Global Warming: How Does Your City Rate?
|
Tweet this story! Support our efforts for a sustainable world.
|
|
Here’s a sweet little bit of vindication for a city boy surrounded by farmers and back-to-the-landers:
At first glance, cities may appear to be a big source of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. But new research by CNT, which compares greenhouse gas emissions of city and suburban households, yields some surprising results.
CNT looked at emissions of carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, stemming from household vehicle travel in 55 metropolitan areas across the U.S. When measured on a per household basis, it found that the transportation-related emissions of people living in cities and compact neighborhoods can be nearly 70% less than those living in suburbs. See how this compares in your region at our newly redesigned Housing + Transportation Affordability Index site.
[Emphasis mine.]
So, nyeh.
The real interesting bit, though, is the tools Center for Neighborhood Technology provides for checking out your area’s CO2 emissions relative to population (”CO2 per acre” vs. “CO2 per household”).
What is Location Efficiency?
While the concept of energy efficiency is a familiar term, locations can be efficient too. Compact neighborhoods with walkable streets, access to transit, and a wide variety of stores and services have high location efficiency. They require less time, money, and greenhouse gas emissions for residents to meet their everyday travel requirements.
The savings add up for households and communities. Transportation costs can range from 15% of household income in location efficient neighborhoods to over 28% in inefficient locations. Greenhouse gas emissions fluctuate too, depending on household reliance on costly, carbon-intensive automobile travel.
As they add more and more cities in the coming months, more people will be able to view the carbon impact of their own homesteads, as well as the impact of gas prices.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:58 am
oh, please. this is not news. and it is also meaningless. one of the prime ways people/corporations get away with environmental degradation is the externalizing of the real costs. it’s always very convenient to leave particular things off the balance sheet to make your product/strategy/lifestyle look more acceptable.
rising atmospheric co2 … Read Morelevels is the result of more than just “transportation-related emissions” and so only taking those into account when making an argument about how one’s lifestyle choice impacts global warming is misleading at best. it takes a heck of a lot off non-transportation-related emissions to get food (and all other goods) to city dwellers.
i expected more of you, chelsea green.
June 4th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I agree with Tom in that this discussion without thousands of other variables is next to meaningless. For starters there is little proof or statistics to backup “city drivers drive less than in rural areas.” I mean is this really true? Most people I know in rural areas have slower lifestyles in that they don’t go to work, run out to the mall, drive across town for dinner, drive home take care of the kids, then drive to the local health club. Now who did we say drives more? There is also a heck of a lot more to global warming than CO2 per acre. I love the term used though, “Location Efficient Neighborhoods.” Sounds like a George Orwell novel. On a brighter note, I have read more intelligent articles on this blog, as compared to similar blogs.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
[…] Today’s Request Would Increase Delivery Rates in Mid-2010 Earth Times - June 5, 2009 Global Warming: How Does Your City Rate? Chelsea Green - June 3, 2009 Going for Green in Wicker Park Chicago Talks - June 3, 2009 Area […]
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:26 am
the effect of Global Warming these days is even worst. i think every government should pass stricter laws on Carbon Emissions. we should also concentrate more on renewable energy sources and avoid fossil fuels.