From the BBC:
The assessment by UN-Habitat said that the world's cities were responsible for about 70% of emissions, yet only occupied 2% of the planet's land cover... "We are seeing how urbanisation is growing - we have passed the threshold of 50% (of the world's population living in urban areas),"
That sounds a bit doom-laden, doesn't it, but it puts me in mind of this, from City AM:
HUMANITY recently reached something of a milestone: for the first time, more than half of the global population is now living in towns and cities, rather than in the countryside where we all started off as hunter-gatherers. The global urban population is growing by 65m a year.
Cities are great for economic growth and wealth-creation: thanks to economies of scale, network effects and cluster effects, urban centres are more productive and wages invariably higher. They attract the best, most skilled and motivated people from around the world. Their size allows extreme specialisation, cultural as well as commercial...
That's more how I see things. In any event, in Western countries, people who live in cities tend to cause less pollution that people who live in the countryside because of shorter journey times etc.
Crowds and Warnings
46 minutes ago
9 comments:
"In any event, in Western countries, people who live in cities tend to cause less pollution that people who live in the countryside because of shorter journey times etc."
Yep, the vast amount more emissions from cities is because of the huge populations rather than any particular individuals single emissions. I only drive 12 miles a day.
"people who live in cities tend to cause less pollution": but they're very farty, aren't they? At least, that's my impression on my trips to London.
I wouldn't call airborne plant food pollution.
SW, it's a combination of shorter journeys, more on foot, more on public transport and more compact housing (= lower heating bills).
D, it's not as bad as the smells which emanate from farms sometimes.
AC1, I'm dealing with them on their own terms, not ours.
Cities are also great for slave labour and unhappiness.
People who work in cities in the best jobs always live outside the city and cause enormously more pollution.
Cities are highly inefficient in the end.
"Cities are highly inefficient in the end"
RS, I beg to differ. People who work in cities in the best jobs always live outside the city and cause enormously more pollution for two reasons. Firstly because the British, uniquely amoungst Europeans, hate living in cities, so live in the country and commute when possible and secondly (possibly as a result of the first) the British are very bad at making cities attractive places to live. So what you say may be true for Britain, but it's not true generally. Generally, throughout history, people have only lived in the countryside in order to provide food for the cities. The cities offered amenities and security which were impossible in the countryside. Languages reflect this: "civilised" mean "living in cities". (BTW I use the term city somewhat loosely here to mean any largish settlement which historically would have had a wall round it).
RS, you are way off piste there.
B, good riposte, thanks.
The extent to which City folk may polute more than those in the country is primarily a factor of being richer, not city dwelling or otherwise itself. Having more money to spend on goods, services, holidays - all of which polute, even if a Boris bike is a prime means of transport rather than a tractor. The only solution is for us to all be a whole lot poorer. Any takers for that?
BC, City folk pollute less, and are more productive, that's the point.
For sure, rich people probably pollute more than poor people, but rich people in the countryside pollute more than rich people who live in cities.
Where have I ever suggested poverty as a solution to anything?
Post a Comment