Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[Montegriffo]

...not to mention the economies of scale.
How many people go to work on an electric rail system in rural areas for example?
What is the difference between a half full lorry delivering a few items to several shops in a rural area for a handful of people and a rammed full lorry delivering stock to thousands all in one trip?

[SuburbanFarmer]

I noticed you haven’t posted anything about the per capita pollution of big cities versus the average. Well, I looked but I couldn’t find any studies that give an obvious answer that weren’t contradicted by other analysis, there’s lots of variables. But I suspect the most densely crowded areas are more efficient and the suburbs give off more emissions.

You post it if that's where your argument lies.
But that's not how we look at environmental issues, it's in geographic area of pollution, concentration of pollutants, and cubic volume of pollutants.

NYC is 500 square miles of concentrated pollutants upon layer of pollutants over 350 years.

Doesn't the total destruction of Ecosystems mean anything to you ?
Do you think you can just ignore that level of pollution and environmental destruction on a per capita number ?

I mean... if we can limit it to a few local ecosystems like NYC, and leave the rest of the landscape relatively unfucked, then that’s a good thing.

The real eco catastrophe is the endless suburb.

[C-Mag]

I'd start with South Africa. The UN approves and promotes land being taken away from White Farmers, and the UN supports those farmers being forced to pay for any loans even after the land is taken.

UN 'peacekeepers' are well known for sexual abuse and human trafficking, and then the UN gives those people cover, subverting host nations ability to properly punish the crimes.

So, you are against the UN dictating what countries can and cannot do, yet you also are chastising the UN for not "doing something" about the SA appropriating the land of white farmers? Which is it, then? But more importantly, of course, you're still not giving any evidence that "The UN approves of", or "promotes" the land of white SA farmers being confiscated? Who in the UN said that? The UN Secretary General? The UN Security Council, meaning the voice of sovereign, independent countries? Who? A quote or a document would be nice.

When you say "The UN supports", do you mean that the members of the UN, i.e. the sovereign, independent, countries of the world who make up the UN, supports land being taken away from white SA farmers? That the UN representative of say, Georgia, Russia, China, Sweden or Uzbekistan "support" the South African government taken away white farmers' land? Shouldn't sovereign, independent countries be allowed to have an opinion, even to the point of sanctioning, another country if they so choose? Or do you think it extremely unjust that the US persuaded other countries to sanction countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba? Is that "subversion", too?

UN peacekeeping is authorized by the Security Council... meaning you, the United States, as well. It doesn't suit you to pretend you're powerless here.

The UN is practicing Social Justice and you guys know it. You are dancing around the facts.

What are you saying, the UN does not have a responsibility to punish people wearing blue helmets that are raping women and selling children ? WTF Bjorn. You want the US to solve all those problems ?


You wouldn't rush to the defense of the Catholic church for those abuses, why do you do it with the UN ?

[C-Mag]

As for the other topic of rural vs urban pollution pr capita. Of course rural populations pollute more pr capita. You have to drive more to get your essentials in a rural geography than you would need to in a city.

Yet what conclusion are we to draw from that fact? That if only rural populations had more supermarkets and malls next to where they live, they wouldn't need to consume so much fuel; everything they needed would be within walking distance? Oh... that's great.. sooo.. the solution to rural populations polluting so much is to turn farmland and forests into cities. Great plan, that... sure that will do loads of good for the environment.

Show some evidence. I posted a great deal of proof of how cities destroy entire ecosystems.

I didn't say turning farmland into cities was the answer, I don't know where you got that.
What I did say, is Urban Dwellers need to pay the price for their rampant environmental destruction and continuous expansion and destruction.

Why do you defend these concentrated pollution centers ?

[Otern]

As for the other topic of rural vs urban pollution pr capita. Of course rural populations pollute more pr capita. You have to drive more to get your essentials in a rural geography than you would need to in a city.

I wouldn't say of course. Sure, rural people drive more fossil fuel cars. But urban people earn more, and therefore consume more. Urban people also travel way more by plane. And they consume more goods that have traveled further.

The only aspect I can think off, where rural people pollute more than urban people, are cars.

[nmoore63]

Certainly the economies of scale can make cities more efficient per person in theory.

City folks tend to have much higher consumption rates than rural tho.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Certainly the economies of scale can make cities more efficient per person in theory.

City folks tend to have much higher consumption rates than rural tho.

I don’t think that they do, actually.. at least not in terms of resources.

A crowded city diner vs a dozen small rural ones.

Apartment building housing 1,000 on one lot vs 500 homes with a yard, etc.

[BjornP]

I'd start with South Africa. The UN approves and promotes land being taken away from White Farmers, and the UN supports those farmers being forced to pay for any loans even after the land is taken.

UN 'peacekeepers' are well known for sexual abuse and human trafficking, and then the UN gives those people cover, subverting host nations ability to properly punish the crimes.

So, you are against the UN dictating what countries can and cannot do, yet you also are chastising the UN for not "doing something" about the SA appropriating the land of white farmers? Which is it, then? But more importantly, of course, you're still not giving any evidence that "The UN approves of", or "promotes" the land of white SA farmers being confiscated? Who in the UN said that? The UN Secretary General? The UN Security Council, meaning the voice of sovereign, independent countries? Who? A quote or a document would be nice.

When you say "The UN supports", do you mean that the members of the UN, i.e. the sovereign, independent, countries of the world who make up the UN, supports land being taken away from white SA farmers? That the UN representative of say, Georgia, Russia, China, Sweden or Uzbekistan "support" the South African government taken away white farmers' land? Shouldn't sovereign, independent countries be allowed to have an opinion, even to the point of sanctioning, another country if they so choose? Or do you think it extremely unjust that the US persuaded other countries to sanction countries like Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba? Is that "subversion", too?

UN peacekeeping is authorized by the Security Council... meaning you, the United States, as well. It doesn't suit you to pretend you're powerless here.

The UN is practicing Social Justice and you guys know it. You are dancing around the facts.

What are you saying, the UN does not have a responsibility to punish people wearing blue helmets that are raping women and selling children ? WTF Bjorn. You want the US to solve all those problems ?


You wouldn't rush to the defense of the Catholic church for those abuses, why do you do it with the UN ?

No, the UN isn't "practising Social Justice". The UN is all of the countries in the UN, so the UN isn't practising "Social Justice". Simple logic. You're treating it as if was some sort of "globalist", "New World Order", wannabe-government.

I am not "rushing to the UN's" defense when it comes to peacekeepers raping women. The CC is also ONE sovereign national (via the Vatican) state that only represents itself. The UN represents nearly every single, independent, sovereign country on the planet, as well as most of the nations on earth. Including the US. It does not have interests of its own.

Of course those who organize the peacekeeping forces have a responsibility to see those involved punished. Who says anything about the US? Just because you think you're the (only) one solving all of the world's problems, doesn't mean that that's something everyone else in the world thinks the same way - or in the same way. Several of those rapist peacekeepers were French, France is a permanent member of the UN Security Council. That story about it being hushed up, is probably not "The UN" getting in the way of national sovereignty and independence. It's national sovereignty and independence getting in the way of justice.

[Montegriffo]

As for the other topic of rural vs urban pollution pr capita. Of course rural populations pollute more pr capita. You have to drive more to get your essentials in a rural geography than you would need to in a city.

I wouldn't say of course. Sure, rural people drive more fossil fuel cars. But urban people earn more, and therefore consume more. Urban people also travel way more by plane. And they consume more goods that have traveled further.

The only aspect I can think off, where rural people pollute more than urban people, are cars.

I'm not sure your point about food miles is true. The major distribution hubs for food are in the cities so food often travels from the countryside into the city then back out again. Food imports also go via the distribution hubs.
The point about earning more in the cities seems to back up the argument that we need to decrease our standard of living in order to get a grip on our overconsumption. I'm not against this as a solution so maybe we start with a polluter pays tax policy.

[BjornP]

As for the other topic of rural vs urban pollution pr capita. Of course rural populations pollute more pr capita. You have to drive more to get your essentials in a rural geography than you would need to in a city.

Yet what conclusion are we to draw from that fact? That if only rural populations had more supermarkets and malls next to where they live, they wouldn't need to consume so much fuel; everything they needed would be within walking distance? Oh... that's great.. sooo.. the solution to rural populations polluting so much is to turn farmland and forests into cities. Great plan, that... sure that will do loads of good for the environment.

Show some evidence. I posted a great deal of proof of how cities destroy entire ecosystems.

I didn't say turning farmland into cities was the answer, I don't know where you got that.
What I did say, is Urban Dwellers need to pay the price for their rampant environmental destruction and continuous expansion and destruction.

Why do you defend these concentrated pollution centers ?

Uhmm.... Carlus. First, you might want to consider the fact that the post you're replying to, wasn't aimed at you, personally.

Secondly:

https://www.iied.org/cities-produce-sur ... ons-capita

I quite frankly don't care if it's cities or rurals that pollute more per capita. Not a big deal for me. Gotta get pollution down. In both cities and rural areas. In better ways than just taxing the shit out of people who can't afford it.

Again, I didn't say that you said...anything. In this thread, at this time, I am arguing with you on the matter of UN. I am NOT arguing with you, or any posts of yours on the issue of rural vs urban pollution. Untill now, of course.. which is because you apparantly thought because my post on this topic followed my reply to you on the UN issue, it "must" have been addressed to you, too. Well, it wasn't.

Third: I am no one's "side" here, Carlus. I argue against arguments, not against people or take "sides", especially not any of your sides. So what if cities pollute more? Seriously, so.. ******* what? Just like with the useless factoid that rural people pollute more per capita, what should be done with it? Should cities be wiped out? Turned into farmland and forests? What of the people? Are they all gonna be farmers? Forest dwellers. Hunters? Fertilizer?