The referenced paper, on emissions, actually compares different urban densities. It does not compare urban emissions to rural emissions. I believe that there is such a study, but it might not take into account that many rural activities are done to support urban populations.
“Living in the countryside is more sustainable than living in the city”
Actually, the denser the city, the less emissions there are.
I think you need to deconstruct the above statement a little further and use your scout mindset and reason with first principles on this.
Cities take the water from the surrounding areas and funnel it to themselves. Most food is not grown in the city, but its end destination is. Most garbage is removed from the city to the surrounding area. Most building supplies are farmed, sourced, mined, outside of the city and brought there. Many other examples show why a city is less sustainable and the metric of CO2 emissions in a city is not a viable metric.
Furthermore, perhaps some first principles are in order on the reality of CO2 emissions being a sustainability issue in the first place.
Co2 emissions are not a sustainability issue unless it’s true that carbon dioxide controls the climate. If you’re truly interested in first principles that’s one.
If what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, then what makes you feel good makes you weaker.
It's funny, I find that my (and many others') writing can mostly be boiled down to one thing:
Adding nuance back into topics and ideas where nuance has been stripped away.
Great post.
The referenced paper, on emissions, actually compares different urban densities. It does not compare urban emissions to rural emissions. I believe that there is such a study, but it might not take into account that many rural activities are done to support urban populations.
Good and short
“Living in the countryside is more sustainable than living in the city”
Actually, the denser the city, the less emissions there are.
I think you need to deconstruct the above statement a little further and use your scout mindset and reason with first principles on this.
Cities take the water from the surrounding areas and funnel it to themselves. Most food is not grown in the city, but its end destination is. Most garbage is removed from the city to the surrounding area. Most building supplies are farmed, sourced, mined, outside of the city and brought there. Many other examples show why a city is less sustainable and the metric of CO2 emissions in a city is not a viable metric.
Furthermore, perhaps some first principles are in order on the reality of CO2 emissions being a sustainability issue in the first place.
Co2 emissions are not a sustainability issue unless it’s true that carbon dioxide controls the climate. If you’re truly interested in first principles that’s one.