4 ms·
And your carbon footprint is probably lower than a city, cities are very wasteful places because they can be. This (and basically your entire argument) is flat
by resolutebat 2y ago
And your carbon footprint is probably lower than a city, cities are very wasteful places because they can be.
This (and basically your entire argument) is flat out incorrect. A McMansion uses vastly more energy to build and maintain than an apartment, and apartment dwellers in a city don't need to drive to work, to school, to the shops, for a night out, etc.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/suburbanites-lead-their-urban-counterparts-in-carbon-emissions/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/suburbanites-lead-th...
- ars 2y agoNice study - but it forgets to "bill" urban areas for the energy used by mass transit, and it doesn't bill them for the extra energy it takes to provide services to them. Shipping things to urban areas whether to a house or a store takes far more energy than to a suburban area because you have to ship smaller quantities more frequently (due to lack of storage). But this study doesn't include that. It's really not hard to check for yourself: Compare the prices of some item in an urban store vs a suburban store - it's way cheaper out of the city. That extra cost is there because of the extra energy it takes.