A choice that I’m grappling with personally (as someone who lives in the suburbs in the US and owns two Teslas) is that I should really move somewhere more sustainable, i.e., more density so that I can get rid of my cars. That’s more difficult given family needs etc. If I didn’t have to factor others’ needs, I would have done this already.
This is the point that I think the author is trying to make. Changes at the margin aren’t addressing the real problem - they’re treating the symptom, not the disease.
And the author fails to explain why (in the context of climate change) that's actually a problem. Suburban areas have a disproportionate carbon footprint specifically because of ICE-powered cars being required to go anywhere; if those ICE cars become electric cars, and that electricity comes from solar/wind/nuclear/hydro/geothermal/etc., then... where, exactly, is the carbon footprint?
Hell, at that point the suburban areas could actually be net carbon sinks, given there's more room for big carbon-devouring trees in between single-family/duplex/quadruplex homes than there typically is between skyscrapers packed as tightly as possible (as is the norm in even small cities, let alone large ones).
The author very specifically points that out:
> ...our cars primarily exist to connect things, things that require immense extraction and fossil fuel energy to build, run and maintain: roads buildings factories shopping centres suburbs cities airports and so on. It is not just the car itself that is unsustainable; it is our entire way of life and the system that underpins it.
I can almost understand this for roads (but buses still need those, too!). Literally everything else is entirely orthogonal to cars or the lack thereof; abolishing cars entirely v. switching to electric-only would have zero impact there.
This is absurd. If people move away from the suburbs, the trees will still be there, and more if we get into reforestation. Building a suburb generally involves cutting down trees. Humans living in a smaller area of the planet leaves more room for trees.
Only for cities/suburbs that exist in forested areas. This would exclude most desert and prairie ecosystems (for example).
> Humans living in a smaller area of the planet leaves more room for trees.
Sure, mathematically-speaking, and planet-wide. On a more local scale, though, this is not necessarily the case.
There's also the consideration for relative density of CO₂ sources v. sinks. I don't have any actual data here, so feel free to ignore this, but my hypothesis is that urban areas would have significantly higher CO₂ densities than suburban areas (which would in turn have significantly higher densities than rural areas, and in turn wilderness areas), and this high-density CO₂ would not readily/easily/immediately disperse / would be more difficult for surrounding carbon-sink areas (like wilderness and - I'd argue - potentially suburban areas) to even receive, let alone absorb. You thus end up with big lingering blobs of CO₂, continuously fueled by human occupation, and unable to disperse. Spreading out humans would better spread that CO₂ sequestration load, thus allowing better efficiencies.
I've become convinced that density really is the answer to building a more humane way of living.
Counterpoint?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
This was in an area where (IIRC) the mandated minimum lot size was 1 acre, and the vast majority of properties were 5+ (I lived on 8).
There is an alternative. Lobby your city to relax zoning. Let someone replace one of the homes in your subdivision with a coffee shop/convenience store/pizza parlor. Things like that.
Your current built environment isn't perfect for perfectly sustainable living, but allowing it to grow organically in that direction is far more sustainable than abandoning it and building new cities.
I struggle with this as moving is most definitely giving up on my current "community" and lobbying would most definitely push me out of my comfort zone. But perhaps that's a good thing :)
This is exactly what I'm planning to do. However, for most Americans, it isn't a realistic choice, because it means you have to emigrate from America. There's almost no place in this country where you can live without a car.
There's almost no place in this country -that is affordable- where you can live without a car.
That's the real problem. Sure - there's NY or SF, which for the most part have the infrastructure to support most people's non-car needs. But only the very few can afford to live in either place. I know I couldn't afford it, unless I somehow could land a FAANG job (not likely at my age and education level). I can't even afford to live in the downtown area of the city I currently live "in" (Phoenix) - prices there have skyrocketed, mainly due to certain infrastructure transportation improvements and other things making downtown "the cool place" to live at (and conversely pushing out the artists and such who can't afford to live there any longer). Expensive loft apartments, existing urban housing in the historic parts (pricing gone thru the roof on those). It's crazy. So - out in the "suburbs" I stay (which isn't really the real suburbs any longer, since I'm in an older area that used to be "the edge" but no longer).
I like the design of that city more than, say Manhattan, which is another candidate.
