Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

puffdexter149 t1_j07vpjo wrote

Reply to comment by TA_faq43 in How transit affects emissions: A map of average household CO2 emissions, with Metrorail routes added by Golden_Kumquat

I wouldn't think that industry affects this - household emissions should be limited to literal households (i.e. as a matter of survey design). I absolutely agree that wealth and density are a major contributor here.

I haven't read the article so I'm not sure if this data includes emissions from purchases and travel, but I'm guessing it does which is likely driving a lot of the darker areas. Plus emissions from long commutes!

5

thehappyherbivore t1_j08h2jg wrote

Indeed. From the article:

> Higher-income households generate more greenhouse gases, on average, because wealthy Americans tend to buy more stuff — appliances, cars, furnishings, electronic gadgets — and travel more by car and plane, all of which come with related emissions.

5

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j08v00u wrote

So wouldn’t it be safe to say that it has everything g to do with wealth and nothing with transit?

Wealthy people buy and use more stuff, but they also don’t need transit because they have a Porsche in the garage.

−1

puffdexter149 t1_j08vmco wrote

No, for the simple reason that transit use reduces emissions per person-mile travelled. Without transit this map would have fewer areas with lower emissions.

6

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j08wjp5 wrote

You may have missed my point. Those two can exist at the same time. I was saying that wealth is the greater predictor for emissions because even if you put up a Potomac metro stop, wealthy people are not going to use it. Even if they did use it, that would probably only help with a very small portion of their total emissions.

Things like vacations, frequently updating their vehicles, clothes, etc., would be a greater emissions factor than whether or not someone rides the metro.

Most people don’t ride the metro because it’s environmentally friendly. They do it because it’s either convenient for them, or they don’t have money for a vehicle.

2

puffdexter149 t1_j090ov7 wrote

Ah, I thought you were making a point about the map’s distribution of emissions.

I agree that wealth/income is the best predictor for household emissions.

3

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bgb35 wrote

Okay but if metro is convenient for them (which is possible) they absolutely will use it. Capitol Hill is also super high income, but the metro, biking, and walking are convenient enough that rich people still use them. Thus, the emissions there are lower than the nation. Manhattan is also absurdly wealthy, but has great transit and walkability, thus leading to emissions lower than the nation.

So yes, a rich walkable/transit served neighborhood will have more emissions than a poor one, but transit and walkability still leads to huge emissions reductions.

1

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0bheu4 wrote

I understand what you’re saying. But I do not think that public transit is a huge driver for lowering overall emissions and this graph does not prove it.

I guarantee that you could do an overlay of this map with a map based on concentration of liquor stores, and the color scheme would be the same.

Does that also mean that when you put more liquor stores in an area that carbon emissions will go down? Or is there another explanation?

2

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bokri wrote

Liquor Stores don't increase housing density. Transit does. That's the difference ding dong.

Not to mention the obvious effect that transit has on transportation emissions.

Like I'm talking about transit as a second order (and first order via transportation) emissions reducer and you're responding with spurious correlations.

Literally not the same at all.

1

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0bp0b9 wrote

You’re missing my point ding dong. My point is that more wealth equals more emissions. Less wealth equals less things like cars, big houses, boats, clothes, etc. I’m saying that the metro is a very small part of peoples overall carbon emissions. Yes if someone takes the train over their car, their personal emissions will go down. But people with lots of wealth (even if they take the metro) will totally negate that benefit with the other things they’re doing and buying.

0

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0bp8z6 wrote

The liquor store comment was just showing that the map more closely correlates to the presence of wealth, not the presence of a metro. So I said you could also say “the presence of liquor stores drops carbon emissions”, “the presence of check cashing stores drops carbon emissions”, etc. None of those things are the real cause of lower emissions, it’s the lack of wealth which means they aren’t big players in consumerism.

1

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0bpje2 wrote

The presence of a metro/bus stops/ public transit of any sort indicates lack of wealth. Because overwhelmingly, the users of public transit are poorer or just more dense overall.

But what happens to the majority of people when they aren’t a broke 23 year old anymore? They buy a house in the burbs and get a nice car to go with it. No more metro, and their emissions go up

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bqly9 wrote

Capitol Hill and Manhattan are insanely wealthy, extremely well served by transit, and the rich do use them. And because they use them, their emissions are lower.

Your prejudices about who uses transit, and who lives where, are just that, prejudices. Your desperation to believe suburban lifestyles don't harm the environment does nothing to change the reality.

1

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0brbzq wrote

What about anything I said would make you assume I think suburban lifestyle doesn’t harm the environment?

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bsdha wrote

Your desperation to shift the discussion away from a real achievable goal (we should densify and increase transit to reduce emissions) to an absurd one (transit doesn't matter because of wealth so we should all just yell at the rich and not change our lifestyles)

1

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0bsve8 wrote

From the beginning, you have missed my point. I never said transit doesn’t lower emissions. My main point, is that transit is a very small part of people’s overall emissions. So no it is not “the presence of transit” that predicts low emissions. Moreso it’s “the lack of wealth that predicts low emissions.” Irregardless of how they transport themselves

You’re getting emotional, and not understanding anything I’m saying.

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bttpy wrote

Bro you are such a dense donut. For the 10th time, your assumption that this is only a wealth effect can be immediately refuted by the many walkable wealthy areas served by transit where emissions are lower than average. The data includes emissions for goods, services, etc. These areas still have lower emissions. Transportation is a much larger source than you seem to think.

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bu0oe wrote

And I'm not getting emotional, I'm getting frustrated with the person repeatedly saying "no its wealth" despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary right before their eyes.

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bqvjc wrote

Manhattan. Capitol Hill. San Francisco. Literally just look at any rich area that's walkable and we'll served by transit on the map and you will see lower emissions despite their absurd wealth.

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0bphw0 wrote

Once again, that is completely refuted by the extremely wealthy, transit rich neighborhoods with lower than average emissions which can be found on this map, like Capitol Hill and Manhattan.

1

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0bpzca wrote

Exceptions to not refute the general consensus. Living in Capitol hill or Manhattan with a car can be extremely inconvenient between street parking, cost of private parking, and downtown traffic.

Plus everything that you will want to take your car to (whether it’s dinner or work) will also require a high cost to drive the vehicle.

But the wealthiest neighborhoods, like parts of PG county, Potomac, Great falls, etc., will never have those residents using the metro even if it’s somewhat close to their house.

It would be more of a hassle to drive to the metro, park, get on the metro, back on the metro, car, then drive home.

1

PrestigiousEbb4608 t1_j0bqr72 wrote

But that doesn’t even get to my main point. Irregardless of metro access, someone single living in a studio apartment making $45k per year, will never match the total emissions or carbon offset or whatever you call it, to the family with combined income of $500k living in a 6 bedroom house and 3 cars. Groceries, vacations , clothes. All produce emissions. Even if the entire family uses the metro, it will do nothing for the rest of their output.

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0btc2p wrote

That lifestyle is incompatible with increased density and transit access. You're making my point for me. People in the richest parts of Manhattan are just as rich as the people in potomac, and yet they live in condos, walk, bike, take transit, and if they own a car, it's less cars that are driven less than they are in potomac.

The NYT data includes flights, goods, and services purchases. Despite ALL that, those ultra wealthy parts of Manhattan still have lower emissions than the rest of the country.

1

the_bagel_warmonger t1_j0brqn8 wrote

Ease of car use is directly opposed to ease of transit/walkability/bikability. You can't have good transit/walkability/bikability with ubiquitous parking and car dependent infrastructure. So you're setting up an absurd hypothetical where driving was easy AND walking, transit, and biking were also easy THEN the rich would still use their car.

But those things can't coexist. Car infrastructure and culture is actively hostile and disruptive to all other forms of transportation. Good transit and walkability necessitates it being more difficult to drive.

So if anything you've just changed the nature of the second order causation from

Transit -> More housing -> less emissions

To

Transit -> less driving -> less emissions.

It's still causation.

1