That's a strong claim, but I like that Saul is talking about changing local building laws to make green infrastructure a possibility.
Citation needed for the "just fine" claim. Heating options were a lot more limited in the past for many people. If your choice is between freezing to death soon or making it through the winter but doing long term serious damage to your health, you'll pick the later, but it has hard to call that "just fine".
> Health effects of wood smoke
> The biggest health threat from smoke is from fine particles, also called fine particulate matter or PM2.5. These microscopic particles can get into your eyes and respiratory system, where they may cause burning eyes, runny nose, and illnesses, such as bronchitis.
> Fine particles can make asthma symptoms worse and trigger asthma attacks. Fine particles can also trigger heart attacks, stroke, irregular heart rhythms, and heart failure, especially in people who are already at risk for these conditions.
https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-smoke-and-your-health#heal...
I never really thought about the possible harm, but the above video is great. It’s originally from a Sam Harris essay.
Life expectancy once you're middle-aged has gone up quite modestly: https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Life-e.... For someone my age (late 30s), life expectancy has only gone up by about 13 years since 1850.
I understand if it was a pig slaughterhouse or night club or something like that. But even the early 1900s had office buildings, law offices, various small shops, and other quiet firms.
Seems like a heavy-handed approach in retrospect. If anything the laws should be related to the type of business or externalities (noise, smell, etc) it produces rather than on strict residential/work/industrial lines.
Similarly there's no way for a quiet old couple that wants a quiet neighborhood to stay quiet unless the zoning allows for it. A lot of people would consider a Q1 zone anti-familyist but the REASON such a zone would be desireable is that's what rich people pay for - they only want to hear their own noise - so they end up buying 7 lots around their mansion.
We shouldn't make the need to want absolute peace and quiet a price but instead just let that group of people that want the same thing live next door to each other. Instead we encourage people to buy rural properties in a forest.
Sorry for that aside but zones for quiet level, air and water pollution levels - but traffic induced by business should be considered as part of the zoning, and then get rid of the residential / commercial separation - just focus on the pollutions.
If you really, really want to know: https://www.amazon.com/Zoning-Rules-Economics-Land-Regulatio...
My secret is very small cities. They generally have suburban density, but aren't technically suburban because there isn't a rush-hour commute to a larger city. These places are also affordable. For example, median houses (typically about 1500 square feet on 0.25 acre) go for about $150,000 in Melbourne, FL.
That 40 mile commute is definitely a choice.
There are various reasons: rent control would be lost, property tax control would be lost, kids would need to attend different schools, spouse would need a job in the same location, real estate agents eat 6% of home value, etc.
So it works for a person's first job, assuming a 1-income household. After a few years, there is a job change, and then never again is work close to home.
If you want to tackle commute distances you need to deal with all the reasons people refuse to move. You can't count on people staying with the same employer forever.
With regards to wood burning stoves, that's more of an insurance issue (homeowner's insurance providers do not care for wood burning stoves due to the fire risk).