Comments on: Leave Nature Alooooooone

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:15:12 +0000

“These studies always seem to conveniently omit the other ecological costs of living in a large city such as Philadelphia. What of the cost of government and emergency services? Lighting the city? Sanitation and waste treatment?”

While there are certainly serious policing issues, etc., in a place like Philadelphia, almost 1.5 million people live in Philadelphia. If those people were spread out in rural areas, the emergency services per-person would be far more expensive. Similarly, infrastructure per person costs more in rural areas.

For example, the population within the city of Philadelphia is about equal to the combined population of Wyoming and Montana. How much does it cost to light, govern, and provide roads, sanitation, waste treatment, etc. to Wyoming and Montana?

Generally speaking, urban living is far more efficient PER PERSON than rural or suburban living. Remember: people have to live somewhere!

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Sat, 30 May 2009 23:38:08 +0000

Is an aspirational vehicle one with a carburetor?

I’ve heard that LA has a cottage industry of electrifying classic sports cars, if that helps.

By: AdSMan

AdSMan — Sat, 30 May 2009 06:20:28 +0000

I think that academics have a special responsibility with regard to reducing our carbon footprint, because we can so easily reduce our main carbon crimes with little or no cost to our work. Namely, stop going to conferences.

By: Anonymous Snowboarder

Anonymous Snowboarder — Sat, 30 May 2009 02:59:56 +0000

These studies always seem to conveniently omit the other ecological costs of living in a large city such as Philadelphia. What of the cost of governemnt and emergency services? Lighting the city? Sanitation and waste treatment?

By: Ben 2

Ben 2 — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:35:51 +0000

What’s an aspirational vehicle? Is that physicist talk for ICE?

By: Nameless

Nameless — Fri, 29 May 2009 05:38:12 +0000

#3: my concern was purely about carbon, not warming. Also, before the Industrial Revolution, mid- to high-latutudes were completely covered with forests anyway. You could walk from Paris to Moscow without ever leaving the forest. An environmentalist in me says that we should seek the reversal to this primeval state, rather than merely reduce the rate of global warming.

By: Larry

Larry — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:46:10 +0000

Have under 2 children. Your carbon footprint might not go down. But over the long term carbon goes down.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:39:27 +0000

Living on a big lot only sequesters additional carbon if you assume that the lot’s natural state was pavement rather than vegetation. That is, because Sean lives in a city rather than a burb, there is one less suburban plot that has had its trees or chaparral leveled in order to build a house and lawn.

You can tie yourself in knots trying to optimize a carbon footprint. Trying to trace the pros and cons of every choice back is counter-productive. It would be better to follow a few simple rules: don’t contribute to sprawl; fly less; drive less; use less energy; don’t buy too much stuff; don’t throw lots of stuff away.

For professional astronomy, Phil Marshall led the writing of a white paper that estimates the energy budget of astronomers’ actvities and suggests courses of action; see http://adsabs.harvard.edu//abs/2009astro2010P..35M
and
http://low-energy-astro.physics.ucsb.edu/index.php/Main_Page

By: onymous

onymous — Fri, 29 May 2009 00:49:00 +0000

#2: References? I was under the impression that the consensus was that planting trees in the tropics combats global warming, but that trees at mid- to high-latitudes have a net warming effect (because they are dark, mostly) that offsets any carbon sequestration benefit they might have. (The moral: live in a city, walk, and paint your roof white, I suppose.) (And I almost posted without giving a reference, after asking for one! See e.g. here.)

By: Nameless

Nameless — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:54:56 +0000

It calculates carbon emissions per household, but fails to subtract carbon sequestration per household by lawns, forests & such. An acre of forest would cancel carbon emissions due to breathing of a dozen adults or 2000-4000 miles driven by a typical gasoline car (possibly as much as 8000 miles for a Prius). Grass lawns are even more efficient (short term), but they release an uncertain amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere when grass clippings decompose.

There are two approaches to environmentalism. One is to live in a cramped urban hellhole and to walk everywhere. The other is to live on a big lot, minimize driving, use an efficient car (an electric one, if you can), work from home, if possible.

There’s also pseudo-environmentalism, when you live in the city and drive to work anyway, because it’s not safe to walk outside, or because it takes you an hour by bus to get to work.