Energy is the fundamental component of virtually all resources, and while energy is limited practically, it’s not actually terribly scarce. We could easily solve all energy problems in very short order (as in, within a decade). However, as I tire of telling people, it will not be solved with magic “renewable” energy. Either go nuclear, or stop complaining. The solution exists if you want it.
Actually, everybody lives their life by choice, save those unfortunate enough to live in places like North Korea and Cuba. A person who chooses to maintain the lifestyle of their parents, or to imitate what they see on television, or to follow religious commands is still making a choice.
On for my position, as I said in the other thread, I think people should be allowed to live where they choose. If high-rises are going up in downtown Chicago and people want to live there, more power to them. I’m only concerned with people who choose the suburbs being allowed to live in the suburbs. As the OP makes clear, some people think that suburbs should be destroyed by force. That’s what I’m opposed to.
Sort of. But lets not get into a tangent on the nature of choice. I disagree with you. Most people live on autopilot the vast majority of the time. So yes while they have a choice they generally don’t do much decision making.
Well hopefully social pressures will change the nature of suburbs, but there really is no proactive solution that is practicable, so it doesn’t really matter.
Solar exists too, it’s just not widely implemented, it will be within a decade. Our energy resources, as you have mentioned here are restricted by political will not scientific ability.
I don’t understand the environmental problems associated with urban sprawl. It increases greater tree density when it replaces farm land and therefore creates a cooler landscape with greater co2 scrubbing capacity.
It’s the cars and the giant houses running their air conditioners.
Cities are hotter because of less vegetation so air conditioning requirements would be greater. And last I checked, city traffic created more pollution.
If someone invents the better, less expensive mousetrap people will use it. So far that hasn’t happened yet.
I am in MD, where I have seen multiple clusters of huge houses surrounded by huge tracts of lawn – maybe 10 acres is unusual, but 5 is not. It is definitely a sprawl phenomenon around here, IMO. The people who want to live in the country for the most part don’t maintain their properties like that. The “outskirts” of the D.C. area have been moving farther and farther out, turning what used to be farmland into exurban status symbols – the enormous house for 4 people on the lawn that looks like it could double as a golf course. Maybe it’s a regional thing?
Check out this satellite/street view from Google.* Google Maps I’ll grant you, there are a few trees left, but most of the area of these properties is stubbly, close-mowed grass, where there used to be tall grasses/early successional habitat.
- I don’t know these people, nor do I mean to target them specifically, it was just an area that I happened to think of that I have driven by multiple times. This area is about 45 minutes outside of DC.
Apartments are smaller so even though air conditioning requirements are greater per cubic foot there are far fewer cubic feet to air condition per capita. City traffic creates more pollution individually but less per capita.
Uzi So true
Horsetech Very odd. If I lived on a plot like that I’d want trees.
I take offense to the attitude that some people have, that anyone who disagrees with their choice of housing, music, literature, religion, etc. does so not because that person makes a choice based on rational (or even capricious and arbitrary) reasoning, but because of being programmed, brainwashed or otherwise manipulated.
I live where I live because I made a fully informed decision to live here, not because some nameless thought-controller told me I was supposed to.
The overall effect of a concrete jungle is a hotter neighborhood so more air conditioning is needed.
And apartments are no smaller than houses of equivalent usage. A room is a room. If you want to say that it’s more expensive in a city and there are fewer house sized apartments then that is a financial issue having nothing to do with “suburban sprawl”. From an environmental prospective, houses with trees provide a better environment to live in.
Hear hear.
I LIKE the suburbs (and particularly my portion of them) because I am very close to the nearest city without having to live in that city.
I asked this on the other suburb thread. I don’t recall getting any answer to it.
Does it not cost MORE (statistically speaking) to live in the city ? In the city don’t you pay more or get less for the same amount of money?
Which is why the suburbs are so economically appealing in the first place.
If you accept the premise that money represents actually consumption of resources, how are the suburbs worse for the environment?
Seems to me the high cost of city living is telling you that cities are inefficient overall compared to suburbs…
Cities are inefficient in their use of land. By packing people tightly into small areas, they drive the price of land up and make it more expensive to live. This is the main reason people move to the suburbs.
I had a choice between a large home with a big yard for a dog, a beautiful view, and a quiet street where the kids can play soccer in the street, or a two bedroom condo in a highrise. This was, to me, a no-brainer.
You have to realize that this is simply not a matter of inefficiency - no more so than any of our other lifestyle choices above the level of crouching in a cave and eating a haunch of meat. Having air conditioning is ‘inefficient’. You don’t need it to exist, but you sure like having it, don’t you?
You need to realize that many people absolutely despise city life. They don’t want to live in little apartments. They want room for the kids. They want privacy, and enough space to exercise their hobbies and hang out with their families and friends. They don’t want the constant noise and hubbub of the city, and they don’t want to ride in mass transit.
As long as they are paying the costs of their choices, or the externalities of their choices are no greater than the externalities of city life, you have no right to complain about them and they have every right to live the way they want to live.
And clearly, large portions of the population live want to live like this.
But that’s ultimately where the debate lies, doesn’t it? Are suburbanites paying the true costs of the externalities of their lifestyle?
Why wouldn’t they be? I’ve yet to see anyone in this thread come up with anything that suburban dwellers use extensively without paying for it.
No need to take offense! Because no one ever said such a thing. I said that most people do not make rational choices they just do the things that are the most common and known quantity to them. That can apply to apartment dwellers in the city as much as it can apply to people in the suburbs or hicks in the sticks. So your recreational outrage is misplaced.
Ok, so you made a choice, and I wasn’t talking about a conspiracy I was talking about unexamined inertia. Like the kinds of people who don’t move more than ten miles from their parents at any point in their lives and have never BEEN anywhere else, so they don’t know any different.
Right, but you have about ten people living in the 5000 square feet that you are cooling, not three people. So you might need 150% of the AC per squarefoot, but you have 300% of the people.
This is kind of meaningless, because sure a house that is the size of an apartment has the same usage more or less, but most houses are much bigger than most apartments.
It has everything to do with suburban sprawl. You’re looking only at the monetary aspects of things, which are basically irrelevant.
Cite?