The Antiplanner

There are currently 38 responses to “Living the Dream”

Please feel free to submit comments. Constructive debate is welcome. Ad hominem attacks and name-calling will reveal the shallowness of the author. Foul language may be deleted. Your first comment will require moderation; after that, all comments will be approved unless they contain too many links in which case the software may hold them for approval as potential spam.

1. 1 On December 8th, 2009, craig said:

   Sounds more like a very expensive prison cell, to me.
   Give me a low density area, with room for a yard and a big garden.

   But if they are happy, that OK with me, as long as I don’t have to live that way.

   posted on December 8th, 2009 at 6:35 am

2. 2 On December 8th, 2009, TexanOkie said:

   New York City is more than just Manhattan. You can find similarly priced apartments, flats, even houses in Brooklyn and Queens that are about 900 square feet. Smaller than Houston McMansions, yes, but definitely more livable than the Prokop’s place in that Post article. City living isn’t for everybody, either. Even in the New York metro area, about 2/3 of the people live and/or work in suburban Westchester/Orange, Long Island, New Jersey and Connecticut. It takes all types, I suppose.

   By the way, a room like the Prokops would’ve been fine if it was in one of those old boarding houses and they shared some living quarters and meals with other families. Whatever happened to those, anyway? They not fit in with the current “hip”, “Sex and the City”-type crowd who hangs out in New York (or at least dominates the real estate market in Manhattan)?

   posted on December 8th, 2009 at 6:51 am

3. 3 On December 8th, 2009, Dan said:

   Green Cities and numerous other analyses find NYC and similar dense big cities are indeed more efficient and use less energy than McSuburbs.

   Just because someone doesn’t like big cities due to the fact they refute an ideology on the ground doesn’t give one license to dissemble.

   DS

   posted on December 8th, 2009 at 6:54 am

4. 4 On December 8th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

   According to the (generally reliable) NYCSUBWAY site here, the N.Y. MTA purchases traction power for its rail lines from the New York Power Authority, which operates a mix of hydropower and fossil-fuel-fired generating stations according to its Web site here.

   NYCSUBWAY further states:

   The power required to operate the subway system during peak hours is about 495,900 kilowatts. Annually, the subway uses 1.8 billion kilowatt hours – enough to light up the City of Buffalo for a year.

   On the N.Y. MTA’s Web site, in one of the chapters for the Second Avenue Subway draft Environmental Impact Statement (here) is this language:

   The most recent estimate available for electric power consumption by facilities operated by NYCT was 1,875,576,000 kilowatt hours (kwh) consumed in 1994. This is equivalent to 6.4 trillion BTUs (one kwh is equal to 3,413 BTUs). This includes traction power for all subway lines in New York City’s five boroughs. Electric power for New York City Transit’s IND and IRT territory, including the project area, is provided by the New York Power Authority (NYPA) through Consolidated Edison’s distribution system network. Gas and oil plants generated most of this power, and the remainder was generated by hydroelectric and nuclear sources.

   What’s interesting to me is that the N.Y. Power Authority (and especially its large hydropower installations upstate) are essentially a creation of the late Robert Moses, a man generally reviled by the transit advocacy and Smart Growth industries.

   posted on December 8th, 2009 at 7:37 am

5. 5 On December 8th, 2009, Mike said:

   Hey, if someone wants to live minimalist, as long as the rest of us aren’t paying their mortgage, more power to ‘em. There is plenty of discussion about minimalist living on Erin Doland’s Unclutterer blog, including a periodic “Extreme Minimalist Monday” piece that showcases some of the most THX-1138ish living arrangements you’ll ever see, some of which are pretty impressive.

   However, urban minimalist living is not necessarily the preferred mode of living for everybody, and there is a disturbing undercurrent of coercion in the political and social evangelism of people like David Owen. For many, “minimalist living” is better accomplished on suburban or even rural/agrarian land. In fact, sufficiently rural properties often have food production and/or extensive food storage on-site, as well as sufficient tools and sundries to survive independently for extended periods of time.

   Which is truly greener: the high-rise closet where succor must be piped in, pumped in, and imported on a continuous basis, or the remote farm in the middle of Flyover Country that you never knew existed until you saw a painting of it in a Charles Pabst calendar?

   posted on December 8th, 2009 at 10:31 am

6. 6 On December 8th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

   Mike wrote:

   > However, urban minimalist living is not necessarily the preferred mode of living for everybody, and there is a
   > disturbing undercurrent of coercion in the political and social evangelism of people like David Owen.

   I strongly agree.

   > For many, “minimalist living” is better accomplished on suburban or even rural/agrarian land. In fact,
   > sufficiently rural properties often have food production and/or extensive food storage on-site, as well
   > as sufficient tools and sundries to survive independently for extended periods of time.

   That does not appeal to me (personally) – and I spend a lot of my time a half a block from the brackish water of an estuary connected to the Atlantic Ocean – not exactly flyover country. But if such a lifestyle appeals to you, then it’s fine by me – for you.

   > Which is truly greener: the high-rise closet where succor must be piped in, pumped in, and imported on
   > a continuous basis, or the remote farm in the middle of Flyover Country that you never knew existed
   > until you saw a painting of it in a Charles Pabst calendar?

   Very good question.

   Consider the pre-prison lifestyle of the (evil and demented) Ted Kaczynski. Mostly self-sufficient (even in the production of his bombs), and used a minimum of energy and land around his cabin in Montana.

   On a related note, many persons associated with the Smart Growth industry in the U.S. point to the greater prevalence of apartment/condo/co-op living among members of the European middle class, as compared to their counterparts in the U.S. But what is almost never discussed is the also greater preference that many Europeans have for a “place in the country” as compared to U.S. residents. Some of this is, I believe, due to the longer vacations granted by European employers when compared to those in the U.S.

   posted on December 8th, 2009 at 11:52 am

7. 7 On December 8th, 2009, Close Observer said:

   175 square foot room? That’s way too big. Just another cookie-cutter McMaidsroom. If you really want sustainable compact living, check out Sergio.

   He cares more than you do, Dan.

   posted on December 8th, 2009 at 12:14 pm

8. 8 On December 8th, 2009, Dan said:

   Which is truly greener:

   For those not enchained by narrow ideology: according to the consensus of empirical analyses, large cities.

   DS

   posted on December 8th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

9. 9 On December 8th, 2009, Mike said:

   Dan,

   You’re citing a Brookings report. Have you ever heard of a concept called “conflict of interest?” Once you’ve gone and read the Wikipedia page on the topic, come on back.

   You back? OK, good. Now you know why the Brookings report is not credible.

   Anyway, even aside from that, you’re making the mistake again of thinking that science ever requires a consensus. It does not, and never will. All it takes to obliterate any “consensus” of science is one skeptic willing to test a superior idea through replicatable experimentation and publish it.

   HTH.

   posted on December 8th, 2009 at 1:07 pm

10. 10 On December 8th, 2009, MJ said:

    You really have to wait until the end of the article to get the punchline about Owen’s book. The answer is simple: recessions lead to declining emissions. All we need to do is make everyone poorer.

    posted on December 8th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

11. 11 On December 8th, 2009, Andy said:

    This thread is hilarious. The thread’s wisdom is that very rich people who decide to live in tiny spaces, and not have a car because it is so expensive to park, all so that they can live in one of the most crowded place on earth, is a model for the rest of the less-than-very-rich people.

    All you planners should get a real job and visit the fly over areas of North America once a decade or so.

    posted on December 8th, 2009 at 2:00 pm

12. 12 On December 8th, 2009, Dan said:

    One wonders why the low-wattage mischaracterizations and strawmanning continue. Is it cognitive dissonance? Residents of Simpletonia can do no better than this? Buyer’s remorse from purchasing a faulty and tawdry ideological product causing a lashing out?

    And poor Andy, I’ve flown at least a half-dozen times in the past year to speak to people about things you cannot speak to. So your manhandling of the weak strawman lets us see it can’t argue its way out of a paper bag. But thanks for trying! Good job! Good! Good job!

    ———–

    Lastly, let us note how harrumphing ideologues present zero empirical evidence to counter multiple lines of robust evidence provided above. None. Nothing. Zip.

    Oh, sure we have evidenceless speculation and cartoonish descriptions and low-wattage dim-bulbery in opposition, but not one scrap, shred, iota, farthing, bit, ounce of evidence to support the comical raiment-rending and teeth-gnashing. Harrumphing is not evidence.

    If people being free to freely make free and patriotic choices other than living in isolation refutes a certain ideology or “threatens” your lifestyle choice how weak is the ideology or choice in the first place, especially as it is obvious there is no evidence to present here?

    Just because some ideologues don’t like big cities due to the fact they refute an ideology or show alternatives to a particular lifestyle choice doesn’t give one license to dissemble.

    Come now. You are embarrassing yourselves.

    DS

    posted on December 8th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

13. 13 On December 8th, 2009, Mike said:

    Dan, if you only knew how much you embarrass yourself Every. Single. Day. here at the Antiplanner’s blog and who knows how many others. If you only knew.

    I mean, do you genuinely think you are anything other than an absolute fucking joke to any of the others of us here? (Except possibly ws). Because if you do, you should recheck your premises.

    posted on December 8th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

14. 14 On December 8th, 2009, Mike said:

    Oh, and Dan, in answer to your question of where our evidence is:

    You are the one pitching a position here, and you haven’t thrown a strike yet. You’re way off the plate with bootstrapped publication material that lacks credibility, and you’ve simply added your usual peppering of ad-hominem. Until you throw a strike, don’t expect any of us to be obligated to swing.

    BTW, feel free to keep walking batters in. The score just keeps going up on our side as you do.

    posted on December 8th, 2009 at 3:18 pm

15. 15 On December 8th, 2009, Dan said:

    If the low-wattage mischaracterizer could let the readers here know when some evidence to share might appear here…

    Evicence that counters economists (including Glaeser, a favorite here), scientists, and the weight of the library of empirical evidence that shows large cities have less impact per capita, that would be great. That is: the consensus of findings states cities have less impact.

    We await the evidence to be posted here in lieu of hand-fluttering and mischaracterization and prevarication.

    Until then, continue to mendacicize and dissemble, lad.

    DS

    posted on December 8th, 2009 at 4:33 pm

16. 16 On December 8th, 2009, Frank said:

    Dan: “I’ve flown at least a half-dozen times in the past year.”

    And how much CO2 has your flying spewed into the atmosphere? You’ve got the blood of polar bears on your hands, Danny boy. Oh, and you’re acidifying the oceans and bleaching coral reefs. If you gave a shit about all the nonsense you spew, the mantra you mindlessly repeat (“sea levels are rising, polar ice caps are melting, ocean acidity levels are rising”), why would you be adding to the problem?

    Ah, that’s right. It’s the GOVERNMENT’S responsibility to do something, not yours. But Danny boy, if you really believe that C02 is a pollutant, stay off the planes, son.

    And your computer.

    Really.

    You have shit hundreds and hundreds of comments all over this blog.

    Get a life.

    Save the planet.

    Do it now.

    posted on December 8th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

17. 17 On December 8th, 2009, ws said:

    ROT:“New Yorkers certainly drive less than other Americans. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they live greener. For one thing, their transit system uses lots of energy and the power for it emits lots of pollution and CO2″

    ws:Yeah…so what? You just said it uses a lot of energy, but compared to those people driving cars? You offered zero statistics here.

    I think this entire “green” thing has been ruined by making only climate change arguments. How about NYC uses an incredibly small amount of land per capita. How much land per capita is devoted for people in Houston? I suppose one does need more land to live on from a spatial standpoint when you’re routinely rated one of the if not the most obese city in the nation year after year. Randall brings up the issue of people eating out as an infraction of greenness…what about gluttony too?

    posted on December 8th, 2009 at 10:11 pm

18. 18 On December 9th, 2009, craig said:

    Maybe you can make it a law, that no one should be over weight and live in the city they choose or live the lifestyle they prefer.

    Being green should be a choice, not a mandate or law.

    I don’t think, we should be forcing the green religion on non believers.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 5:04 am

19. 19 On December 9th, 2009, C. P. Zilliacus said:

    ws wrote:

    > Yeah…so what? You just said it uses a lot of energy, but compared to those people driving cars?
    > You offered zero statistics here.

    Did you read comment number 4?

    > I think this entire “green” thing has been ruined by making only climate change arguments.

    Maybe because the Smart Growth industry had (and has) no better arguments?

    > How about NYC uses an incredibly small amount of land per capita. How much land per capita is
    > devoted for people in Houston?

    And why does it matter? Please be specific. One thing the U.S. has is plenty of land.

    > I suppose one does need more land to live on from a spatial standpoint when you’re routinely
    > rated one of the if not the most obese city in the nation year after year.

    How do you explain obese people in Smart Growth Meccas such as Baltimore City and the District of Columbia?

    > Randall brings up the issue of people eating out as an infraction of greenness…what about
    > gluttony too?

    Please explain how gluttony (with the exception of the insatiable desire for taxpayer dollars by big-city mass transit agencies and their strictly and often militantly unionized workforcs) has anything to do with our topics here.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 5:29 am

20. 20 On December 9th, 2009, Mike said:

    OK Dan, that’s about enough out of you. A not-credible report cited on a lefty blog is not “evidence,” ergo it is not necessary to present “counter-evidence” to refute it. Until you understand these very, very rudimentary concepts, you should probably step aside from this discussion, get back to work, and serve the taxpayers of your jurisdiction.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 7:40 am

21. 21 On December 9th, 2009, Dan said:

    Maybe because the Smart Growth industry had (and has) no better arguments?

    Help us understand why you conflate the “green industry” with the “Smart Growth industry”. Is this ignorance or purposeful?

    And why does it matter?

    Transportation emissions. Urban heat island exacerbation. Increased eutrophication into surface waters. All that stuff I said in the other thread (‘off the top of my head’).

    How do you explain obese people in Smart Growth Meccas such as Baltimore City and the District of Columbia?

    Obesity is more pronounced in rural areas, as the literature makes clear and I’ve discussed here many times. Obesity is generally less in urban areas, as the literature makes clear and I’ve discussed here many times.

    DS

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 7:48 am

22. 22 On December 9th, 2009, Dan said:

    A not-credible report cited on a lefty blog is not “evidence,”

    Still no evidence to back the assertion.

    No evidence to back the claim.

    Not a scrap of evidence provided.

    Not a whit of evidence.

    No evidence appears to support the assertion.

    Shocking that there is no evidence.

    There continues to be zero evidence to counter the claims above.

    Not one piece of evidence to counter the multiple lines of evidence above.

    Why is it shocking that the ideologue cannot provide evidence?

    The arrogant, yet assured and evidenceless assertions are held up as self-evident.

    Last time. You are either dishonest or an utter moron. There are multiple pieces of evidence in the NYT link, which was why I used it. The book above is not a not-credible report.

    Now. I am enforcing my ignorage of the mischaracterizing prolix moron who cannot provide evidence.

    [killfile]

    DS

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 8:10 am

23. 23 On December 9th, 2009, craig said:

    Obesity is more pronounced in rural areas, as the literature makes clear and I’ve discussed here many times
    DS

    We need Obesity police, laws and mandates to protect people, from themselves and the evil food pushers.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 8:51 am

24. 24 On December 9th, 2009, Mike said:

    And here is where Dan is defeated.

    Your evidence is here, here, and here — and in plenty of other places that don’t rely on studies that heavily bootstrap upon one another and are funded through conflicts of interest. I’ll even go so far as to concede a lean in the third item there. Count it as a nullification of the obvious opposing lean in your cited material.

    There is the evidence.

    There.

    Lots of it.

    And it’s valid.

    More valid than yours.

    More valid than YOU.

    And it supports my assertion.

    And EVISCERATES yours.

    Let’s enjoy some of it now:

    “We now change geographical scale (from the national picture to a more local scene) to look inside the U.S. to discover that certain types of settlements and regions are more or less responsible for the American carbon footprint. One might reasonably predict that cities and regions with large populations would have a larger carbon footprint than rural areas with low population density. A recent map (Figure 10) produced by the Vulcan Project at Purdue University confirms this prediction, showing that areas with the highest carbon dioxide emissions include the following: urbanized regions of the Northeast, urban-industrial centers in the Mid-West, West Coast urban centers, cities of the front range of the Rocky Mountains and Salt Lake, and the Gulf Coast industrial region. The southeast U.S. also turns out to be a region of high CO2 emissions due to post-World War II urbanization, industrialization and power plant emissions. One can also see line patterns on the map that are major highways and others that represent mobile sources (trucks and cars) of CO2. Rural areas such as northern Maine, the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains and Basin Range region are low carbon dioxide emitting regions.” [Emphasis mine.]

    BEST OF ALL, this is from a GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE study! This one was written by the greenies! This report is both more RECENT (September 2009) AND MORE CREDIBLE than the ones you cited! I believe in the world of science that is known as “superior evidence.”

    It’s a good thing there is no actual killfile, so you’re forced to see your defeat spelled out live and in color like this. Yes, Dan, I was around when arguments took place on usenet and a killfile actually existed. That’s how I know there isn’t one on this website right now. That makes your claim of using one look pretty darned juvenile, but when have you ever cared about that?

    See, Dan, I was here to argue the principle, but you kept harping on your “where is the evidence” claim, so I had to punch you in the motherf__king face with the evidence. As I have just done. Evidence that anybody could have Googled for, so it’s amazing that you asserted so grandly that it did not exist. And you call ME dishonest! You ALWAYS evade, distort, and mischaracterize. Frank has you pegged dead to rights, and he’s wise enough to generally avoid engaging with you at all. Since I get into a cheekier mood, I decide to wade on in sometimes.

    Well, You asked for it. I gave you every chance to bow out gracefully. I gave you every chance to get off the hook. But you wouldn’t take it! Idiot!

    See, you keep making some kind of strange assumption that I’m arguing against you from the “denialist” (nice smear) camp or something. I’ve said again and again I believe the data show that AGW is happening. My position is that this doesn’t give government the excuse du jour to enslave humanity. Your position is that it does. That is why we argue… not because I’m claiming environmentalism is somehow wrong, but because I’m calling you on your f__king power grab.

    You’re like those political activists in that Futurama episode who demanded “massive subsidies to the homeworld of brain slugs” while you could see brain slugs attached to their heads, clear as day, as they were saying it. Dan, we KNOW YOUR HUSTLE! Why even persist in this fiction that you’re here to convince anybody of anything except to buy the fraudulent bill of goods you’re pitching?

    See, you call me an “ideologue” as if to smear me. But what you don’t realize is that we are both ideologues — only my ideology is based on liberty and individual rights, while yours is based on relentless expansion of state power. Your ideology is more rigid and inflexible than mine will ever be — it’s textbook leftism, and applies force at all opportunities in order to claim its ends at any costs. That is why you will ultimately fail, though you and your ilk will do untold damage to life, liberty, and property in the time between now and the ultimate failure of your ideology. My goal is to reduce the damage you and your sort will do.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 10:32 am

25. 25 On December 9th, 2009, craig said:

    It does not help your argument to use expletives.

    DS wins when you stoop to that level.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 11:03 am

26. 26 On December 9th, 2009, ws said:

    CPZ:“Did you read comment number 4?”

    ws:Yes, I did. NYC Heavy Rail uses more like 6.1 trillion Btu with 9.4 billion passenger miles in a year. That’s something like less than 2,000 Btu / passenger mile (a slight guess).

    CPZ:“And why does it matter? Please be specific. One thing the U.S. has is plenty of land.”

    ws:You’re conflating total land with actual buildable land. Two different things. Land in the remote regions of of Alaska is not the same as land in Miami metro area, or DC metro area, etc. People think that Oregon is nice and green — and it is — but two thirds of it is actually desert. No one is going to readily be able to build on that land in mass numbers.

    Regarding land loss from development, you have to keep in mind the US has been around for a little more than 200 years. We have consumed and insatiable amount of land and resources. From a “green” perspective, land loss and land conversion is huge detriment to the environment. To live is to take, but at what point do we say enough already?

    CPZ:“How do you explain obese people in Smart Growth Meccas such as Baltimore City and the District of Columbia?”

    ws: There’s not just one way to become obese I don’t think I need to explain this. Even though someone lives in an environment that promotes walking (Inner city DC and Baltimore), it’s not able to counteract the effects of food deserts and poverty. Poverty has proven to create obesity in our cheap, calorie based food system. As Pollan has discussed before, it’s cheaper to buy a cheeseburger than it is to buy vegetables or fruit. Our food system is broken (and completely subsidized).

    CPZ:“Please explain how gluttony (with the exception of the insatiable desire for taxpayer dollars by big-city mass transit agencies and their strictly and often militantly unionized workforcs) has anything to do with our topics here.”

    ws: My comments regarding Houston weren’t meant to be in-depth or thought provoking. Randall used the environment issue of a NY city resident eating outside of their tiny apartment as being environmentally harmful (which it might actually be). My counter was obesity, which involves eating more calories than your body needs can also be environmentally unfriendly due to the shear amount of resources that go into producing food.

    (I’m not saying people should not consume nice foods or more than necessary amounts of calories. I happen to drink coffee everyday and that’s not exactly the most enviro-friendly product in the world — you know with deforestation and transportation costs to my home).

    Randall used the same tactics to criticize NYC. Just shooting it back.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 11:14 am

27. 27 On December 9th, 2009, Dan said:

    Let us note the first link uses the same data in mine, but the issue must be expressed per capita, which was the key point in #21′s link.

    That is the issue. Per capita.

    Which is the key comparitive you need to know when…um…comparing. That is: what do you compare? The OP compared capitas. That is the standard.

    The US, per the second link, has the highest per capita emissions, which is mainly a function of VMT + building/transport inefficiency + wealth + consumption.

    That is what is being addressed in the essay the OP doesn’t like and what for some reason is not grasped when…um…acting like evisceration is done.

    The consensus of findings is that, per capita, rural capitas use more resources than urban capitas.

    From a policy perspective, if efficiency gains are chosen to be goals, building envelopes will have to be more efficient, and attached structures are more efficient. Non-vehicle trips to nearby destinations will also have to have safety and efficiency built in – and we are making great strides in this respect.

    Most of the world knows this already, and we did too, prior to ignoring knowledge after WWII.

    From a practical perspective, those who can no longer afford the extra energy expenditures to live in rural areas will migrate, and cities will have to be able to absorb these capitas.

    There will be, of course, a significant number of people who will not want to migrate, and will be negatively impacted by the lack of cheap energy. Something will have to happen with these capitas as well – will society decide to do something to help them stay in place? What about all the other migrants in the future from global change to help their migration?

    [/utter basics of societies 101, first lecture]

    DS

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 11:21 am

28. 28 On December 9th, 2009, Mike said:

    Dan,

    You (by virtue of the Green Cities reports) have made an assumption that rural and urban “capitas” are the same. They are not. One can reduce their carbon footprint to the same numeric expression, but that only tells part of the story — the carbon footprints of the rural dwellers in aggregate have measurably less ACTUAL IMPACT on the environment. This is a natural consequence of, among other things, simple dispersal due to low density. In fact, this should be abundantly clear by taking the presentation in the Purdue report at face value and looking at the spots on the map where carbon emissions are at highest saturation.

    The difference between urban and rural “capitae” is further illustrated in that the urban “capita” (we could just say indivudal, no?) has a supply chain stretching all the way into rural land, where all the cows are grown for his hamburgers, for example (or all the vegetables for the vegans in the audience), thus displacing the physical location of the carbon footprint actually exerted by that urban individual on the planet into rural land. Thus, the urban dweller’s carbon footprint can appear smaller than it really is, and the rural dweller’s larger, because their behavior is very different from one another. (A rural dweller’s supply chain can end at the farmhouse gates, though in practice it is more convenient for there to be more importation than that.)

    We can go even further… carbon emissions impact on the environment is neither purely arithmetic nor logarithmic. It has a threshold element. Emissions below a certain level of critical mass effectively dissipate. The reduced density of rural areas makes it far more likely that any given unit of emission on their part will fail to reach that threshold. It’s like that old puzzle with the guy who is 20 feet down in the well and can climb up 3 feet each day, but sinks down 2 feet at night, for a net climb of 1 foot per day. Ask a person how many days it takes for him to get out, and most folks will quickly reply “20 days” based on that net gain of a foot per day. But they’re forgetting the threshold issue. The guy doesn’t need 20 days to get out, because on the 17th day, he will climb up three feet and be out of the well, making the two-foot backslide irrelevant.

    Dan, in summary, if you want to rest your entire argument on the Capitae from the Green Cities reports, “comparing” as you so painstakingly point out, then you need to compare apples to apples, and that’s not what you are doing.

    Part of the reason I like that Purdue report more and more the more I think about it is because they weren’t trying to prove the Green Cities hypothesis specifically, so their data did not have to be massaged toward that end. (I believe the term the East Anglia U scientists would use is “Trick,” but that’s neither here nor there.) Brookings, meanwhile, HAD to back up the “single iconic claim” of Green Cities, else jeopardize their meal ticket. Given the option, I tend to believe the claim of the party that doesn’t have a vested interest in seeing the data lead to a preordained conclusion.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 12:45 pm

29. 29 On December 9th, 2009, Andy said:

    So the analysis shows NYC as being so very green. Then why, if one put a fence a fence around NYC and didn’t let anything in, would everyone in NYC starve to death in a week?

    The reason is that this analysis assigns carbon demerits to rural areas for growing food that is eaten in urban areas.

    In other words, NYC seems to be such a sustainable place because all the food and water and energy is imported. In fact, very little that is done in NYC is sustainable without huge effects all over the world. Most carbon emissions in the world result in profits to NYC.

    So, Dan and ws and highwayman, smoke your best stuff and think about that for a while, then do something about the munchies.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

30. 30 On December 9th, 2009, Andy said:

    Dan said: “And poor Andy, I’ve flown at least a half-dozen times in the past year to speak to people about things you cannot speak to.”

    Andy says: “You are so right, Dan, and I hope all those people you flew to talk to bought your ED pills and Preparation H.”

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pm

31. 31 On December 9th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Andy said: So, Dan and ws and highwayman, smoke your best stuff and think about that for a while, then do something about the munchies.

    THWM: I hope you know that David Owen lives in CT, not NY.

    Also I live in a suburb, yet for some bullshit political reason you’re hostile to suburban trains.

    posted on December 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pm

32. 32 On December 10th, 2009, Dan said:

    The first approving and evidentiary link in #24 that was liked so much was from a company that produced a subsequent report that looked at per capita emissions in the US, finding energy use in urban areas much less per capita. Just like much of elsewhere. Basic stuff.

    Nonetheless, Randal’s post was about the topic of spatial arrangement of societies and what arrangement is more efficient (or sustainable/cheaper).

    No one has yet provided evidence (including Randal) that refutes Owens’ claim that urban areas are more efficient wrt energy use. And by proxy, resource use which generally means ‘sustainable’.

    Does the fact that urban areas are more efficient mean that some are trying to coerce everyone to move to more efficient areas? Only in a few p*ss-bedded fear-filled dreams.

    DS

    posted on December 10th, 2009 at 6:40 am

33. 33 On December 10th, 2009, ws said:

    Andy:“So, Dan and ws and highwayman, smoke your best stuff and think about that for a while, then do something about the munchies.”

    ws: I’m not sure why you included me in on this part of the discussion, in fact I am a bit offended that you would assume these things about me w/o me actually making a statement about Mike and Dan’s discussions.

    It’s irrelevant to compare city living with rural living. They’re two different typologies. One typology cannot exist without the other. Will the city in its current form survive without farmers/producers/resource extraction? Not right now. Will people who grow food and produce goods survive w/o the city (and its technologies that it exports to them) as well as the city being a customer of the goods produced by rural people?

    They both, actually, need each other. It’s a symbiotic relationship.

    The issue being discussed is when you get to the urbanization level. McSuburbs are urbanized. They are not rural. Comparing suburbia with NYC is okay, but comparing NYC with a rural town in Iowa is downright reckless. An even better comparison would be to compare city life to city life (say Manhattan to Memphis), and neighborhood life in the city or traditional neighborhood vs. suburbia subdivision living arrangements. We cannot expect, as Randall pointed out, for everyone to live in a cramped apartment as this is not conducive to family life. I’ve never said otherwise.

    Once again, I never said anything in this regard of pitting rural life with urban life. It’s an irrelevant comparison. We can’t expect people to all be service sector workers — we actually need the produces and creators of goods and products for a healthy economy.

    posted on December 10th, 2009 at 11:35 am

34. 34 On December 10th, 2009, msetty said:

    An antidote to much of the mud-slinging here is Steward Brand’s latest book, Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto.

    Brand has gone way beyond his naive hippie days with this non-ideological, non-reactionary look at GHG and other global ecological problems.

    Our resident reactionaries, Mike and Frank, and Randal, for that matter, might be rather surprised at Brand’s documentation of the cleverness and adaptability of poor people in Third World urban slums, for example, and the promise their ingenuity has for improving their standard of living, despite the increasing limits imposed on humanity by the planet.

    Absolutely no evidence there for the “talented and creative overclass” or the b.s. “philosophies” postulated by Ayn Rand, Von Mises or Hayek, I’m afraid…

    Brand also actually favors things like nuclear power and genetic engineering, placing these things in historical perspective and how they can facilitate the actual achievement of both ecological and economic goals, despite the opposition of [left wing] reactionary enviros.

    He also shows how the increasing urbanization of the world is a very good thing, for a few central reasons:

    (1) dramatic reduction in ecological pressures since urban technology and life, ON A PER CAPITA BASIS, is far more energy and economically efficient–including things like agricultural genetic engineering, which dramatically reduces the net impact on the soil and environment of subsistence “lifestyles” (sic);

    (2) moving from the stifling atmosphere of the rural village gives women many options compared to obeying their husbands, popping out babies, and preparing the daily meal, thus dramatically reducing birthrates; and

    (3) the diversity and interaction of many kinds of people in close proximity is very conducive to new ideas, ergo, improved ways of doing things, resulting in economic growth and increasing living standards.

    For a while, I thought what Brand had written was like something Von Mises or Hayek or possibly Rand would have written, except that the author hasn’t descended into their sort of reaction or ideological stupor.

    posted on December 10th, 2009 at 4:20 pm

35. 35 On December 10th, 2009, Andy said:

    I take back and apologize for including “ws” in my previous statement. His posting at #33 is excellent!

    posted on December 10th, 2009 at 7:12 pm

36. 36 On December 11th, 2009, Mike said:

    Setty,

    (2) moving from the stifling atmosphere of the rural village gives women many options compared to obeying their husbands, popping out babies, and preparing the daily meal, thus dramatically reducing birthrates; and

    That’s really sociological more than environmental, and no Objectivist would have any problem with recognizing the rights of an individual regardless of gender. (And that includes genders beyond the standard two.) What you’re describing has more to do with provincial attitudes and theological superstition than the urban/rural divide. Yes, there is correlation, which as you know is not causation.

    Take away an imaginary sky wizard commanding women to obey their husbands and you make it 90% of the way there without even reaching the other arguments yet.

    posted on December 11th, 2009 at 8:36 am

37. 37 On December 12th, 2009, Scott said:

    Emulate the NYC UA?

    For some reasons it does have demand for people (20M) to live there.

    Many don’t want that lifestyle.

    It’s public transit (1/3 of all nation users) is not financially viable.
    HELLO!
    HELLO!HELLO!
    Big indication. of …
    How smart are you public transit advocates? A: not very.
    You want to argue how roads …?

    posted on December 12th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

38. 38 On December 13th, 2009, the highwayman said:

    Roads are the sacrosanct grand daddy of socialism.

    It’s just that they are covert socialism.

    posted on December 13th, 2009 at 4:24 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.