If one wants to minimize ones personal greenhouse gas emissions, the right place to live is in an apartment/condo in a dense, walkable neighborhood, so that your heating and air conditioning impacts are shared with the neighbors, and so that your transportation needs can mainly be met by walking, with the occasional bike ride or transit trip. However, if one wants to minimize societys greenhouse gas emissions, this isnt the right strategy. One should instead live in the house where your total emissions would differ the most from the average replacement person who would otherwise live in that house. If I were to live in downtown Manhattan, I would cause no fewer greenhouse gas emissions than my potential replacement. Living in Los Angeles Im able to make a bigger difference, but still not much, because Los Angeles is one of the 25 cities with the fewest vehicle-miles-traveled per capita in the 100 largest cities in the US (wispirgfoundation.org/sites/pirg/files/reports/Transportation%20in%20Transition_0.pdf) and probably one of the very lowest amounts of energy spent on climate control. Of course, that doesnt mean one should live in the most car-dependent city possible, because one just might not be able to overcome the barriers there. Theres probably a sweet spot in the middle. I see people considering the issue of where to live, thinking that its a question of personal virtue. But I think its better to think of it as a question of societal effectiveness. And the right answer is quite different.
Posted on: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 20:38:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015