U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-08-2010, 12:12 PM
 
19,122 posts, read 22,166,605 times
Reputation: 7326

Advertisements

bradykp, I am not sure, maybe you were replying to another when it seems you mentioned an efficient city could be greener than a rural town. I may be the one who is confused.

But the train thing is like that efficiency so long as the items moved are worth the costs to build and fuel said train.

I can move me in either type of car more effeciently than any train can.

I guess my annology isn't working, but I do have a hard time seeing my rural little town isn't as green as any city period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-08-2010, 01:29 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,391,148 times
Reputation: 3688
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_Muz View Post
bradykp, I am not sure, maybe you were replying to another when it seems you mentioned an efficient city could be greener than a rural town. I may be the one who is confused.

But the train thing is like that efficiency so long as the items moved are worth the costs to build and fuel said train.

I can move me in either type of car more effeciently than any train can.

I guess my annology isn't working, but I do have a hard time seeing my rural little town isn't as green as any city period.
someone said that their small town was greener than a city. i was just saying, that's not true (in most cases).

because of the population density of a city and a city has things like mass transit, shorter trips, etc. this is simply part of "city" vs "rural". cities use less land to house more people and use less energy to transport people over smaller distances.

sure, some rural areas may be exceptions to this, but in general, cities are "greener".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2010, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 34,311,112 times
Reputation: 7074
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
someone said that their small town was greener than a city. i was just saying, that's not true (in most cases).

because of the population density of a city and a city has things like mass transit, shorter trips, etc. this is simply part of "city" vs "rural". cities use less land to house more people and use less energy to transport people over smaller distances.

sure, some rural areas may be exceptions to this, but in general, cities are "greener".
That's a difficult position to defend from my perspective. A big city probably does have a huge advantage in relative efficiency (still iffy) but the overall impact that a metro has on energy demand, landfill demand, water demand, etc. etc. is several orders of magnitude greater. Wiping out every outpost of civilization outside of the major and mid-major cities would have a far less significant effect than wiping out New York, L.A., Chicago and Houston.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2010, 05:29 PM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,391,148 times
Reputation: 3688
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
That's a difficult position to defend from my perspective. A big city probably does have a huge advantage in relative efficiency (still iffy) but the overall impact that a metro has on energy demand, landfill demand, water demand, etc. etc. is several orders of magnitude greater. Wiping out every outpost of civilization outside of the major and mid-major cities would have a far less significant effect than wiping out New York, L.A., Chicago and Houston.
you're not comparing properly. NYC has something like 8 million residents. to compare energy demand, landfill demand, and water demand, you'd have to compare it to the rest of NY State, not one town of 5,000 people. of course 8 million people use more energy and produce more trash than 5,000 people. that's not that point.

the 8 million people produce all the trash in 8 mile zone, so it is all picked up easily there. power doesn't experience as much distribution loss, because it's all right there. people don't have to drive 25 miles to work. they get on a train.

that's the whole point.

it's not my argument, it's basically out there all over the place browse the intraweb a bit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-08-2010, 06:38 PM
 
Location: The Woods
16,936 posts, read 22,215,733 times
Reputation: 9026
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
you're not comparing properly. NYC has something like 8 million residents. to compare energy demand, landfill demand, and water demand, you'd have to compare it to the rest of NY State, not one town of 5,000 people. of course 8 million people use more energy and produce more trash than 5,000 people. that's not that point.

the 8 million people produce all the trash in 8 mile zone, so it is all picked up easily there. power doesn't experience as much distribution loss, because it's all right there. people don't have to drive 25 miles to work. they get on a train.

that's the whole point.

it's not my argument, it's basically out there all over the place browse the intraweb a bit.
And a big city like that could not exist without energy, food, and other products shipped in from literally all over the world, along with sending a lot of its trash to areas outside the city. Cities are not green no matter what level of efficiency they have. Rural areas can be absolutely self-sufficient, if the residents are willing to do so, without major impact on the environment. Cities will never be able to do that and will always rely on importing goods, at great cost in energy use, land use, etc. On top of a very obvious issue: cities represent an absolute destruction of wildlife habitat, natural forests, and useful farmland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 05:39 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,391,148 times
Reputation: 3688
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
And a big city like that could not exist without energy, food, and other products shipped in from literally all over the world, along with sending a lot of its trash to areas outside the city. Cities are not green no matter what level of efficiency they have. Rural areas can be absolutely self-sufficient, if the residents are willing to do so, without major impact on the environment. Cities will never be able to do that and will always rely on importing goods, at great cost in energy use, land use, etc. On top of a very obvious issue: cities represent an absolute destruction of wildlife habitat, natural forests, and useful farmland.
s displace the 8 million people who live on an 8 mile long island across rural america and it would destroy less wildlife habitat, forests, and farmland?

and a city like NYC can get almost everything it needs farm-wise easily from NJ, NY, and PA.

i think you should go online and search a bit about urban development vs rural in the great green debate.

you're mistaking "city" and "people". you cannot eliminate the people. to solve the problems of a city that you're referring to, you could only wipe out that population of people, not displace them to rural areas around the world.

more people now live in cities than do not, as of recent stats. this is a good thing for the preservation of land and the smart use of resources.

i'll do some of the internet searching this weekend if you don't feel like it, but again, i'm telling you this is not my argument. it's out there and all over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 05:55 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,936 posts, read 22,215,733 times
Reputation: 9026
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
s displace the 8 million people who live on an 8 mile long island across rural america and it would destroy less wildlife habitat, forests, and farmland?

and a city like NYC can get almost everything it needs farm-wise easily from NJ, NY, and PA.

i think you should go online and search a bit about urban development vs rural in the great green debate.

you're mistaking "city" and "people". you cannot eliminate the people. to solve the problems of a city that you're referring to, you could only wipe out that population of people, not displace them to rural areas around the world.

more people now live in cities than do not, as of recent stats. this is a good thing for the preservation of land and the smart use of resources.

i'll do some of the internet searching this weekend if you don't feel like it, but again, i'm telling you this is not my argument. it's out there and all over.
Not quite true. If NYC tried to run only on resources from those three states, the resources would be wiped out quickly.

The population is an issue but you must remember that before all the mechanization, we had a lot more people working the land.

What you're espousing is the rural cleansing ideas of Agenda 21/etc., and there's an underlying agenda there that has nothing to do with the environment at all, though they're trying to convince people of their plans being good. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=200637

Conservation versus preservation on the land...preservation is not really good at all. Some of our national parks are good examples of that; they're getting overly dense with brush leading to destructive fires they did not experience in the past (fires in the past were smaller and less destructive generally, and important), the maturing forests provide little food for wildlife which is dying off, and so on. If you go to a state like Vermont, NH, ME...you'll see we are doing quite well with the environment overall, with forests, farms, etc., together...and people still live and work here. Piling everyone up in cities is what a minority of rich people want so they can have their playgrounds (and some statists like the idea too for other reasons). Not saying you're one of them, but people are being indoctrinated with these ideas all over...

Seriously, just think about this...what's better, to have the population spread out and primarily working the land or supporting those who do and close to food, etc., or people piled up in cities and everything being shipped thousands of miles in...

Last edited by arctichomesteader; 09-09-2010 at 06:05 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 06:41 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 51,257,609 times
Reputation: 24611
I believe NYC is green because it keeps 8 million people out of my woods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 07:08 AM
 
Location: West Orange, NJ
12,545 posts, read 18,391,148 times
Reputation: 3688
Quote:
Originally Posted by arctichomesteader View Post
Not quite true. If NYC tried to run only on resources from those three states, the resources would be wiped out quickly.

The population is an issue but you must remember that before all the mechanization, we had a lot more people working the land.

What you're espousing is the rural cleansing ideas of Agenda 21/etc., and there's an underlying agenda there that has nothing to do with the environment at all, though they're trying to convince people of their plans being good. Chris Dodd's last act: 'Control the people'

Conservation versus preservation on the land...preservation is not really good at all. Some of our national parks are good examples of that; they're getting overly dense with brush leading to destructive fires they did not experience in the past (fires in the past were smaller and less destructive generally, and important), the maturing forests provide little food for wildlife which is dying off, and so on. If you go to a state like Vermont, NH, ME...you'll see we are doing quite well with the environment overall, with forests, farms, etc., together...and people still live and work here. Piling everyone up in cities is what a minority of rich people want so they can have their playgrounds (and some statists like the idea too for other reasons). Not saying you're one of them, but people are being indoctrinated with these ideas all over...

Seriously, just think about this...what's better, to have the population spread out and primarily working the land or supporting those who do and close to food, etc., or people piled up in cities and everything being shipped thousands of miles in...
i see what you're saying, and it's all good points. i'm certainly not one of them lol!

i think there needs to be some sort of happy medium though. maybe an overpopulated NYC is not the optimal solution, but city centers, with mass transit, is the way to go. look at how most of europe is. pedestrian cities, with farmland surrounding.

as long as we desire things that can't be done year round locally, we'll always have things shipped from thousands of miles away. don't fool yourself into thinking people living in central PA get all of their food locally. it's much more efficient to ship things centrally to a urban center than to distribute them all across rural america to reach the same numbers.

we're 300M people and growing. you really think spreading across the land is the solution for our country going forward?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-09-2010, 11:24 AM
 
Location: The Woods
16,936 posts, read 22,215,733 times
Reputation: 9026
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradykp View Post
i see what you're saying, and it's all good points. i'm certainly not one of them lol!

i think there needs to be some sort of happy medium though. maybe an overpopulated NYC is not the optimal solution, but city centers, with mass transit, is the way to go. look at how most of europe is. pedestrian cities, with farmland surrounding.

as long as we desire things that can't be done year round locally, we'll always have things shipped from thousands of miles away. don't fool yourself into thinking people living in central PA get all of their food locally. it's much more efficient to ship things centrally to a urban center than to distribute them all across rural america to reach the same numbers.

we're 300M people and growing. you really think spreading across the land is the solution for our country going forward?
I do support rebuilding our railroad system, etc., to more efficiently travel/transport people and goods, versus cars and large trucks for the bulk of things as done now. Even when the automobile first got popular most people would take a train long distance versus drive.

I don't think Europe's model will ever work perfectly here. European countries are tiny compared to our large land area. You can drive days on end in one direction and thousands of miles and never leave our country. Not possible in Europe. Our large size helps and hinders us in various ways, just as Russia's size has always done there, China's, etc.

Ideally people would eat what's in season from local sources and preserve it for the winter.

I don't know what the answer is but it's not in the cities we have today. I think energy issues may eventually wipe out such large cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top