zlacker

>>onnnon+(OP)
There’s nothing much to do. An environmentalist told me that it’s a few big companies that are causing it all but that I was greenwashing it by buying Terrapass so now I’ve stopped. I grew up in the city, too, but apparently that was the problem because you’re surrounded by a concrete jungle so now I’m buying a home in the hills. It’s pretty cool, honestly. I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t just live in the hills since it’s better for the environment.

>>renewi+o9
Wouldn't per capita emissions in a city be lower? Simply because of transport - we're far more likely to use public transport than folks living in rural areas.

>>nindal+9a
But use transport daily. Ironically, at least in the typical North American city, you can’t do anything without a machine to take you over long distances.

In the rural area, you maybe travel once a week to stock up but otherwise don’t need transportation at all.

>>random+Ek
The bicycle machine emits nothing and can be used pretty easily in cities.

>>Whoppe+Yk
Emits nothing only if you ignore the engine. Some studies suggest that human CO2 emissions increase eightfold while exercising.

>>random+Ul
Riding a bike for 2 miles emits roughly half as much CO2 as does walking the same distance, and a car with an ICE produces an order of magnitude more (even ignoring manufacturing).

https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archiv...

>>teamon+nU1
But, as always, the question is not what mode of transport is more efficient, but why are you travelling at all?

Historically, the whole reason for a city's existence was so that everything was right there. But cities, especially North American cities, for someone reason have to decided to become rural areas for people too poor be able to afford to live in actual rural areas.

It's bizarre.