Debate of the Day: Who's Greener - City Slicker or Country Bumpkin?

As a new feature, we'll post a new debate topic in this forum every morning: the DEBATE OF THE DAY (DOTD)

If you've got one you want to hash out - private message me (Stins) and we'll get it in the hopper. We'll start with an eco-DOTD, but not all will be...we need to take a break from saving the world periodically.

Now, the first DOTD:

Is it greener to live in the city where large numbers of people are densely packed and can share resources, or out in the country where you use more land, but can provide for yourself?

Aaaaaaaaand GO!!

Oh man that's a tricky one.  If you really do provide for yourself while living out in the country (i.e. grow most of your own food, don't travel much, etc.), that's probably the greener way to live.  However, we don't have enough agricultural land for all of the 6+ billion people on the planet to live this way.  So while theoretically this is the greener way to live, it's not practically possible for everyone to do.

On a larger scale, the most efficient way to live is to have farmers grow large tracts of whatever crops are needed and grow well in their climactic region.  Then to minimize the amount of transport needed, have people living in densely populated areas where they can easy access everything they need with minimal travel.

So on an individual level I would say living in the country and providing for yourself is the greener way to live.  But on a large scale, living in densely populated areas is the greener way to live.

Good points Dana. I'm not nearly familiar enough with the "well to wheel"  efficiency of urban building at all, though we're all aware there is potential for huge gains in the materials used, etc.

But I can envision sustainability gains from building "up" so that you can leverage solar energy, wind power, and solar heated, gravity fed gray water functionality. I'm no architect, but I think this sketch I just made and photgraphed with my phone clearly gets my point across :)

In case it's not abundantly clear in my photo-like drawing, that's the sun beating down heating the water and some solar panels (which can be placed on the sides of the building as well), there are wind turbines to advantage of the winds at higher altitudes, and gravity (represented here by some pretty nifty arrows) can carry water down where it can be used for a variety of other uses.

Anyway, all kidding aside, there are efficiency gains to be had through density, but not in the way we handle things presently. When I lived in Manhattan, every floor just has a massive garbage chute and people couldn't care any less what they throw down that thing. Looking back on it, that building was appalling in its efficiency.

Anyone have actual quality information to contribute?

Hehe nice sketch, Deej.  Only problem is that you'd need to pump that water up to the roof, which wouldn't be any more efficient than just pumping it directly to the floors below.  It could work if you could capture enough rainwater to meet the water needs in the building (as long as you filtered the water before sending it to a shower!), but that would require a ton of rainwater.  It could provide part of the building's water needs though.

Putting up solar panels and wind turbines is a good idea though.  And we certainly need to make urban living more efficient.

So to be honest, at first glance, I thought the turbine was a palm tree or something....so all you need to add, Deej, is a green roof!  Or a green wall like Patrick Blanc's Vertical Gardens.

Yeah, just playing around with the sketch, but a friend of mine is one of the founders of Recurrent Energy

They're calling it "Solar as a Service" - from their site:

Recurrent Energy is bringing solar electricity to mainstream markets. We build, own, and operate solar power systems for owners of large property portfolios—supplying grid-competitive electricity via power purchase agreements. We deliver sustainability and value by making solar power a practical choice for leased buildings.

Basically they're using the rooftops of city buildings to make solar farms. Very cool stuff.

Well, I suppose you're talking about how many resources the average person consumes, and I'd think that city living would be much greener. You can live in a smaller space (e.g. apt vs house) and it is more efficient to heat a large building that a bunch of small houses. Everything you'd need, hopefully, would be right nearby, so you'd minimize travel. And energy can be generated at large, efficient plants and piped over (more) efficient high voltage lines to serve a lot of people. Waste can be processed at larger, more efficient plants too.

The only major downside I can think of is that you'd have to transport all the stuff that the city needs into the city (food, water, clothes, computers, everything). But once again, scale plays a role here: transporting goods in bulk is going to be more effiicent than having each person travel a long distance to a store to get their own. If all 100 people in your apartment building only have to walk downstairs to the grocery store, you're going to save a lot vs. having all 100 drive five miles to teh store.

So who's the referee who decides who wins the debate?

If I'm the referee, city slickers win!

 Ok, just so you know, this hurts....I went t the web site of a major oil company and tried their carbon footprint calculator.....I should say a European owned major...and entered data for an apartment and then again with variables equalized, for a detached house.  I about doubled the car transport numbers - an estimate.  In any event both cases resulted in around 13 tons CO2 per year - I left variables for business and vacation travel at 0 - to keep equal.

Result is that their calculator seemed to say that there is not an appreciable difference resulting from density,on a per person basis.

That said, I am convinced that if I had a snappy drawing/picture to support my thesis, with palm trees, I'd have gotten a better comparative result.

Not sure why the calculator didn'y show more of a difference, other than an assumption that the apartment dweller needs to accept a portion of common carbon costs associated with infrastructure.

I just re-read this and see that it contributes absolutely nothing to the debate, but hey, I'm new to this.....

I'm about to go to the libaree and the pool with the kids, so I ain't gots time to add my two cents, but I did just want to take a second and comment on this. This DOTD idea is frickin awesome.

John