5 ms·

I am not thowing things. There are two primary forms of measuring GHG: -- A. Territorial GHG emission accounting B. (Absolute) GHG footprint accounting --

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.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, people, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive. They are the center of transportation networks sending goods into the city. There is not a single city anywhere that is self-sufficient in any of these areas, but there are rural regions which are self-sufficient in one or two of these categories (but rarely all four). So I very much doubt that road networks linking the cities with each other and with the surrounding rural areas are for the benefit of the rural areas more than for the benefit of the city, although certainly both sides obtain some benefit. This goes all the way back to Rome. Why did all roads lead to Rome? For the benefit of the provinces, as an act of generosity on the part of Rome, or so that a stream of goods can be brought into Rome and consumed there?
      - lmm 5y ago
        > For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive. Nonsense; cities are net consumers of food and people but net producers of goods and money (otherwise how would they buy all that food?), and rural areas benefit from the things produced there (otherwise why would they buy them?). If cities were parasitical we'd expect areas with cities in to support smaller populations than equivalently-sized rural areas, which is false. You're putting the cart before the horse: why do people go to the city to seek their fortune? Because it's impossible for them to make a living in the country. Why are all the homeless people in the cities? Because in the countryside they'd starve. The question we should be trying to answer is: for a fixed capacity of resources (land area, water, permitted GHG emissions, ...), how can we support as many people as possible. Having the majority follow efficient urban lifestyles does a lot better on that metric.
        5y ago

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.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, people, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive. They are the center of transportation networks sending goods into the city. There is not a single city anywhere that is self-sufficient in any of these areas, but there are rural regions which are self-sufficient in one or two of these categories (but rarely all four). So I very much doubt that road networks linking the cities with each other and with the surrounding rural areas are for the benefit of the rural areas more than for the benefit of the city, although certainly both sides obtain some benefit. This goes all the way back to Rome. Why did all roads lead to Rome? For the benefit of the provinces, as an act of generosity on the part of Rome, or so that a stream of goods can be brought into Rome and consumed there?
    - lmm 5y ago
      > For cities to be able to exist, they need a steady supply of food, energy, and goods brought in from the surrounding areas. Remember, cities are basically parasitical organizations, being both financial, real material, and population sinks on net: they need to constantly import people, goods, food, and money, otherwise the city will not survive. Nonsense; cities are net consumers of food and people but net producers of goods and money (otherwise how would they buy all that food?), and rural areas benefit from the things produced there (otherwise why would they buy them?). If cities were parasitical we'd expect areas with cities in to support smaller populations than equivalently-sized rural areas, which is false. You're putting the cart before the horse: why do people go to the city to seek their fortune? Because it's impossible for them to make a living in the country. Why are all the homeless people in the cities? Because in the countryside they'd starve. The question we should be trying to answer is: for a fixed capacity of resources (land area, water, permitted GHG emissions, ...), how can we support as many people as possible. Having the majority follow efficient urban lifestyles does a lot better on that metric.
      - 5y ago