Priligy online now, save money

AUG 30

Recent Comment

""May be if they used some effective ideas for development then the cit..."

View all Comments

Are Cities More Sustainable Than Suburbia?

Is living in the city inherently greener than living in the suburbs? Researchers like Edward Glaeser have argued a resounding yes: “In almost every metropolitan area, carbon emissions are significantly lower for people who live in central cities than for people who live in suburbs.” This conclusion has common sense on its side. Despite the literal greenness of many suburbs, high density living would seem to reduce energy use by default: less car and fossil fuel dependency, more infrastructure efficiency, with the canada viagra no prescription largest cities generating the biggest energy-saving boost.

But new research from Canada’s Dalhousie University contests the claim that cities are immensely greener than their suburbs and adds additional information to consider when comparing population density and emissions. Researcher Jeffrey Wilson and his team looked at greenhouse gas emissions around Halifax, Nova Scotia, and found a negligible difference between suburban and city pollution: only a 0.3kgCO2e/person/day difference. While suburbanites did drive more, those in the city produced more home-energy emissions per household member than their suburban counterparts, bringing their total emissions closer to each other. Exurbs dwellers, however, needing to travel the furthest, polluted the most. Those in the exurbs produced 11 percent more emissions than those living in the inner city.

This research does broaden the conversation, illustrating that not all cities necessarily have a significant environmental edge over their suburbs. As Eric Jaffe at The Atlantic Cities points out, however, the study has a few problems: it doesn’t account for income level (the wealthier exurb dwellers may emit more greenhouse gases in part because they have more disposable income), and doesn’t compare the data by season--only across a year. Additionally, while Halifax Regional Municipality’s suburbanites and urbanites might be similar in greenhouse gas emissions, its hard to know how much this can speak to india cheap viagra other regions’ internal relationships when other studies have looked at more metropolitan areas.

via: The Atlantic Cities

image CC BY-SA 2.0 by Roger Wollstadt

Hits: 10798
Comments (7)Add Comment
Sustainability is like pregnancy . . .
written by Phil Hanson, September 01, 2013
It either exists or it doesn't. To say that cities are more sustainable than suburbs misses the point that neither are sustainable over the long haul when the human population exceeds the planet's carrying capacity. Seven billion people exceed the planet's carrying capacity by a factor of two or three.
Sorry for the extra posts
written by Phil Hanson, September 01, 2013
The admin message kept showing up off-screen so that I couldn't readily see it; I interpreted that as the system not accepting my comment due to mistyping the security image. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. I'll know better next time.
New Yorker here.
written by Candice Hall, September 03, 2013
Efficiency is key in new urban development. Peer reviewed research has confirmed that urban living (factories and such aside) is more sustainable than other living situations.
written by Sustainable infrastructure , September 14, 2013
May be if they used some effective ideas for development then the cities will became more sustainable then suburbia.
Large cities are not the solution
written by Andrew Baillie, September 27, 2013
The arable land needed to sustain the world population today is the size of Australia without counting Queensland. That's a fact. The most efficient place to live and levitra now online the most healthy( physical and psychologically speaking) would be a network of villages of not more than 500 people each. With the communication technology available we don't need to commute. Cities in a way are a trap. You depend of highly centralized systems, that when they break down, you are dealing with masses of people in a hopeless situation(Katrina). Cities will always exist. They are great places for highly specialized services, such as hospitals,universities, convention halls and art.A place where people can meet to exchange idea, technologies and art. A village, has something a city doesn't, it has cleaner air, less noise pollution and can be self sustaining producing it's own food and creating appropriate technology.In the event of a weather catastrophe, the population of an affected village can be easily helped by the neighboring villages. India, before the ordering viagra online legal British Empire arrived and other colonialist countries had a very healthy network of villages. Where the British set a foothold in the past, there is now dire poverty.
What is sustainable?
written by Robert Sanborn, September 27, 2013
If the only measure of levitra prices "sustainable" is "carbon footprint", and you can set aside "factories and such", you might be right. However, factories pollute, ancient water treatment plants soil the rivers, big ships bring invasive species, schools are underfunded and discount viagra soft gels dysfunctional, crime is rampant, roads are rotting, and oh, did I mention "factories and such"? There is much more to lowest price viagra this world than just carbon. When you talk about sustainable, the long term has to include comfort and safety.
written by Minneapolis Web Design, October 18, 2013
"May be if they used some effective ideas for development then the cities will became more sustainable then suburbia." ..yarh..I do agree with this. I like to see smart ideas instead of something else.

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?

The Most Popular Articles