<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Even the greenest suburbs can’t touch low urban emission rates]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/ Sun, 21 Oct 2007 08:32:22 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/1 Apartment buildings are more efficient...

...because the roof, through which so much heat escapes, is shared by up to 1000 people (about the building I'm in now) vs.  a roof for every four people in a typical suburban home.  Plus, many other services, such as recycling or retrofitting, can benefit from the economies of scale of apartment buildings.

Great post -- and great point at the end, that cap-and-trade/carbon taxes would lead to a greater demand/need for public transit.

]]> Apartment buildings are more efficient...

...because the roof, through which so much heat escapes, is shared by up to 1000 people (about the building I'm in now) vs.  a roof for every four people in a typical suburban home.  Plus, many other services, such as recycling or retrofitting, can benefit from the economies of scale of apartment buildings.

Great post -- and great point at the end, that cap-and-trade/carbon taxes would lead to a greater demand/need for public transit.

]]> Comment #2 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/ Sun, 21 Oct 2007 09:36:44 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/2 Wait Until The Volt Gets Here


A study conducted for Greater Washington revealed that per capita transportation emissions in the metropolitan area were less than the national average

That's because people in the suburbs drive huge vans and SUVs and urbanites drive KIAs.

But that doesn't mean that people in the suburbs "have to" drive big cars.

A more meaningful figure would be per capita emissions segregated by the car size the person owns.

And in 2010 the Chevy Volt will give us a 200 mpg car, so all this arguing is a waste of CO2 gas.

John Bailo
Sutext:


]]> Wait Until The Volt Gets Here


A study conducted for Greater Washington revealed that per capita transportation emissions in the metropolitan area were less than the national average

That's because people in the suburbs drive huge vans and SUVs and urbanites drive KIAs.

But that doesn't mean that people in the suburbs "have to" drive big cars.

A more meaningful figure would be per capita emissions segregated by the car size the person owns.

And in 2010 the Chevy Volt will give us a 200 mpg car, so all this arguing is a waste of CO2 gas.

John Bailo
Sutext:


]]> Comment #3 by atreyger http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/ Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:01:21 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/3 suburban v. urban

I think that while there are clear efficiency benefits to living in a city, there are moderating influences. For example, the heating costs will also be higher due to the wind tunnel effect present in cities. As you know, heat escapes much quicker with increase in flow rate of fluids. In suburbs, or low-height residences, there are typically a wealth of trees acting as wind breaks, lowering the gas movement across the residences. Also, typically in cities, heat is paid for by the landlord, and thermostats are either non-existent or broken (I speak from having been in MANY apartments), which generally leads to open windows and heat escape (once again, this is exactly what happens in MANY apartments).

Also, in cities, the people that drive and 'can easily substitute driving with walking, biking, or using mass transit', generally do not substitute it and drive. Hence, the recent proposal by Michael Bloomberg (mayor of NYC) to impose a tariff on entering Manhattan below mid-town: traffic congestion. And, in case you didn't know, if a car is moving 0 mph, its mpg is 0. So, while per capita vehicle fuel consumption is lower, when considering all the people that don't own a car (typically they cannot afford it), per vehicle fuel consumption is greater in the city. Plus, from a health perspective, concentrating the nitric oxides and resulting ground level ozone on street level is, simply, BAD.

Another aspect of cities that does not appear here is food production and delivery, which typically takes place from far beyond the city (read CO2 emissions, nitrogen emissions, higher food prices) and concentration of nitrogen in sewage that causes sever coastal eutrophication, oxygen depletion or hypoxia, and degradation of aquatic systems. Furthermore, steel and cement production  for construction purposes is responsible for high CO2 emissions and elevated calcium and magnesium deposition, which further causes rather strange effects on the ecosystem.
In contrast, most suburban houses are built out of wood, which is a carbon sink.

So, the case that the author of this post, Ryan Avent, is not as clearcut as it seems superficially.

Also, this is a PS, I do believe that people are choosing the things that they want: suburbs, quiet life, owning a car, etc. or urban, high density, etc.

]]> suburban v. urban

I think that while there are clear efficiency benefits to living in a city, there are moderating influences. For example, the heating costs will also be higher due to the wind tunnel effect present in cities. As you know, heat escapes much quicker with increase in flow rate of fluids. In suburbs, or low-height residences, there are typically a wealth of trees acting as wind breaks, lowering the gas movement across the residences. Also, typically in cities, heat is paid for by the landlord, and thermostats are either non-existent or broken (I speak from having been in MANY apartments), which generally leads to open windows and heat escape (once again, this is exactly what happens in MANY apartments).

Also, in cities, the people that drive and 'can easily substitute driving with walking, biking, or using mass transit', generally do not substitute it and drive. Hence, the recent proposal by Michael Bloomberg (mayor of NYC) to impose a tariff on entering Manhattan below mid-town: traffic congestion. And, in case you didn't know, if a car is moving 0 mph, its mpg is 0. So, while per capita vehicle fuel consumption is lower, when considering all the people that don't own a car (typically they cannot afford it), per vehicle fuel consumption is greater in the city. Plus, from a health perspective, concentrating the nitric oxides and resulting ground level ozone on street level is, simply, BAD.

Another aspect of cities that does not appear here is food production and delivery, which typically takes place from far beyond the city (read CO2 emissions, nitrogen emissions, higher food prices) and concentration of nitrogen in sewage that causes sever coastal eutrophication, oxygen depletion or hypoxia, and degradation of aquatic systems. Furthermore, steel and cement production  for construction purposes is responsible for high CO2 emissions and elevated calcium and magnesium deposition, which further causes rather strange effects on the ecosystem.
In contrast, most suburban houses are built out of wood, which is a carbon sink.

So, the case that the author of this post, Ryan Avent, is not as clearcut as it seems superficially.

Also, this is a PS, I do believe that people are choosing the things that they want: suburbs, quiet life, owning a car, etc. or urban, high density, etc.

]]> Comment #4 by amc89 http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/ Mon, 22 Oct 2007 02:05:42 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/4 food miles

atreyger: "Another aspect of cities that does not appear here is food production and delivery, which typically takes place from far beyond the city (read CO2 emissions, nitrogen emissions, higher food prices)"

I think food travels pretty much the same distance for suburbanites and as urbanites. There aren't many farms left in the suburbs any more.

]]> food miles

atreyger: "Another aspect of cities that does not appear here is food production and delivery, which typically takes place from far beyond the city (read CO2 emissions, nitrogen emissions, higher food prices)"

I think food travels pretty much the same distance for suburbanites and as urbanites. There aren't many farms left in the suburbs any more.

]]> Comment #5 by Jason D Scorse http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/ Mon, 22 Oct 2007 03:22:11 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/5 Living in cities is definitely more efficient...

and don't forget about all the roads that criss-cross the countryside so that people can live out in the "wilderness"- these dissect ecosystems and make it harder for many species to have the area they need.

As to food miles, cities benefit from economies of scale- yes, you need to truck food to cities but once there it's a very efficient way to distribute it.

I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

]]> Living in cities is definitely more efficient...

and don't forget about all the roads that criss-cross the countryside so that people can live out in the "wilderness"- these dissect ecosystems and make it harder for many species to have the area they need.

As to food miles, cities benefit from economies of scale- yes, you need to truck food to cities but once there it's a very efficient way to distribute it.

I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.

]]> Comment #6 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/ Mon, 22 Oct 2007 04:27:07 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/6 I could afford a car in NYC...

...and I didn't get one, partly because it's very expensive to park, etc in NYC and partly because the subways and buses are right there.  A car-free city would obviously be much more efficient than suburbs, and would be possible in much of manhattan, and with a little work, much of the boroughs, and many districts in other cities and towns across the country.

As for the advantages of trees, that's a good argument for putting more trees in cities, maybe even eliminating a traffic lane or two.  And as I said, it is easier per person to heat up or cool down a large building than a smaller one.

According to Leinberger, about 30-40% of the population would like to be in "walkable urbanity", as he puts it, while only about 5% currently is walkable, so people are not really living where they would like to live right now -- and I would wager that if 40% of the country lived in walkable areas, another chunk would look at that lifestyle and prefer it.

]]> I could afford a car in NYC...

...and I didn't get one, partly because it's very expensive to park, etc in NYC and partly because the subways and buses are right there.  A car-free city would obviously be much more efficient than suburbs, and would be possible in much of manhattan, and with a little work, much of the boroughs, and many districts in other cities and towns across the country.

As for the advantages of trees, that's a good argument for putting more trees in cities, maybe even eliminating a traffic lane or two.  And as I said, it is easier per person to heat up or cool down a large building than a smaller one.

According to Leinberger, about 30-40% of the population would like to be in "walkable urbanity", as he puts it, while only about 5% currently is walkable, so people are not really living where they would like to live right now -- and I would wager that if 40% of the country lived in walkable areas, another chunk would look at that lifestyle and prefer it.

]]> Comment #7 by atreyger http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/ Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:58:50 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/7 JR, JDS

JR,
Clearly, one person represents the entire population of 8 million. I am being snotty, but what about the rest of the people that choose to buy a car? And how about the negative aspect of concentrating so many cars and so many people with the detrimental aspects of nitrogen oxides and ozone? And how about the lower emission controls on public transportation and utilities?

JDS,
I challenge you to name those species. I know the answer, but do you? Plus, how are you exactly supposed to move the food and fiber to the cities? Teleportation does not yet exist.

Also, I am by no means saying that everyone should live in the burbs, I was talking about downsides of big cities. In my opinion, local urbanized centers of between 25-100K people are a good way to go.
And finally, in my opinion cities create a clear and obvious disconnect from the natural surroundings breeding precisely the kind of a society that we have: consumerist, selfish, striving for stardom, and the rest of it.

Pick the evil.


]]> JR, JDS

JR,
Clearly, one person represents the entire population of 8 million. I am being snotty, but what about the rest of the people that choose to buy a car? And how about the negative aspect of concentrating so many cars and so many people with the detrimental aspects of nitrogen oxides and ozone? And how about the lower emission controls on public transportation and utilities?

JDS,
I challenge you to name those species. I know the answer, but do you? Plus, how are you exactly supposed to move the food and fiber to the cities? Teleportation does not yet exist.

Also, I am by no means saying that everyone should live in the burbs, I was talking about downsides of big cities. In my opinion, local urbanized centers of between 25-100K people are a good way to go.
And finally, in my opinion cities create a clear and obvious disconnect from the natural surroundings breeding precisely the kind of a society that we have: consumerist, selfish, striving for stardom, and the rest of it.

Pick the evil.


]]> Comment #8 by Jon Rynn http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/ Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:33:59 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/this-urban-life/8 Concerning the lesser of two evils...

First, I've never understood the idea of driving a car within and without the suburbs to be near nature, the suburbs and highways destroyed "nature" (besides, as I liked to tell my out-of-town friends: "Who needs nature in NYC, we have Central Park!").

Second, NYC and many other cities and towns would be much better off car-free (there's a whole website that goes with the book, car-free cities).  So the greater pollution in the cities occurs because of cars, which shouldn't be there.

Third, public transit should all be electrified, and as I've tried to argue in the past, subways are very efficient, and could be completely powered from renewable sources.

Fourth, 25-100K people for a town is actually a very nice figure, I now live in a town near the limit of that size, and we are surviving without a car (although it would be easier with one).  I think James Howard Kunstler and Richard Heinberg and others would agree on that size, and cities for much of history where actually near that.  But I also think that there is a role for cities that are also as big as NYC-- it's simply more efficient space-wise, with a good transit system it is much easier to move things and people around.

I think the distinction between the town size and the big city size needs to be explored, and it is a shame that people lump the two together and claim cities in general won't work, or deny the benefits of big cities.  But it's an important topic, me thinks.

]]> Concerning the lesser of two evils...

First, I've never understood the idea of driving a car within and without the suburbs to be near nature, the suburbs and highways destroyed "nature" (besides, as I liked to tell my out-of-town friends: "Who needs nature in NYC, we have Central Park!").

Second, NYC and many other cities and towns would be much better off car-free (there's a whole website that goes with the book, car-free cities).  So the greater pollution in the cities occurs because of cars, which shouldn't be there.

Third, public transit should all be electrified, and as I've tried to argue in the past, subways are very efficient, and could be completely powered from renewable sources.

Fourth, 25-100K people for a town is actually a very nice figure, I now live in a town near the limit of that size, and we are surviving without a car (although it would be easier with one).  I think James Howard Kunstler and Richard Heinberg and others would agree on that size, and cities for much of history where actually near that.  But I also think that there is a role for cities that are also as big as NYC-- it's simply more efficient space-wise, with a good transit system it is much easier to move things and people around.

I think the distinction between the town size and the big city size needs to be explored, and it is a shame that people lump the two together and claim cities in general won't work, or deny the benefits of big cities.  But it's an important topic, me thinks.

]]>