It’s Official: Urbanites Produce Less CO2 than Rural Residents
March 25, 2009 · Print This Article
You’ve got a small home in the country surrounded by organic farmland or gardens, producing much of your own food and even supplementing your electricity with renewable power. You’ve gone green in as many ways as you can – so why is your carbon footprint still bigger than that of your city-dwelling cousin? Much of it comes down to land use and transportation.
A new report by the International Institute for Environment and Development has confirmed that urbanites generate significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions than those who live in rural and suburban areas.
From Yale 360:
While the high concentration of population and businesses found in cities are often seen as a pollution “problem,” researchers found that “high densities and large population concentrations can also bring a variety of advantages for … environmental management.” For instance, while New York City emitted 58.3 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2005, the per capita average of 7.1 tons was about a third of the national average of 23.92 tons per capita in 2004, according to the study. The density of buildings and high use of public transportation in New York contributes to the lower individualemissions, according to the report. Likewise, the 2006 per capita emissions average in London was about 6.18 tons – about 55 percent of the UK’s 2004 average of 11.19 tons.
It makes sense. After all, people who live in suburban and rural areas have to drive pretty much everywhere, and that has a huge impact on carbon footprint. While rural residents who need to run to the market for a forgotten dinner ingredient will have to get in their car and travel for miles, urbanites can simply walk down the street in many cases. Plus, urban dwellings tend to be vertical, taking up less land.
We’ll always have people living in rural areas, and that’s okay – but urban living is more eco-friendly in so many ways. The green cities of the future will revolve around public transportation, walkability and vertical housing and as more people move from the suburbs to the cities, it’s quite likely that we’ll see a big decrease in overall carbon emissions.
Link [Yale 360]
- Seeking Nader and Paul to help save desperate American farmers, our farmland, our animals.
- ADOPT GREEN LAMPS FOR POOR RURAL KENYAN COMMUNITIES
- Volunteer with CEDASOL
Related Posts:
‘New Urbanism’ Taking Over the Suburban American DreamBill Gates has 10,000 Times the Carbon Footprint of an Average American
“Stupidest Bike Lane Ever” Campaign – Pointing Out Useless Token Bike Lanes
New CO2-Eating Cement Could Help Fight Global Warming
Stackable Electric Paris City Cars Save Energy and Space
Unfortunately the study does not take into account the consumables, like food, clothing, etc. This will obviously impact the numbers since the amount of locally grown food in cities is minimal and manufacturing has moved overseas.
The study was meant to prove or disprove the notion that cities as a whole are disproportionate contributors of CO2, which it disproved.
That being said the author of the study went on to say – “The real climate change culprits are the high consumption lifestyles of people living across these wealthy countries”.
So while yes cities do not deserve the bad rap they’ve had in the past, it’s NOT official that they produce less CO2 than other areas. You have to factor in all the indirect CO2 drivers, which is outside the scope of this study.