4 ms·
Wanting to live somewhere and reducing climate impact are different though. If you build a city full of dense housing, where does all the food and water come fr
by flagrant_taco 3y ago
Wanting to live somewhere and reducing climate impact are different though. If you build a city full of dense housing, where does all the food and water come from? Or the electricity, furniture, and clothing?
Costs can be externalized, but at the environment level they still exist even if outside the city of consumers. It's also often the case that externalizing those costs adds even more impact as the product has to be shipped in and the waste shipped back out.
- Kbelicius 3y ago> If you build a city full of dense housing, where does all the food and water come from? Or the electricity, furniture, and clothing? I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that people that don't live in cities don't consume, or consume less of, food, water, electricity, furniture and clothing? > It's also often the case that externalizing those costs adds even more impact as the product has to be shipped in and the waste shipped back out. They have to be shipped to fewer places and thus save resources. The only way what you are saying makes any sense is either if shipping things to more places somehow save resources or if people that don't live in cities don't need anything shipped.
- bombcar 3y agoIn general rural areas are poorer, and poorer people consume less. It may be true from a theoretical viewpoint, but in general cities are richer and consume more.
- developer93 3y agoIt's still more efficient for a single factory to fell 20 trees and produce 20 chairs than it is for 20 people to fell their own tree and produce their own chair. Not to mention one person can't specialise enough to produce everything to the same standard as someone who does the same thing all day long, or an automated process which is optimised to do that exact thing at scale.