Urban or rural: Which is more energy-efficient?
More than half the U.S. population is packed into three dozen well-lit metro areas, each one home to at least a million power-hungry people. Surely Americans could save money and energy by living somewhere simpler. Right?
Transportation
Why the difference? Aside from environmental factors, it's a combination of infrastructure and behavior, Battles says. The compact construction of urban condo towers and apartment buildings helps insulate their indoor climates, while large homes common in less dense areas need more energy for heating and cooling, and have a harder time keeping air from leaking outside. Look at the infrared image at right, for example. The red, orange and yellow colors show where heat is escaping from the house during winter.
Conserving energy
link:
Comments(22)
Posted By Anonymous - Fri, Sep 18 2009 at 4:25 AM ESTSore spot!
Oh man some people are too funny. The article is about admittedly unscientific napkin calculations for energy use on average and people are taking it as the greatest personal insult. Yes, if you grow your own fuel and ride a horse around and "fertilize" your own garden than yeah, you're probably using less electricity than a city person, no one is trying to deny that (or limit the size of house you're allowed to live in). That's not most suburban families though so calm down, we still think.... More
Posted By Anonymous - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 10:36 PM ESTWhat about the streetlights?
when considering the consumption rate, shouldn't you add in all of the infrastructure that also goes with city life? Cabs? Streetlights? Buses? Public buildings? The list could go on ad naseum. I think to be fair you should consider at least some of these things in the calculation. I live in the sticks, grow my own trees for heat fuel, have a well and do some of my own gardening. I am sorry, but there is no way my 'carbon footprint' or what ever you want to call it can be larger than someone.... More
Posted By MotherLodeBeth - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 5:31 PM ESTCan I disagree?
So someone who lives in a rural 500 sq ft home and is off the grid using solar, has a grey water set up, only drives into town once a week, grows most of their own vegan diet food, and doesn't own a tv, cell phone etc is less energy efficient than someone in the city who eats out often, which means more use of natural resources to get the food to the stores or restaurants? Or doesn't use a grey water system which means valuable water is wasted and not reused. And what about all those buses that.... More
Posted By Richard - Mon, Sep 07 2009 at 11:17 AM EST@ MotherLodeBeth
These are statistics. What has eating out got to do with anything? How many cars does it take to transport the same amount of people as a bus? (hint: about ten) Did you actually read this or did you get offended at "Urban or Rural: Which is More Energy-Efficient?" ?
Posted By Snarkilicious - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 9:04 PM ESTThe stupid! It burns!
Wow! What a complete lack of understanding of basic statistics!
I once met a woman who was taller than me. Therefore, all women are taller than men.
Posted By Adam - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 2:32 PM ESTHallelujah!
It's official, enlightened cityfolk are better in everyway than stupid smalltown people.
Posted By Anonymous - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 2:14 PM ESTcalculator oversimplifies
A calculator based solely on square footage isn't very useful. I live in a rural area but spend almost nothing on residential energy because I heat my home with wood from slash piles (which would go up in smoke anyway, but burn cleaner in my stove than when the timber companies put a match to them outdoors) and run my pump with a solar panel. I agree that small homes make a big difference, though, and I think it's high time for building codes that limit square footage to conserve energy.
Posted By Anonymous - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 2:24 PM ESTLimit square footage?
Am I to understand that you want the government to limit how big your house can be!?!
Posted By A guy who lives in the country - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 11:39 AM ESTOne study that disagrees
"When it comes to urban planning and population growth, our media and politicians tend to operate with a wide range of assumptions about the consequences of various public policy approaches. Well intended though these presumptions are, they remain only presumptions in many cases. In some cases,
they are factually mistaken.
One such area of presumption involves what some like to pejoratively call ‘urban sprawl’ (though there is virtually no evidence of its existence in Australia –.... More
Posted By Robb - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 11:38 AM ESTConsumption
My guess would be that, as you haven't factored in consumption patterns across ages, among other factors, that rural communities simply consume less across the board. Rural communities tend to have a higher percentage of middle-aged adults than 20-30somethings, and their carbon footprints are much lower as they're less active. Young city-dwellers consume ungodly amounts of goods which haven't been factored in here. And yes, they might drive to the grocery store, but they don't go every other.... More
Posted By Mike W - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 11:30 AM ESTTypical liberal tripe
Yes, it's the dream of liberals around the world to herd us all into urban tenements living like rats in a cage of socialism. Let's "re-wild" the countryside and live the megacities on top of each other.
Yes, what a beautiful dream!
Why don't we just stop creating so many darn people? That is the only true way to "save" the environment. 6 or 7 billion is 3 or 4 billion too many.
Even after we all move into Al Gore inspired 400 square foot apartments in cities, in 50 years we'll be.... More
Posted By J.B. - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 1:11 PM ESTDon't believe everything you hear about "liberals"
Ridiculous. I'm as liberal as it gets, and I'd love to live in a peaceful rural area. In fact, I do. It's great. Futhermore, no, we're not all commies.
The whole point of classical liberalism as defined by JS Mill is that the individual should be able to live freely with as little interference as possible from the state, and should be permitted to do as he pleases as long as it does not cause harm to others. This is the exact opposite of the "rats in a cage" situation you fear..... More
Posted By Sean Roberts - Tue, Sep 01 2009 at 10:21 AM ESTWho's more energy efficient?
It's the city mouse vs. country mouse story with a surprising twist. Maybe we should all move to a condo and live stacked on top of one another ... but that doesn't sound like much fun.
Posted By Anonymous - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 4:14 AM ESTStacked like mice? Not so much fun.
You're entirely correct. The transformation of a decent-sized suburb, say, Apex, NC into some beast that had the same population density as, say, Queens, NY, let's take for example. They both provide similar things: Apex feeds into RTP, Raleigh, and the surrounding area for a lot of their jobs; Queens feeds Manhattan.
Apex has a population of 3,1453, and a density of 1,918.2 people per square mile[1]. Queens is 2,293,007 and 20,991 respectively[2]. Let's not go quite as dense with.... More
Posted By Bill Johnson - Tue, Sep 01 2009 at 10:18 AM ESTSending this to my rural b-in-law....
...who is constantly going on & on about how I live in the polluted city but he's raising his kids in "clean air and lots of green" out in the country (i.e. suburbs with big lots) ....of course, he never talks about his 40 minute commute to work every day (which puts another car on the road) and the fact that that they can't even buy a loaf of bread without getting in a vehicle. I'd pay $100 for a carbon-calculator belt that we could both wear for one day....I guarantee that my city carbon.... More
Posted By Anonymous - Wed, Sep 02 2009 at 2:15 AM ESTyour carbon-calculator belt
would make you look as gay as you sound
Posted By Grey Garvin - Tue, Sep 01 2009 at 10:15 AM ESTSo I have this straight...
....If you want to take good care of the environment, stay away from it and live in cities.
Posted By Elizabeth - Tue, Sep 01 2009 at 10:43 AM ESTOh please
You can still live a city life and enjoy the environment. Take a train up the Hudson for a day hike & lunch in a small coastal town or rent a Zipcar and drive to the country to pick some apples. (Both things I did while living in NYC... too easy).
Posted By Elizabeth - Tue, Sep 01 2009 at 10:45 AM ESTMy comment was a reply @Grey Garvin
But it didn't post that way. Just clarifying! :)



Facebook
Stumble
Tweet
Digg
Link














City vs. Country
Having lived in both the city and the country and having driven long haul in a truck, I can tell you two things:
Energy-schmenergy, you can measure consumption guesses with statistics all you want, but it means nothing. What matters to make humanity more stable is to change our lifestyles. Period.
If you like living in the city, then good. We don't want you in the country. If you like living in the country, then great, stay out of their cities. How much energy you consume.... More