You're right - wierd, I'm moving in with you. I'm bringing my whole family.
Better!
Most people move out of the city (or at least a good portion) because its cheaper. My family is moving out of the city and california, to a rural state and somewhere outside an urban area (but staying close enough to stores and good internet), because we can't afford to live in a city. California is worse (though not the worst state) when it comes to the price of living, than most states in the US. And don't even look at San Francisco, the rent there is insane. It costs more to live in a one tiny little room shack than it does a house in the southern part of California lol. And people can have two programming jobs in SF, and still be forced to live in their car. Its no wonder people move out of cities to cheaper parts of the state or cheaper states in general, when that happens. But, all of California is pretty expensive, we looked out in the boondocks and it still is a lot because then the price to travel to work goes up a ton with gas prices and travel time, and then our vehicle requires more maintenance for the multiple long trips.
don't get me started on San Fransisco. the fact, though, is that pricing is ultimately a matter of economy and the rules of land ownership and property, and not directly related to our ability to continue living on this planet in the next century, which is what is at issue here.
This is pretty much completely untrue in the context in which it's being deployed. You're confusing the growth of suburbs, a real problem caused by overpopulation, with the tiny percentage of people who want to fuck off and live in the woods, who cause next to no environmental problems because they have a pretty small footprint to begin with and then there are hardly any of them.
I am conflating them but while they are often considered seperate issues I see one as the extreme end of the other. Again, I point to
Wyoming as the state producing the most carbon emissions per capita. Coincidentally, the state with the smallest population! A state with 0.179% percent of the population and 1.2% of the polution! That's pretty fucking horrible! Who the fuck do you think you are, Wyoming? (If anyone from this chat is from Wyoming, I am very sincerely not sorry, but that's fine because statistically no one probably is!
Furthermore, individual people's lives are an infinitesimal part of the human environmental footprint by any metric, even those suburbanites who water their carefully manicured lawns. You know why Wyoming and Alaska have such high CO2 emissions per capita? Because they're major fossil fuel producers.
Point of order, name a state with low population density whose primary contribution to the economy
isn't a major fossil fuel producer. Seriously I am sincerely am having trouble finding one. Probably one that is entirely reliant on agricultural output? The main exception on my chart is oregon (eighth place).
The problem is industry - which means the problem is, in fact, all those New Yorkers (by the way, I notice you assume New York is just the city, but there's a whole extra fifty-four thousand square miles which are much closer to Wyoming on average) who are using energy extracted from Wyoming and Alaska without having to account for the environmental damage on their own personal books.
A common trope, but in fact quite untrue except in the general sense that any amount of economy is intrinsically bad for the environment through power; you cannot conflate "Industry" with the specific business that is fossil fuel extraction and then claim that one = other, because you would then face the fact that the overwhelming availability of public transit in New York means vastly less use of fossil fuels compared with everyone in new york city living somewhere else and owning a car. That is the trick of
per capita. You claim "individual people's lives don't add up to much", but in fact it is precisely to fuel such lives that the industry of fossil fuel extraction is necessitated; these are inextricably linked.
I am not saying that New York, say,
recyles more or some such feel good nonsense like that (which wouldn't really pay for the cost of the industry supporting it to occur in the first place, as you rightly point out), I am saying it
uses less.
(by the way, I notice you assume New York is just the city, but there's a whole extra fifty-four thousand square miles which are much closer to Wyoming on average)
I don't! New York
State has the lowest CO2 emissions per capita of any state in the Union. Which tells you how incredible the impact is: that just having the city in brings New York to number one,
even including the much less dense rest of the state. Which should tell you that New York
State is more of a true "middleground" between living in the city and not; if the distribution of urbanization, population, and public transport in this country was closer to that of New York
State, there would still be plenty of room for people doing whatever the fuck they want with their lives if they are like sluissa and hate the idea of other people. Instead, it is the outlier, which is why the environment continues to be very much fucked into the foreseeable future.
(An actual example of a strictly urban state would be DC, which indeed has even lower per capita than new york (by half, even!), but it is merely a territory and thus not included).
Maybe is just me, but maybe letting Trump have access to his twitter account while jacked up with some sort of stimulants is probably not the best idea.
I reckon that ain’t possible under the circumstances anyhow. White House is pretty empty I heard.
I think it's a great idea so long as he doesn't start a war. He's doing a marvelous job of campaigning against himself.
On the other hand, the second of the five military aides who handle the nuclear football has tested positive, so maybe restraining ol' donald might be required in the immediate future.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4224167 times)