Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

obvious_bot t1_j08h3pj wrote

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

Part of how carbon intense they are is because they don’t get any transit though

19

warnelldawg t1_j08hglh wrote

Bigger house equals more energy for heating and cooling, can hold more crap (which has embedded carbon), takes more material to construct among other things.

Shows once again that the most sustainable forms of life is via density.

20

4look4rd t1_j09wunx wrote

It’s not just the size, it’s the low density.

Low density means you need more roads which are very carbon intensive, additionally it also means you have to drive everywhere. While in a city walking and biking are viable options in the suburbs moving as little as half a mile often means crossing multiple lanes of traffic, no side walks, and businesses that are built for cars and not people. To compound this even further, it’s not just that one person has to drive for pretty much everything, but everyone has to drive to get anything done which further increases the need of car infrastructure.

Suburbs are not scalable, they need to die as soon as possible, and at the very least we should tax their inefficiencies through a land value tax.

11