>The environment - cities are more environmentally friendly than sprawling suburbs.
I'm not sure that is true, 50% of the world lives in cities but cities produce 70% of the worlds emissions.
I'm not sure that is true, 50% of the world lives in cities but cities produce 70% of the worlds emissions.
New York City may produce more emissions than Papau New Guinea. But I don't think moving people from Manhattan to Vermont would lower emissions. Just the opposite in fact.
Further, the definition of "city" can include a lot of sprawl in places like Houston, Phoenix, and even Beijing and Tokyo.
Even further, can you cute your source? I'm skeptical of both numbers. And it would be very easy to cherry pick either side of these numbers.
For example, a lot of concrete is pored in cities to build mid/high rises. Concrete produces a fuck-ton of carbon. Is this amortized over the expected lifespan of the building? Where is the carbon cost accounted for? A lot of the carbon is emitted in rural areas. But is it all just lumped into the city because that's where it's used? That seems unfair. A lot of rural wealth comes from natural resource extraction used to build and power cities...
Most power plants and factories are outside of cities. Yes, they mostly power the city and produce goods for the city -- but their providing a lot of income/wealth to rural areas...
Is it the case that you get to cherry pick which urban center is a real city based on how green it is?
I wouldn't be surprised if Dallas is "less green" than small towns in Italy, even adjusting for income/wealth. I would be surprised if the same is true when you compare to inner Tokyo (Shibuya).
One thing that would be interesting to know -- high rises can use a ton of energy to heat & cool. And the taller they get, a significant portion of the building is just stairs and elevators. I wouldn't be surprised if density gets "less green" at a certain maximum. Manhattan & Shibuya could very well be past that point.
Sure, but how does that compare to the energy needed for lots of smaller buildings, which can provide the same floor space to the same number of people? I suspect the high rise is more efficient: it has far less surface area on the outside. The more surface area that borders the unheated/uncooled outside, the more energy you need to expend.
>And the taller they get, a significant portion of the building is just stairs and elevators.
Again, how does that compare to smaller buildings? Once you get past 1 floor, you're going to have to use space for stairs and elevators. You can't have a city with 1-floor buildings; the sprawl would be ridiculous.
>Manhattan & Shibuya could very well be past that point.
Have you been to Shibuya? Buildings really aren't that tall in Tokyo, especially in Shibuya. Remember, Tokyo (and pretty much all of Japan) is a highly tectonically active area, with frequent earthquakes. Manhattan has no earthquakes and has a huge layer of bedrock under it; it's basically the most idea place on the planet for building skyscrapers, except for being close to the sea (because of hurricanes, but these are rare because it's pretty far north). There are some reasonably tall buildings in Tokyo, but nothing like the 100-story behemoths in Manhattan.
50% of population: https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization#how-urban-is-the-wor...
70% of emissions: https://www.c40.org/why_cities
This is based on the concept of a "consumption emission", which is an interesting concept. The point being that cities (especially western cities) have seen their emissions drop due to de-industrialization, but consumption has increased (hence your statement about carbon footprints correlating to wealth/income). To say that cities impacts are smaller when they just outsource all of their carbon impact is disingenuous.
GGP suggested that suburban living is greener. How does the 50%/70% support his point if cities include the suburbs?
https://www.citylab.com/life/2012/04/why-bigger-cities-are-g...
I think in the statistic you cite, 'city' includes both the urban part and the sprawling suburbs. You'd also want to compare apples to apples: someone living a very green life in a "western" city is still likely to live a more carbon-intensive life than someone doing subsistence farming.
This trope of environment === greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is dangerous.
Of course, they do not, but still....
Everything is near and there is public transport.
So how they would use more carbon is very hard to see.
Instead, San Fran is one of the NIMBYest cities on the planet and so all those people are forced to come in from further afield.
I prefer the more European style of 2-8 stories, like here: https://goo.gl/maps/poabxNny8r8Jq46v7
But I think the broader point stands.
4 floors is mildly inconvenient on foot but 8 floors is becoming a real chore for people over 40.
Oh, wait!
Rome is a city with less than 4 million inhabitants, they become almost 6 millions during a normal workday.