3 ms·
First you said environmental impact, not electricity usage which is very different. Second that article makes it really unclear what is being included in "ener
by nightski 4y ago
First you said environmental impact, not electricity usage which is very different.
Second that article makes it really unclear what is being included in "energy expenditures". In the earlier paragraphs it talks about electricity which makes sense given a.) it's extremely expensive in NY and b.) I'd imagine more heating comes from natural gas as opposed to AC in southern climates which comes from electricity.
It lacks a lot of critical information to measure environmental impact vs. other cities.
Lastly who is being included? Inner city residents only? Or metro area?
- Retric 4y agoEdit: Feel free to do whatever research or literature review you want I don’t feel like trying to convince you. Using electricity has an environmental impact. As does burning fossil fuels for heat etc, which is where the BTU numbers show up. The biggest benefit is land use it’s self has an environmental impact. The ability to leave land for nature requires people not to be living on it. We don’t want wolves and buffalo walking through suburbs. Rabbits etc can’t graze on a paved roads, and drained swamps stop being swamps.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]