3 ms·

That's one narrative if you exclude a bunch of stuff and do some accounting trickery. [1] I have commented on this in the past. I stand by my analysis but welc

That's one narrative if you exclude a bunch of stuff and do some accounting trickery. [1] I have commented on this in the past. I stand by my analysis but welcome harsh review and criticism. Read full thread for details. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28712733

mlyle 5y ago
So your argument is: - people in cities are wealthier - so, therefore, they consume more services from elsewhere, just like wealthy suburbanites or rural people do - therefore, handwave, it doesn't matter that the actual daily bits of their life (transport, logistics, construction, etc) is more resource efficient. This argument makes no sense to me. Controlling the variable, equally wealthy people emit more in suburbs, towns, and rural areas. Unless you're just hoping by moving people out of cities, enough wealth is obliterated to lower resource consumption?
- TrispusAttucks 5y ago
  Not exactly. My argument is that the story of the per capita efficiency of city dewelpers is nothing more than a convenient story. Where we go from there I leave to the reader but at least dispelling the myth allows us to see the world with open eyes and move forward.
  - mlyle 5y ago
    > My argument is that the story of the per capita efficiency of city dewelpers is nothing more than a convenient story. It seems pretty clear that being able to walk more, having practical public transportation, having in some cases centralized heating, etc --- are all wins that rural households can't have. Yes, food has to get transported into the city, but most people even in rural environments don't eat food produced close to them (and doing so isn't really compatible with modern expectations, either, for various reasons). But instead we just have an assertion from you that it all doesn't count, because maybe city dwellers do more energy intensive stuff elsewhere-- and gesturing to a long thread with you gesticulating that concrete is resource intensive? (town and rural users use more concrete and other building materials per capita... longer roads per house, less efficient foundations, big storm drainage systems, etc, per occupant, etc. e.g. rural Wyoming used 280,253 tonnes of portland cement in 2020; this is 0.28% of US use while Wyoming is 0.17% of the US population, vs dense New Jersey used 1,392,667 tonnes representing 1.4% of US use and had 2.7% of the population). You have not dispelled any myths: you've just made unsupported statements.

mlyle 5y ago

So your argument is: - people in cities are wealthier - so, therefore, they consume more services from elsewhere, just like wealthy suburbanites or rural people do - therefore, handwave, it doesn't matter that the actual daily bits of their life (transport, logistics, construction, etc) is more resource efficient. This argument makes no sense to me. Controlling the variable, equally wealthy people emit more in suburbs, towns, and rural areas. Unless you're just hoping by moving people out of cities, enough wealth is obliterated to lower resource consumption?

TrispusAttucks 5y ago
Not exactly. My argument is that the story of the per capita efficiency of city dewelpers is nothing more than a convenient story. Where we go from there I leave to the reader but at least dispelling the myth allows us to see the world with open eyes and move forward.
- mlyle 5y ago
  > My argument is that the story of the per capita efficiency of city dewelpers is nothing more than a convenient story. It seems pretty clear that being able to walk more, having practical public transportation, having in some cases centralized heating, etc --- are all wins that rural households can't have. Yes, food has to get transported into the city, but most people even in rural environments don't eat food produced close to them (and doing so isn't really compatible with modern expectations, either, for various reasons). But instead we just have an assertion from you that it all doesn't count, because maybe city dwellers do more energy intensive stuff elsewhere-- and gesturing to a long thread with you gesticulating that concrete is resource intensive? (town and rural users use more concrete and other building materials per capita... longer roads per house, less efficient foundations, big storm drainage systems, etc, per occupant, etc. e.g. rural Wyoming used 280,253 tonnes of portland cement in 2020; this is 0.28% of US use while Wyoming is 0.17% of the US population, vs dense New Jersey used 1,392,667 tonnes representing 1.4% of US use and had 2.7% of the population). You have not dispelled any myths: you've just made unsupported statements.