- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:41 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
OK, I'm no granola muncher. But are you actually saying large cities are better for the environment than rural living? Like, this is what you truly believe?
i don't really think it's much of a debate that, yes, people living closer together is better for the environment. Cities themselves are polluted but the pollution is localized.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:41 pm to Grit-Eating Shin
quote:
while the poor, dumb south never fails to support republicans.
holy shite
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:42 pm to CptBengal
quote:
this should be quite entertaining...why do you "feel" this way?
I don't feel that way
Its all about resource consumption and footprint
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:43 pm to TheIndulger
quote:
i don't really think it's much of a debate that, yes, people living closer together is better for the environment. Cities themselves are polluted but the pollution is localized.
how do you localize "air"
or water?
tia.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:44 pm to TheIndulger
quote:
Seriously? Cities are way more environmentally efficient than sparsely populated areas
Not necessarily. In some ways yes, but not across the board. . Your still using outside resources because cities are not sustainable. Corporate farms are required to feed the masses.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:45 pm to Salmon
quote:
I don't feel that way
Its all about resource consumption and footprint
you continue to just ooze stupidity in your replies.
explain to me how cities have a smaller "footprint" when ecosystem services are overwhelmed>
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:46 pm to Salmon
quote:
Its all about resource consumption and footprint
The footprint of dense urban areas stretch far beyond the city limits.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:47 pm to CptBengal
It actually has to do with where big cities tend to be built oddly enough
I'm not jumping in on the this discussion here but it's an interesting phenomena how people have selected location and how it naturally falls into wind/weather patterns that are relatively contained and the effect of buildings on localized climate.
Interesting topic on mans relationship with nature that we don't think much about
I'm not jumping in on the this discussion here but it's an interesting phenomena how people have selected location and how it naturally falls into wind/weather patterns that are relatively contained and the effect of buildings on localized climate.
Interesting topic on mans relationship with nature that we don't think much about
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:49 pm to CptBengal
quote:
explain to me how cities have a smaller "footprint" when ecosystem services are overwhelmed>
for me to explain this, I need to know if you want to debate aggregate or per capita
per capita seems like the more relevant of the 2, but I know how you like to do your little "gotchas", so
This post was edited on 2/13/17 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:49 pm to Mir
quote:
It actually has to do with where big cities tend to be built oddly enough
what about cities in California that need electricity and water from nevada...is that efficient?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:50 pm to Mir
quote:
It actually has to do with where big cities tend to be built oddly enough
you do realize that cities actually tend to produce more toxins in the water table than do rural environments right? And that due to paving, increased sheet flow means that things like simple eutrophication arent mitigated and are higher than they would be normally downstream.
You do know there is no way to "localize" that, right?
Or are you just trying to extrapolate from the few smog pictures you see and a few cities with mountains? perhaps you havent considered that the mountains are why they have localized smog...and cities that dont generally have NON-LOCALIZATION.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:50 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Not necessarily. In some ways yes, but not across the board. . Your still using outside resources because cities are not sustainable. Corporate farms are required to feed the masses.
Thank you. I was watching this thread wondering when someone would point this out. There are two professions that city people should hold in the highest regard....
1. Farmers
2. Truck drivers
Without those two people, our cities crumble in a weekend.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:50 pm to Salmon
quote:
for me to explain this, I need to know if you want to debate aggregate or per capita
you choose.
either one and you're still wrong.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:51 pm to CptBengal
Did you even read what I said?
I was mentioning the off topic note of where people naturally have built up large cities is often in a relatively closed ecosystem due to wind patterns and the ilk
Just mentioning an interesting topic bud cool your jets I'm not the one who claimed to back it up on pollution
Just talking about mans tendency to choose particular areas for habitation
I was mentioning the off topic note of where people naturally have built up large cities is often in a relatively closed ecosystem due to wind patterns and the ilk
Just mentioning an interesting topic bud cool your jets I'm not the one who claimed to back it up on pollution
Just talking about mans tendency to choose particular areas for habitation
This post was edited on 2/13/17 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:51 pm to CptBengal
quote:
you choose.
lets go per capita
explain how I'm wrong
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:52 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Your still using outside resources because cities are not sustainable. Corporate farms are required to feed the masses.
Sure, they're not sustainable, but if you want to go there, anything outside of a farm with crops/animals, a water well and solar panels isn't sustainable.
Don't you think a place like New York City, with 8 million people living in small apartments and taking up less space, riding the subway or walking to work, and requiring much less extensive gas/water/power lines, uses far less energy than those 8 million being spread somewhere else?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:53 pm to Salmon
quote:
you choose.
lets go per capita
explain how I'm wrong
you havent explained anything about why you're right. You've just said that cities have smaller footprints. That isnt an argument. It's a statement. Defend it.
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:54 pm to Mir
quote:
I was mentioning the off topic note of where people naturally have built up large cities is often in a relatively closed ecosystem due to wind patterns and the ilk
no they havent.
the distribution of cities is actually tied to major bodies of water and rivers for the most part.
wtf are you talking about?
Posted on 2/13/17 at 12:55 pm to Darth_Vader
One thing that I believe many posters have missed is why the "Carbon Tax" was created.
It wasn't because the money was gonna be used to "save the planet"
It was meant to increase the cost of CO2 emmissions so that our capitalist economy would find ways to cap/lower CO2 within the market system. It incentivizes the market to find an alternative.
This philosophy has proven to be effective in guiding markets for over a century
It wasn't because the money was gonna be used to "save the planet"
It was meant to increase the cost of CO2 emmissions so that our capitalist economy would find ways to cap/lower CO2 within the market system. It incentivizes the market to find an alternative.
This philosophy has proven to be effective in guiding markets for over a century
Page 7 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News