4 ms·

The argument is simple, maybe I was not that clear in my poor English: people who CLAIM to live on feet and bike so to be eco-friendly are not because to live l

by kkfx 4y ago

The argument is simple, maybe I was not that clear in my poor English: people who CLAIM to live on feet and bike so to be eco-friendly are not because to live like that they need others to pollute much on their behalf. So they can state "hey, look, I'm good at my carbon score" in a hypocritically blind argument purposely ignoring the fact that their lifestyle in a small area of Earth to be sustained demand much pollution elsewhere while living on private cars in vast Rivieras do pollute GLOBALLY much LESS. So people can try to reduce pollution living in single-family MODERN homes, with renewables, buying food in large quantity and stock at home OR claim to have reduced THEIR OWN pollution making someone else pollute more for them.

eesmith 4y ago
This sounds like the "We Should Improve Society Somewhat" meme. "I want to be more eco-friendly." "And yet you do things that are not eco-friendly. I am very intelligent." Your 0km friend must be particularly ignorant as to not realize that his coffee, his wine, his beer, his meat, his flour, his electricity, his phone, his clothes, and so on, are not made in the same place where he lives. This is highly a-typical - nothing to base an argument on. The localvores I've heard about use the phrase "Marco Polo exception" to allow 'anything your average 13th century explorer might have brought back from distant lands. So: pepper, and turmeric, and even the odd knob of ginger root stayed in the larder.' > living on private cars in vast Rivieras do pollute GLOBALLY much LESS Citation needed. Single-family homes are more expensive per person than shared buildings. You have higher heating bills because you have no common walls with others. You have worse economy of scale in your water, sewage, power supply, and internet and phone service provider. Or, if you have your own well, or septic system, you have to spend more time to maintain it. You must dedicate more room to storage or spend more time resource planning - if a light bulb burns out, I can walk to the store to buy a replacement while you either go without for a while, or you store more extras than I do, or you keep better track of your bulbs than I do. (The same applies for every consumable: batteries, toothpaste, tape, etc.) You have to drive to visit the doctor, dentist, barber, and so on, while I can walk or take shared mass transit with frequent service. Assuming you have older kids, they need to travel school and visit friends. Even the road to your house is more expensive to maintain than one in a city, which adds to your carbon footprint. But even that is hand-waving on my part. So, to the literature! Here are snippets from three papers I found: ] Studies using the consumer's carbon footprint method usually reveal only small differences, either in favour off or against emission savings in cities. What are the reasons for the balance to shift in one or the other direction? This article, based on Germany, points to higher emissions in rural areas, while our own follow-up study on Bavaria shows the opposite: higher emissions in cities (Gill and Schubert, under review). - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091631360X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091... ] Predominantly urban households contribute to about 650 kgCO2 e/cap less on average compared to their rural counterparts on the regional level of data aggregation. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6da9/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6da9/... ] In Eastern Europe, carbon footprints ... increase clearly with the increasing degree of urbanisation. By contrast, in some Western European countries, such as France and Belgium, carbon footprints clearly decrease with the increasing degree of urbanisation, even when income is controlled. Overall in the studied countries, carbon footprints are 7% lower in cities than in rural areas when income and household characteristics are controlled. However, this is compensated by the 6% higher average income in cities. - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab443d/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab443d/... Looks like the research evidence is that rural populations like where you live do NOT "pollute GLOBALLY much LESS" than urban populations like where you used to live.
- kkfx 4y ago
  That's a bit complex for an HN reply but anyway in general the key of density is "not too much, not too little". Modern cities are in the "way too much" level, some countrysides in the "way too low" level, Rivieras are the today mean IMVHO. Witch means enough dense to have a certain economy of scale, a certain sustainability of services, but not too much so they are able to evolve. Let's take the example you do on "an apartment need less energy" because being stacked ..., that's true, in theory. In practice, at least here in UE, most apartments tend to be mean-old buildings, grown up quickly in some economic boom where energy costs was not something anyone care. You can't insulate effectively such buildings, you can do something at a high price for little results. While single-family homes are mixed, some are old, some are new and almost ALL can be rebuilt without absurd issues. Tall buildings can't: they are too dense, they are build in places where it's not allowed to build for good reasons (like some social housing of the '60s build one after another on a steep hill and a single crappy road to access all etc). So essentially they can only remain in they sorry state until they collapse or get demolished anyway. How much they have cost in structures? Because a light 2 flat home it's a thing, a 12+ flat building it's another. How much big settlements have altered local climate to the point that any cities have it's own proper microbial signature, natural water system alterations etc? Spread settlements source water locally, so they do alter a bit, but not at a city scale, they pollute locally, but again not at a city scale. An example I found is http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-sustainability http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-... but you do not need real measurement it suffice to think how nature work and how humans can or can't integrate with it. In a spread Riviera you still get a doctor nearby, because the density is enough, but you only get small buildings intermixed with nature. Yes, you need to travel, but you do not need expensive and invasive road infra, bridges, tunnels, metro etc just simple roads with some animal passages here and there, the soil is still permeable almost everywhere and so on. In evolutionary terms: classic deliveries from on-line retail? No issues: just replace your mailbox with a small package home and that's done. Drones delivery? No issues. There is plenty of space. Just change the package delivery to offer an aerial access. Future flying cars? No issues. Just sacrifice a small area of your garden to create the lending place. You have room for p.v., to store water, ... since you can be A BIT autonomous any "service issues" from electricity grid to water supply it's not so urgent to fix and so on. Long story short: economy of scale works when PRODUCER are nearby, since now in cities almost no one produce anything, there are just services and resellers in cities there is no more an economy of scale. Since WFH have issues but works and issues can be solved well, or at least mitigated with a bit of time, most westerns cities who are tertiary sector workers place have anyway no reasons to exists anymore. Transition it's not cheap, but in ALL CASES will happen because as I said before cities can't evolve and we evolve. As the time passes buildings reach their EOLs and rebuild them it's next to impossible or simply an absurd effort. There will be and already there is no room to move anymore, tied to crappy public transportation systems who are not sustainable if more effective and so on. If we try at a slow peace it will hurt much less but try to deny that stating it's possible to keep building cities "but modern one", modern today, obsolete tomorrow, with the same issue is as hypocritical as my friend...

by kkfx 4y ago

eesmith 4y ago

This sounds like the "We Should Improve Society Somewhat" meme. "I want to be more eco-friendly." "And yet you do things that are not eco-friendly. I am very intelligent." Your 0km friend must be particularly ignorant as to not realize that his coffee, his wine, his beer, his meat, his flour, his electricity, his phone, his clothes, and so on, are not made in the same place where he lives. This is highly a-typical - nothing to base an argument on. The localvores I've heard about use the phrase "Marco Polo exception" to allow 'anything your average 13th century explorer might have brought back from distant lands. So: pepper, and turmeric, and even the odd knob of ginger root stayed in the larder.' > living on private cars in vast Rivieras do pollute GLOBALLY much LESS Citation needed. Single-family homes are more expensive per person than shared buildings. You have higher heating bills because you have no common walls with others. You have worse economy of scale in your water, sewage, power supply, and internet and phone service provider. Or, if you have your own well, or septic system, you have to spend more time to maintain it. You must dedicate more room to storage or spend more time resource planning - if a light bulb burns out, I can walk to the store to buy a replacement while you either go without for a while, or you store more extras than I do, or you keep better track of your bulbs than I do. (The same applies for every consumable: batteries, toothpaste, tape, etc.) You have to drive to visit the doctor, dentist, barber, and so on, while I can walk or take shared mass transit with frequent service. Assuming you have older kids, they need to travel school and visit friends. Even the road to your house is more expensive to maintain than one in a city, which adds to your carbon footprint. But even that is hand-waving on my part. So, to the literature! Here are snippets from three papers I found: ] Studies using the consumer's carbon footprint method usually reveal only small differences, either in favour off or against emission savings in cities. What are the reasons for the balance to shift in one or the other direction? This article, based on Germany, points to higher emissions in rural areas, while our own follow-up study on Bavaria shows the opposite: higher emissions in cities (Gill and Schubert, under review). - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091631360X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091... ] Predominantly urban households contribute to about 650 kgCO2 e/cap less on average compared to their rural counterparts on the regional level of data aggregation. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6da9/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6da9/... ] In Eastern Europe, carbon footprints ... increase clearly with the increasing degree of urbanisation. By contrast, in some Western European countries, such as France and Belgium, carbon footprints clearly decrease with the increasing degree of urbanisation, even when income is controlled. Overall in the studied countries, carbon footprints are 7% lower in cities than in rural areas when income and household characteristics are controlled. However, this is compensated by the 6% higher average income in cities. - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab443d/pdf https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab443d/... Looks like the research evidence is that rural populations like where you live do NOT "pollute GLOBALLY much LESS" than urban populations like where you used to live.

kkfx 4y ago
That's a bit complex for an HN reply but anyway in general the key of density is "not too much, not too little". Modern cities are in the "way too much" level, some countrysides in the "way too low" level, Rivieras are the today mean IMVHO. Witch means enough dense to have a certain economy of scale, a certain sustainability of services, but not too much so they are able to evolve. Let's take the example you do on "an apartment need less energy" because being stacked ..., that's true, in theory. In practice, at least here in UE, most apartments tend to be mean-old buildings, grown up quickly in some economic boom where energy costs was not something anyone care. You can't insulate effectively such buildings, you can do something at a high price for little results. While single-family homes are mixed, some are old, some are new and almost ALL can be rebuilt without absurd issues. Tall buildings can't: they are too dense, they are build in places where it's not allowed to build for good reasons (like some social housing of the '60s build one after another on a steep hill and a single crappy road to access all etc). So essentially they can only remain in they sorry state until they collapse or get demolished anyway. How much they have cost in structures? Because a light 2 flat home it's a thing, a 12+ flat building it's another. How much big settlements have altered local climate to the point that any cities have it's own proper microbial signature, natural water system alterations etc? Spread settlements source water locally, so they do alter a bit, but not at a city scale, they pollute locally, but again not at a city scale. An example I found is http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-sustainability http://www.newgeography.com/content/006840-high-density-and-... but you do not need real measurement it suffice to think how nature work and how humans can or can't integrate with it. In a spread Riviera you still get a doctor nearby, because the density is enough, but you only get small buildings intermixed with nature. Yes, you need to travel, but you do not need expensive and invasive road infra, bridges, tunnels, metro etc just simple roads with some animal passages here and there, the soil is still permeable almost everywhere and so on. In evolutionary terms: classic deliveries from on-line retail? No issues: just replace your mailbox with a small package home and that's done. Drones delivery? No issues. There is plenty of space. Just change the package delivery to offer an aerial access. Future flying cars? No issues. Just sacrifice a small area of your garden to create the lending place. You have room for p.v., to store water, ... since you can be A BIT autonomous any "service issues" from electricity grid to water supply it's not so urgent to fix and so on. Long story short: economy of scale works when PRODUCER are nearby, since now in cities almost no one produce anything, there are just services and resellers in cities there is no more an economy of scale. Since WFH have issues but works and issues can be solved well, or at least mitigated with a bit of time, most westerns cities who are tertiary sector workers place have anyway no reasons to exists anymore. Transition it's not cheap, but in ALL CASES will happen because as I said before cities can't evolve and we evolve. As the time passes buildings reach their EOLs and rebuild them it's next to impossible or simply an absurd effort. There will be and already there is no room to move anymore, tied to crappy public transportation systems who are not sustainable if more effective and so on. If we try at a slow peace it will hurt much less but try to deny that stating it's possible to keep building cities "but modern one", modern today, obsolete tomorrow, with the same issue is as hypocritical as my friend...