If liberals care about the environment, why do they mostly live in cities? - Page 2 - 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

#15191584
Pants-of-dog wrote:https://www.treehugger.com/urban-or-rural-which-is-more-energy-efficient-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).


Suburbs (109 million).... See Igor was right.

Suburban areas dominate ALL major cities and townships in Australia. As a result we use more resources in major Australian cities than they do in the Rural areas.

Melbourne and Sydney have massive suburban sprawls.

https://mapfight.xyz/compare/melbourne-vs-nyc/

Melbourne vs New York....
#15191593
AFAIK wrote:No True Scotsman fallacy


The definition of City differs depending on which country you live in.

In Australia, cities are identified by their Central Business District, inner urban area and the outer "Metropolitan area" also known as the suburban area. The population of all three is counted entirely as being the City's population in Australia.

That's how Australians officially view things.

Therefore people living in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane definately use more resources than rural communities, and that's frequently correctly reported in the press.
#15191603
Igor Antunov wrote:The west needs to address this because it has polluted far more than anyone.


The problem is looking into the far past for blame is stupid considering this has only really been understood in the last 50 years or so and really only then could action take place. And I would also like to congratulate China on at least not building any more new coal plants for the third world which was declared today. So clearly they at least acknowledge this is a problem even if you don't. Also the West (excluding US) IS GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND what is expected of them. The UK is aiming at being Carbon neutral by 2030 I think. Or it might be 2050 with electric cars by 2030. Either way, they are making real change and so are the rest of Europe. The problem is because it has been cheaper to burn dirty fuels, we simply haven't invested enough in renewable energy and today we can see how dependent we are on gas given the price of it has gone through the roof. And that is what we need to do now. Government initiative if possible to get off gas and oil. We could have easily been off carbon fuels by now had we invested heavily in Hydrogen.
#15191611
Igor Antunov wrote:And why are they the predominant polluters on earth, with their opulent urban lifestyle?

Image

Explain yourselves liberals. Why do you preach the opposite of what you do? Why are you such nasty little grubs?


The answer here is simply. Vast majority of humanity lives in cities at least in the developed world. So here is your answer.
#15191630
colliric wrote:Suburbs (109 million).... See Igor was right.


No.

Urban families spend the least.

Urban is not suburban.

Suburban areas dominate ALL major cities and townships in Australia. As a result we use more resources in major Australian cities than they do in the Rural areas.

Melbourne and Sydney have massive suburban sprawls.

https://mapfight.xyz/compare/melbourne-vs-nyc/

Melbourne vs New York....


Yes, sprawl is another ecological problem. And cities with higher population density reduce the extent of this problem.

So, now we see that urban families are more environmentally friendly than rural families and suburban families.
#15191636
B0ycey wrote:The problem is looking into the far past for blame is stupid considering this has only really been understood in the last 50 years or so and really only then could action take place. And I would also like to congratulate China on at least not building any more new coal plants for the third world which was declared today. So clearly they at least acknowledge this is a problem even if you don't. Also the West (excluding US) IS GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND what is expected of them. The UK is aiming at being Carbon neutral by 2030 I think. Or it might be 2050 with electric cars by 2030. Either way, they are making real change and so are the rest of Europe. The problem is because it has been cheaper to burn dirty fuels, we simply haven't invested enough in renewable energy and today we can see how dependent we are on gas given the price of it has gone through the roof. And that is what we need to do now. Government initiative if possible to get off gas and oil. We could have easily been off carbon fuels by now had we invested heavily in Hydrogen.


The far past? The vast majority of that pollution generated by the UK and US occurred after ww2.


Yes, sprawl is another ecological problem. And cities with higher population density reduce the extent of this problem.

So, now we see that urban families are more environmentally friendly than rural families and suburban families.


Disingenuous distinction. 80% of urban residents in Western cities ARE living in low and medium density urban sprawl 'suburbia'. Cities like LA, Sydney, London, Paris, etc are the norm, not the exception.
Last edited by Igor Antunov on 22 Sep 2021 15:12, edited 1 time in total.
#15191638
@Igor Antunov

What, a war we had 80 years when we didn't know about climate change? You want to go there. :lol:

The point is we can't look at the past to excuse our habits today. I understand that third world nations want to catch up but they need to do so using clean technology because it is the third world who are the biggest polluters right now as my chart shows. As I said, China understand this given they are no longer paying to build the third world coal plants and the US has also pledged to pay dividends to poor nations to go green also. So both the two biggest polluters understand the problem and you don't. The problem is this isn't enough. Both nations also have to do more at home because they are the guys that will make the difference. And posting a picture of Paris on a foggy day doesn't change the fact that Europe at least is making the right actions to tackle climate change and you will find that the biggest culprits aren't Liberals who care about the environment and will act in a way to change former habits but the Climate deniers that will go out their way to drive 4x4s and burn oil because that is counter productive.
#15191639
Pants-of-dog wrote:The fact that the OP was unable to differentiate between suburbs and urban environments is not my fault.

The photo shown in the OP was definitely of high density urban living and not suburban sprawl.


Outside of east asia Suburbs are part of metropolitan statistics and comprise the bulk of most city's greater population-many of whom reside in low and medium density dwellings.

As you leave Shanghai, Tokyo or Beijing for example, the city simply ends and turns into farms and villages. In the west the CBD and city core melts into suburbia and keeps going. Distinctions are idiotic, given that 90% of Sydney residents for example live in single family houses. Ditto for Los Angeles and the list goes on.
#15191642
Igor Antunov wrote:Outside of east asia Suburbs are part of metropolitan statistics and comprise the bulk of most city's greater population-many of whom reside in low and medium density dwellings.


Please provide evidence for this claim.

Also, please provide evidence that progressives mainly live in the suburbs.

And if the claim is that people should live in high density cities instead of suburbs, then your OP is wrong.

As you leave Shanghai, Tokyo or Beijing for example, the city simply ends and turns into farms and villages. In the west the CBD and city core melts into suburbia and keeps going. Distinctions are idiotic, given that 90% of Sydney residents for example live in single family houses. Ditto for Los Angeles and the list goes on.


So your argument is against sprawl and not against progressives living in high density urban environments.

So we agree that your OP is wrong. Good.
#15191693
colliric wrote:The definition of City differs depending on which country you live in.

In Australia, cities are identified by their Central Business District, inner urban area and the outer "Metropolitan area" also known as the suburban area. The population of all three is counted entirely as being the City's population in Australia.

That's how Australians officially view things.

Therefore people living in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane definately use more resources than rural communities, and that's frequently correctly reported in the press.


You cherry picking the worst case of sub urban living. If you look at electoral maps, Liberals generally avoid living in the suburban sprawl.
#15191755
pugsville wrote:You cherry picking the worst case of sub urban living. If you look at electoral maps, Liberals generally avoid living in the suburban sprawl.


Nope. The Labor Party(left wing, like the UK) party dominates poorer suburbs in Australia.

2016 Federal Election Sydney(CBD in Harbour Bay area to north-right):
Image

2018 State Election Melbourne(3 CBD seats captured by Greens, so it's the Green section):
Image

Labor is Red, Liberal Party is Blue, Greens are light green, National Party (part of centre-right Liberal-National Coalition) is dark green.
Last edited by colliric on 23 Sep 2021 02:49, edited 1 time in total.
#15191757
AFAIK wrote:Liberals,
You claim to care about the environment yet you haven't all committed suicide yet.
Curious

Exactly, the single greatest thing a liberal can do for the environment is to commit suicide, the younger the better.
The only problem with this is that if 50% of liberals did it, then the people who don't care about the environment would gain power. And, this would soon (about 120 years or much less) cause a 5 deg. C temp increase and that would end civilization as the minimum consequence.
The 2nd greatest thing a person can do (and it is by a large margin) is to have no children, which is what I did. But, this also reduces the number of liberals in the next generation.
#15191759
So, @colliric When they show the districts how much of a percentage is that, when it shows that it's under control?

I think you're being purposefully misrepresenting this. I know, as well as you, that an area can be politically conservative and that can represent a mere 35% of the population.

I know how the system works, remember? Canada has more than two political parties, too.
eg. Edmonton is Conservatives. Calgary is Liberal. This only represents that 40% of each voted as such and truly doesn't represent the population's ideology.

It's bullshit. This whole thread is Bullshit. Liberals and Conservatives live in cities. The truth is that because of the population density, it appears as though liberals are the vast majority, when it's probably closer than you think.

Also, living in cities is eco-friendly.

7 Reasons That City Living Is Eco-friendly
1. Density and better land use
When living centers are heavily populated and planned with mixed-use neighborhoods (residential combined with commercial), the space is used more efficiently. Consider a square mile of a suburb and a square mile of a city. Which has a better use of space? There are more activities in a city square mile, making it more efficient.

2. Public transportation, extensive bike lanes, and walking paths
Good public transportation eliminates the need for you to own a car. Traveling by bus or train, you save money on insurance, gas, parking and car repairs. There are fewer emissions per person when there are hundreds packed into one mode of transportation. As with public transportation, if you can walk or bike anywhere, you will not need a car. In the country or suburbs, you need to get in your car to run errands or get to work.

3. Recycling centers and recycle/reclamation programs
Many good-sized cities now have full recycling programs. Smaller communities lack this option or services are limited.

4. Green spaces
Urban planners and city governments are getting smart to the advantages of green spaces. Parks, nature preserves, botanical gardens, waterways and greenbelts soften the harshness of a city, reconnect people to nature and become social gathering places, teach environmentalism and offer psychological well being for residents. Aside from the added beauty, green spaces also absorb rainwater runoff, prevent soil erosion, cool the city, and turn CO2 into oxygen.

5. Urban gardening or farming, and farmer’s markets
City codes are changing to allow residents to grow food and keep livestock. You may be able to dig up your yard for a small vegetable patch, or you can grow in containers on your balcony or porch. If you can’t grow in your own yard, look for a community garden. Whether you can grow at home or not, farmer’s markets are sprinkled throughout cities. Farmers come in from the country and sell fresh, organic produce. Buying local for a wide variety of goods is easier in cities.

6. Job opportunities closer to home
There are more jobs and a larger variety in a city. Pay is generally higher, too, than a suburban job. Your commute is likely to be shorter, saving you money and reducing emissions at the same time.

7. Accessible nightlife, culture, and social services
There are an unlimited number of things to do when you want to go out with less fuel to burn to get to them. There is a lot of stimulation and inspiration in a city only a short journey away from home. Art abounds in a city. A large variety of music, theaters and museums offers an education in itself. A city provides more libraries, recreation and medical services than a suburb or rural area. You may not be able to find all of these in one place, so decide on what suits your needs best.

https://www.builddirect.com/blog/reason ... -friendly/

Which Is More Environmentally Responsible, Urban or Rural Living?

Cities are characterized by dense housing, with many more people living in a comparatively small area. This concentrates human land use, easing pressure on natural areas outside the city. Without the high demand for suburban or rural living, there would be much less pressure on agriculture lands and wild lands, less habitat fragmentation, and less roadkill-causing car traffic.

This dense urban fabric means small dwellings, requiring far less energy to heat and cool and leaving less room for energy-hungry appliances than the bigger homes typical of the countryside.

A walking lifestyle is more accessible in the city, where the workplace may be located within walking or biking distance. In rural areas people are much more reliant on car transportation, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. For those not walking to work or to conduct errands, public transportation options are usually much more accessible to urban residents.

Access to quality local food. Surprisingly, it is often easier to find farmers markets in the city, where shoppers can make choices that favor local foods grown following sustainable practices. However, some of the worst food deserts in the country are in economically depressed urban areas, where the only accessible sources of food are convenient stores and fast-food restaurants offering few healthy and environmentally conscious options.

While it is admittedly more of a health issue, in the United States water quality is generally better in cities, counter-intuitively. There, everyone is connected to a municipal water source that has been treated and is routinely tested. In rural areas, most people rely on well water, which vary greatly in quality and is rarely tested. Furthermore, the proximity to intensive agricultural operations can increase the chances of groundwater being contaminated by pesticides.

Sewage treatment is centralized, monitored, and generally effective in cities. Rural residents rely on a patchwork of septic systems of various ages and level of maintenance.

https://www.treehugger.com/environmenta ... ng-1203972
#15191767
Godstud wrote:So, @colliric When they show the districts how much of a percentage is that, when it shows that it's under control?


The Australian Federal Electoral system seat boundaries are constantly changing to aim for 100,000 voters per seat based upon the electoral results of the last few elections. The next calculation is due next year. Sydney has a population of around 5-5.5 million so has 25 seats.

The Victorian state election system also aims for a set amount of voters in each seat. I think it's 25,000.

The map is therefore extremely accurate. However we have preferential voting at all levels, so Green Party(and other minority left wing parties) voters mostly get bunched in with the Labor Party if they didn't win themselves and Pauline Hanson & Clive Palmer's(as well as other minority right-wing parties) voters get counted towards the Liberal-National Coalition. Unless the person was a weirdo who voted for One Nation but for whatever reason preferences Labor instead of the Liberals.

Some people also vote Liberal and Labor as their top two preferences, because they hate minority parties. So some crossover occurs.
#15191768
colliric wrote:Nope. The Labor Party(left wing, like the UK) party dominates poorer suburbs in Australia.

2016 Federal Election Sydney(CBD in Harbour Bay area to north-right):
Image

2018 State Election Melbourne(3 CBD seats captured by Greens, so it's the Green section):
Image

Labor is Red, Liberal Party is Blue, Greens are light green, National Party (part of centre-right Liberal-National Coalition) is dark green.


Proves my point.
WTF is THIS? What is America?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1zi2QwpOlc I me[…]

In a huge victory for the global south, half of a[…]

Not his fault, prop guns aren't supposed to be loa[…]

The video does not address Greta Thunberg pionts[…]