SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: combjelly who wrote (346901)8/15/2007 8:21:03 PM
From: Joe NYC  Read Replies (1) of 1575300
 
cj,

One thing I would add to the very good list of things that mentioned would be to encourage people to move (back) to the cities. I don't have any supporting link, but I think an average city dweller has a carbon footprint that is a fraction of that of a suburbanite or rural resident.

Let me give you my own example: I live in NYC, I don't have a car, I commute by electricity powered subway cars, use heat and hot water from power plants (waste heat). It surely takes less to heat an apartment in a building than a whole house. As far as the square footage of the earth used by my apartment, it is shared by some 20 other apartments above or below me. The paved road and sidewalk leading to my building is shared by thousands. If you divide the amount of paved space in Manhattan, for example, by the number of people living there, I think you would find it to be lowest you can find. Or, to put it differently, if all the people moved from Manhattan to suburbs, they would have to pave or build out an area that is several times the size of Manhattan island. Meaning less trees, less greenery, less wild live, less farm space would be left.

As far as other things, going to supermarket, restaurant etc. I walk. The AC expense (I mean power consumption) is unavoidable, but you can't have it all.

Life in a city can be fun too. There are pluses and minuses, it is not for every one. So, IMO, the destruction of the American cities by crime and welfare friendly administrations has a considerable environmental cost.

BTW, the turnaround of NYC is in full progress. There has apparently been baby boom in some wealthier parts of NYC. It may mostly be that some of the young people who start their families no longer feel a need to flee the city to a safer suburbs when they have kids...

So anyway, saving America's cities and their citizens from themselves (from electing criminal, welfare, union friendly city administrations the city residents like so much) would cause more of the decent people to return to cities, which would in turn reduce the carbon footprint of an average American.

Joe
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext