Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're only considering the amount of travel they do though, how much energy do one of those building use on the lighting in hallways, stairs, lobbies and other places that are lit 24/7365 use? It's little after 7 in the morning here and there won't be a light on in this house other the bathroom until about 8:30 tonight. A lot of building like that also require 24/7 AC in the summer.
Right. I know that. I was using that as an example, and contrasting it with a more typical congested downtown where tens of thousands of suburbanites commute to their job downtown but refuse to live there.
Which of these is the most ecologically friendly?
High-density urban core full of skyscrapers (but also plenty of parks and trees)
A dense neighborhood but with mixed-use, midrise buildings
A sprawling suburb that has lots of trees and nature but is autocentric & has big houses
Why are these the only choices for this poll? I believe the most environmentally friendly lifestyle is to live on the land, and integrating with it. A smaller, more efficient home, possibly built into the landscape, would be far more efficient than the sprawling McMansions in the suburbs. There are many ways to build a home to require very little energy, even in extreme climates. Living off the land by gardening and other means of producing your own food is more efficient than living in a city where everything needs to be shipped in from afar to the consumer.
A small homestead, with an energy efficient home, where your basic needs can be met by the things your produce there, is, in my opinion, more efficient and ecologically friendly than any of the choices listed in the poll.
If you produce everything you need for your own survival at home, why would you need to travel to the city (or anywhere else) in the first place?
Why are these the only choices for this poll? I believe the most environmentally friendly lifestyle is to live on the land, and integrating with it. A smaller, more efficient home, possibly built into the landscape, would be far more efficient than the sprawling McMansions in the suburbs. There are many ways to build a home to require very little energy, even in extreme climates. Living off the land by gardening and other means of producing your own food is more efficient than living in a city where everything needs to be shipped in from afar to the consumer.
A small homestead, with an energy efficient home, where your basic needs can be met by the things your produce there, is, in my opinion, more efficient and ecologically friendly than any of the choices listed in the poll.
If you produce everything you need for your own survival at home, why would you need to travel to the city (or anywhere else) in the first place?
Well not everyone can or is going to live off the land. And wouldn't that be kind of depressing, everyone living of their own land, having nowhere to connect, exchange cultures, enjoy entertainment, etc?
Why are these the only choices for this poll? I believe the most environmentally friendly lifestyle is to live on the land, and integrating with it. A smaller, more efficient home, possibly built into the landscape, would be far more efficient than the sprawling McMansions in the suburbs. There are many ways to build a home to require very little energy, even in extreme climates. Living off the land by gardening and other means of producing your own food is more efficient than living in a city where everything needs to be shipped in from afar to the consumer.
A small homestead, with an energy efficient home, where your basic needs can be met by the things your produce there, is, in my opinion, more efficient and ecologically friendly than any of the choices listed in the poll.
If you produce everything you need for your own survival at home, why would you need to travel to the city (or anywhere else) in the first place?
I feel sorry for those of you folks liveing like rats in the giant maze of the city. When it hits the fan your all going to starve!!!! BTW I have a cave on the back 40 I'll sell you.....I was going use it for a bunker but I have a few alternatives
Why are these the only choices for this poll? I believe the most environmentally friendly lifestyle is to live on the land, and integrating with it. A smaller, more efficient home, possibly built into the landscape, would be far more efficient than the sprawling McMansions in the suburbs. There are many ways to build a home to require very little energy, even in extreme climates. Living off the land by gardening and other means of producing your own food is more efficient than living in a city where everything needs to be shipped in from afar to the consumer.
A small homestead, with an energy efficient home, where your basic needs can be met by the things your produce there, is, in my opinion, more efficient and ecologically friendly than any of the choices listed in the poll.
If you produce everything you need for your own survival at home, why would you need to travel to the city (or anywhere else) in the first place?
I agree, this is by far the most "green" way to live. Plus, as was mentioned ^, when it hits the fan, we'll survive
I think the scientist in the OP was saying the dense cities are the worst can be view by this analogy (purposely over-simplified).
If you think of humans as salt to the land, if you spread out the salt in small proportions all over the land evenly distributed, all of the land is affected, but will recover. If you concentrate too much salt in one area, that area will be affected so much that it will die, but other areas will be completely unharmed.
Our cities are very un-green, but I think in 100 years or so we may get it right and be able to "live with nature".
If you think of humans as salt to the land, if you spread out the salt in small proportions all over the land evenly distributed, all of the land is affected, but will recover. If you concentrate too much salt in one area, that area will be affected so much that it will die, but other areas will be completely unharmed.
So you are pro-sprawl? If so, have you not heard all the talk about the negative effects of sprawl?
So you are pro-sprawl? If so, have you not heard all the talk about the negative effects of sprawl?
I think the only way, with our current living system, to "mesh with nature" is to live mostly self sufficient in a rural area. Not everyone can do that, and sprawl has about as many or more negative effects as city dwelling. Basically, at current capacity we can only fight an up hill battle to try to mesh with nature. I think either city dwelling or suburban living is close to equally as bad and we shouldn't be saying one is better than the other or telling people they should live in one place or the other. As we continue to advance in regards to reducing our impact, it will be applied to all areas of living.
Very Few SUV's are "gas guzzlers" - that is a myth
That depends on your definition of gas guzzler.
Personally, I think anything that gets less than 20 mpg kind of falls into that category.
Where would you draw the line, and label something a gas guzzler?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
