4 ms·

In city B, you have a private backyard, an outdoor kitchen with grill, a private pool, and you only have to drive to the store once a month because you have roo

In city B, you have a private backyard, an outdoor kitchen with grill, a private pool, and you only have to drive to the store once a month because you have room for a real freezer and pantry. And you pay less per month than city A.

ryukafalz 5y ago
And you have a much greater environmental impact with all that driving, detached homes being worse at retaining heat than attached ones, etc. How many years do we have left to slash our emissions again? > And you pay less per month than city A. That's a consequence of us basically not building anything like city A for the last several decades.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  How many years do we have left to slash our emissions again? How many years to we have to keep listening to the "stop living your ugly human lives" rhetoric before we realize that the "save the trees" activists caused insane amounts of pollution and death through uncontrolled wildfires, the "anti-nuke" activists directly caused global warming, and the idea of an individual carbon footprint was a creation of oil companies to distract from systemic solutions to systemic problems? You solve problems of scale at scale. If people want something en masse, you figure out how to make that thing efficient. If people want something that is currently bad, figure out how to make it good. The more energy we can consume sustainably per capita, the better. Now make that energy carbon-free, at the system level. If you want people to pack into cities like sardines, make it actually better, quieter, cleaner, and cheaper, even for people with kids and dogs and hobbies and kayaks. My years lived in various parts of supposedly good cities have been noisier, dirtier, tinier, slower (it takes up to two hours to go a few miles by any mode of transportation -- that's a lot of wasted fuel) and more expensive than elsewhere. You don't tell people to lower their energy, you build desirable technologies that use less energy automatically, and most importantly, raise the energy consumption level that is sustainable by building more carbon-free power ASAP.
  - ryukafalz 5y ago
    > You solve problems of scale at scale. Yes. One good step would be to allow density everywhere so more people who want to live in dense environments can afford to do so. After all, there's more demand for walkable places than there are walkable places: https://cityobservatory.org/the-myth-of-revealed-preference-for-suburbs/ https://cityobservatory.org/the-myth-of-revealed-preference-... > make it actually better, quieter, cleaner, and cheaper Trying over here. My local government is not very amenable to this, unfortunately. > it takes up to two hours to go a few miles by any mode of transportation In a city that actually cares about efficiently moving people seriously, that'd be absurdly slow. It takes far less time than that to bike a few miles. Yes, most American cities don't have the infrastructure for that. Again: trying. But all that aside: > You don't tell people to lower their energy, you build desirable technologies that use less energy automatically, and most importantly, raise the energy consumption level that is sustainable by building more carbon-free power ASAP. This is an important part of the solution, yes, but time is not on our side here. I think it's foolish to think that we can reduce our emissions as much as we need to while maintaining our lifestyles exactly as they are. Maybe if we'd taken the problem seriously decades ago that would have been the case, but now it's going to involve at least some level of inconvenience. An example: it takes a long time for all the cars on the road to turn over. Even if we assume that electric cars will become massively more popular and available in the next decade, and even if we assume that 100% of the electricity to power those comes from green energy, we still wouldn't be on track to halve emissions from passenger vehicles by 2030, because a significant percentage on the vehicles on the road would still be gas powered. Some element of this is going to have to involve less driving. And that's just one source of emissions.
    - int_19h 5y ago
      The practical choice isn't really between more and less inconvenience. The choice is between less inconvenience and nothing being done at all. It's a political problem, not just a scientific and engineering one, and any engineering approach to solve it that is not also politically viable (which is likely to be the case for anything that significantly affects quality of life for a lot of people) is not going to happen in a democracy.
ashtonkem 5y ago
> Sprawl allows the middle class to continue to exist. More people, more property taxes, more fuel taxes, more money for roads. City B often has significantly higher infrastructure costs[0] than City A, while generating fewer tax receipts[1]. This is only possible because City A is picking up the bill for City B; after all if you’re consuming more and paying less, someone else has to be picking up the difference. Those extra trips are generating sales tax and gas tax, yes, but usually not enough to cover the cost of the road. Sprawl and the suburbs aren’t the generators of wealth and prosperity as you imply, but rather the thing we’ve decided to spend our wealth and prosperity on. You in fact have cause and effect backwards: it’s not that sprawl created enough economic activity to happen for a middle class to form, but rather enough economic activity existed elsewhere in order for the middle class to be able to live in suburban sprawl. 0 - https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-public-more-than-twice-as-much-as-compact-development/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ... 1 - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/11/poor-neighborhoods-make-the-best-investments-md2020 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/11/poor-neighbor...

ryukafalz 5y ago

And you have a much greater environmental impact with all that driving, detached homes being worse at retaining heat than attached ones, etc. How many years do we have left to slash our emissions again? > And you pay less per month than city A. That's a consequence of us basically not building anything like city A for the last several decades.

nitrogen 5y ago
How many years do we have left to slash our emissions again? How many years to we have to keep listening to the "stop living your ugly human lives" rhetoric before we realize that the "save the trees" activists caused insane amounts of pollution and death through uncontrolled wildfires, the "anti-nuke" activists directly caused global warming, and the idea of an individual carbon footprint was a creation of oil companies to distract from systemic solutions to systemic problems? You solve problems of scale at scale. If people want something en masse, you figure out how to make that thing efficient. If people want something that is currently bad, figure out how to make it good. The more energy we can consume sustainably per capita, the better. Now make that energy carbon-free, at the system level. If you want people to pack into cities like sardines, make it actually better, quieter, cleaner, and cheaper, even for people with kids and dogs and hobbies and kayaks. My years lived in various parts of supposedly good cities have been noisier, dirtier, tinier, slower (it takes up to two hours to go a few miles by any mode of transportation -- that's a lot of wasted fuel) and more expensive than elsewhere. You don't tell people to lower their energy, you build desirable technologies that use less energy automatically, and most importantly, raise the energy consumption level that is sustainable by building more carbon-free power ASAP.
- ryukafalz 5y ago
  > You solve problems of scale at scale. Yes. One good step would be to allow density everywhere so more people who want to live in dense environments can afford to do so. After all, there's more demand for walkable places than there are walkable places: https://cityobservatory.org/the-myth-of-revealed-preference-for-suburbs/ https://cityobservatory.org/the-myth-of-revealed-preference-... > make it actually better, quieter, cleaner, and cheaper Trying over here. My local government is not very amenable to this, unfortunately. > it takes up to two hours to go a few miles by any mode of transportation In a city that actually cares about efficiently moving people seriously, that'd be absurdly slow. It takes far less time than that to bike a few miles. Yes, most American cities don't have the infrastructure for that. Again: trying. But all that aside: > You don't tell people to lower their energy, you build desirable technologies that use less energy automatically, and most importantly, raise the energy consumption level that is sustainable by building more carbon-free power ASAP. This is an important part of the solution, yes, but time is not on our side here. I think it's foolish to think that we can reduce our emissions as much as we need to while maintaining our lifestyles exactly as they are. Maybe if we'd taken the problem seriously decades ago that would have been the case, but now it's going to involve at least some level of inconvenience. An example: it takes a long time for all the cars on the road to turn over. Even if we assume that electric cars will become massively more popular and available in the next decade, and even if we assume that 100% of the electricity to power those comes from green energy, we still wouldn't be on track to halve emissions from passenger vehicles by 2030, because a significant percentage on the vehicles on the road would still be gas powered. Some element of this is going to have to involve less driving. And that's just one source of emissions.
  - int_19h 5y ago
    The practical choice isn't really between more and less inconvenience. The choice is between less inconvenience and nothing being done at all. It's a political problem, not just a scientific and engineering one, and any engineering approach to solve it that is not also politically viable (which is likely to be the case for anything that significantly affects quality of life for a lot of people) is not going to happen in a democracy.

ashtonkem 5y ago

> Sprawl allows the middle class to continue to exist. More people, more property taxes, more fuel taxes, more money for roads. City B often has significantly higher infrastructure costs[0] than City A, while generating fewer tax receipts[1]. This is only possible because City A is picking up the bill for City B; after all if you’re consuming more and paying less, someone else has to be picking up the difference. Those extra trips are generating sales tax and gas tax, yes, but usually not enough to cover the cost of the road. Sprawl and the suburbs aren’t the generators of wealth and prosperity as you imply, but rather the thing we’ve decided to spend our wealth and prosperity on. You in fact have cause and effect backwards: it’s not that sprawl created enough economic activity to happen for a middle class to form, but rather enough economic activity existed elsewhere in order for the middle class to be able to live in suburban sprawl. 0 - https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-public-more-than-twice-as-much-as-compact-development/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/05/sprawl-costs-the-publ... 1 - https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/11/poor-neighborhoods-make-the-best-investments-md2020 https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020/11/11/poor-neighbor...