If liberals care about the environment, why do they mostly live in cities? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15191476
What happened to you?

It's actually better to concentrate in cities. Mainly because it means you disrupt a smaller area of natural lands. Ecosystems are less disturbed by roads/towns/etc. Better if you can keep farms closer to the cities and not so spread out too.

That said, like most things, it's complex though. I'm sure there are many factors to have to consider.
#15191484
The Liberal order... :roll:

Image

Can't speak for every nation, but I do see an actual movement to low carbon in the UK. And given China has now taken over the US for biggest polluter, it isn't the West (excluding the US) who need to address this issue but those who aren't looking for an alternative to carbon fuels. I won't blame the third world entirelu for trying to catch up, but until we have a sustainable solution to get off low carbon for good, all we can do it minimise the impact. And what is worse is we now have a shortage of Gas and shows just how dependent we are for fuel. Had we invested in carbon neutral alternatives, I guess we wouldn't be paying crazy prices for gas right now. :hmm:
#15191540
Carbon Dioxide is only one part of the puzzle. Rural area per capita co2 emissions are skewed by primary production and industrial zones-which are geared to feed urban liberals and provide them with consumer goods. A farming family is producing more co2 per capita because it is living with 500 cows and 5 tractors and feeding 1,000 others.

City slickers consume far more resources per capita and produce far more waste. Why such grubs?

And given China has now taken over the US for biggest polluter, it isn't the West (excluding the US) who need to address this issue but those who aren't looking for an alternative to carbon fuels.


The west needs to address this because it has polluted far more than anyone.

Cumulative historic emissions:

1. US: 339,174 MT or 28.8%
2. China: 105,915 MT or 9.0%
3. Russia: 94,679 MT or 8.0%
4. Germany: 81,194.5 MT or 6.9%
5. UK: 68,763 MT or 5.8%
6. Japan: 45,629 MT or 3.87%
7. France: 32,667 MT or 2.77%
8. India: 28,824 MT or 2.44%
9. Canada: 25,716 MT or 2.2%
10. Ukraine: 25,431 MT or 2.2%


Per capita historic emissions:

1. Luxembourg: 1,429 tonnes
2. UK: 1,127 tonnes
3. US: 1,126 tonnes
4. Belgium: 1,026 tonnes
5. Czech Republic: 1,006 tonnes
6. Germany: 987 tonnes
7. Estonia: 877 tonnes
8. Canada: 780 tonnes
9. Kazakhstan: 682 tonnes
10. Russia: 666 tonnes
Last edited by Igor Antunov on 22 Sep 2021 01:32, edited 1 time in total.
#15191542
Go live on a farm or shut up @Igor Antunov! :lol: As a city dweller yourself, you smack of hypocrisy and sanctimony.

We can't all live on self-sustaining farms. Sorry, but those days are long gone.


FFS, at least go read up about it before ranting on like a moron. You do know that people of all ideologies live in cities, right?
#15191544
Godstud wrote:Go live on a farm or shut up @Igor Antunov! :lol: As a city dweller yourself, you smack of hypocrisy and sanctimony.

We can't all live on self-sustaining farms. Sorry, but those days are long gone.

FFS, at least go read up about it before ranting on like a moron. You do know that people of all ideologies live in cities, right?


You made a funny.

Image
#15191550
Godstud wrote:We can't all live on self-sustaining farms. Sorry, but those days are long gone.


Yes you can....
Image

This is Burwood Brickworks shopping centre(has a really nice Dolby Atmos Cinema underneath this!), has a rooftop farm. Even has Quails and Chooks.

It's called rooftop/backyard farming Godstud.

You can DIY it and buy you own stuff, or get your government to build projects like it on a larger scale.

Cattle farming can still be done in the country, and any other stuff you need can be bought at the Supermarket still.

So much wasted roof space in this country and others. I hope the trend of using the Shopping Centre or Carpark roof as an urban farm continues to grow.
#15191557
Igor Antunov wrote:Carbon Dioxide is only one part of the puzzle. Rural area per capita co2 emissions are skewed by primary production and industrial zones-which are geared to feed urban liberals and provide them with consumer goods. A farming family is producing more co2 per capita because it is living with 500 cows and 5 tractors and feeding 1,000 others.


Even if you take this into account, rural people still use more per capita. A rural family relies on a car. An urban family does not. In a rural area, it requires about 100 yards of piping to bring water to one family. He same length feeds hundreds of families in a high rise.

City slickers consume far more resources per capita and produce far more waste. Why such grubs?


No, this is incorrect.
#15191565
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, this is incorrect.


No, cities do in fact produce far more wastage(trash) per person than country areas, and people living in cities do consume more resources generally. The cost of disposal is cheaper per person due to mass collection, so it's cheaper to transport the trash per individual, therefore resulting in a lower carbon footprint per person overall.

Watch any documentary on New York City's Trash problem and it will tell you that.

Of course living in the country forces you to use more petrol, and your trash collection service, as well as other important amenities, is going to cost the local government more per person.

This is when you do not include the resources used as part of a person's job, which for farming is far more intensive. And so you are right when that is taken into account.

People living in the country are also more likely to use solar power(mainly for their home), and have their own water filtration systems. So personally they will rely less on external supply for their home, while using more if supply for farming is taken into account.

It also generally costs more to live in cities regardless. Real estate is of course cheaper in the country and always will be.
#15191567
colliric wrote:No, cities do in fact produce far more wastage(trash) per person than country areas,


No.

and people living in cities do consume more resources generally.


No.

The cost of disposal is cheaper per person due to mass collection, so it's cheaper to transport the trash per individual, therefore resulting in a lower carbon footprint per person overall.

Watch any documentary on New York City's Trash problem and it will tell you that.


Yes, waste collection requires less energy per capita for urban areas.

Of course living in the country forces you to use more petrol, and your trash collection service, as well as other important amenities, is going to cost the local government more per person.


Yes, rural people use more gas per capita.

This is when you do not include the resources used as part of a person's job, which for farming is far more intensive. And so you are right when that is taken into account.

People living in the country are also more likely to use solar power(mainly for their home),


Doubt it, and we know you will not provide evidence.

and have their own water filtration systems. So personally they will rely less on external supply for their home, while using more if supply for farming is taken into account.


You seem to think that using your own water means you use less water. This is not true.

It also generally costs more to live in cities regardless. Real estate is of course cheaper in the country and always will be.


Irrelevant.
#15191568
Pants-of-dog wrote:No.


I do not take a person's job into account. I already explained that to you.

I personally believe it is unfair to scapegoat people based upon their job.

Obviously farming uses more resources. But that is related to the job. I already explained my position to you.
#15191569
colliric wrote:I do not take a person's job into account. I already explained that to you.

I personally believe it is unfair to scapegoat people based upon their job.

Obviously farming uses more resources. But that is related to the job. I already explained my position to you.


No.

Even if we ignore the whole farming job, you are still wrong.
#15191570
@colliric Is everything USA to you? The world is not USA, even if that's what you want. :knife: Canada isn't like that, and I am sure most countries don't reflect the abject stupidity that is the USA.

Your claims are fucking dumb, and false, in most cases, As Pants-of-dog clearly points out.

How are we going to manufacture things if everyone's growing food? We have cities because we industrialized and there isn't enough jobs for everyone to be farmers.
#15191579
Godstud wrote:.How are we going to manufacture things if everyone's growing food? We have cities because we industrialized and there isn't enough jobs for everyone to be farmers.


Food takes time to grow. Do it on the weekends. Or when you're home. Do it as your main hobby.

How you do you not expect to grow food at home and somehow live a more sustainable lifestyle? The two are closely related.

If my grandmother could do it in her backyard, you can too. She grew almost every vegetable and fruit she needed, and her yard was average size.

More people growing food at home = less people buying it at the supermarket = less food transport = more sustainability.

No.

Even if we ignore the whole farming job, you are still wrong.


Nope. Most of my dad's family moved to country because it's cheaper to live. Igor technically lives in the country.
#15191583
https://www.treehugger.com/urban-or-rur ... nt-4863586

    According to EIA data, urban U.S. households own an average of 1.8 vehicles each, compared with 2.2 for each rural household. Urban families also drive about 7,000 fewer miles annually than their rural counterparts, saving more than 400 gallons of gasoline and roughly $1,300-$1,400 at current gas prices.

    … cities have the lowest annual energy use per household (85.3 million Btu) and household member (33.7 million Btu) of all four categories. Rural areas consume about 95 million Btu per household each year, followed by towns (102 million) and suburbs (109 million).

I've made fuzz from nothing but think one glitch i[…]

...showing that Russia is a clear winner. Who w[…]

any comment on this ? This was in response to […]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

You don't need to Igor. Your state is being run by[…]