of it (concrete, energy, minerals, construction materials). If this is true, wouldn't it lead to ridiculous conclusions like a cow farmer being responsible for the GHG emissions of all his cows?

ollifi 5y ago
Why is that ridiculous? If you set up a farm that releases GHG surely you are the producer of it. Oil industry spinned us to calculate personal carbon foot prints [1]. That’s a good tool, but at the same time it dissolves the responsibility. In one hand the people actually producing the harm get to blame consumer demand and consumer can aknowledge that what ever they do makes no difference in the big picture. If you go to work somewhere and release lots of gasses heating the planet you should probably think long and hard why you are doing that. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oil-coined-carbon-footprints-to-blame-us-for-their-greed-keep-them-on-the-hook https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/23/big-oi...
- gruez 5y ago
  > Why is that ridiculous? If you set up a farm that releases GHG surely you are the producer of it. Are you saying this is actually how GHG calculations are done with respect to rural/urban, or that's how it should be counted? >consumer can aknowledge that what ever they do makes no difference in the big picture. a single consumer can't make a difference because they're one person out of 7 billion. consumers in aggregate can make a difference.
  - ollifi 5y ago
    I think trying to get average urban/rural numbers is interesting but also misleading. What matters is what is actually happening and where the harm is produced. My city is heated with district heating, which comes from coal. Thats big chunk of my personal carbon footprint and makes living in a city look bad vs rural life. I think focusing on consumers and making this about urban/rural lifestyle choices is only half the equation and to change things you need to go in and swap the power plants, farms etc.