• AntY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    I’ve got a horse but there’s no stables outside my workplace. Walking 50 km to work would take the whole day.

    • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      You don’t need to live 50km away from where you work. People from before cars would never dream of such an outrageous lifestyle.

      That kind of decadence, traveling 50km twice every day, was enabled by unsustainable technology which is killing the biosphere. We need to stop this kind of wasteful excess, or climate collapse will stop it for us. We can have people living 50km away from work, but that 50km needs to be 50km of railway line. It can’t be an asphalt road, that’s too expensive to the world. The debt is coming due.

      • AntY@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        My municipality made a study where they looked at the carbon footprint of residents in three different areas. Those with the highest carbon emissions lived right in the city center, next to where they work. The ones in suburbs were right in the middle with respect to carbon dioxide generated by their lifestyle. Lowest were those living 30 km or more away from the city center.

        I drive to get to work, nothing else. I don’t drive to the store, I don’t buy clothes, I don’t fly to holiday destinations. I don’t need or want to, since I have everything I love right outside my door. Those who live in cities are statistically those who need to make the largest changes to their lifestyle if we are to save the planet.

        • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          https://climateadaptationplatform.com/who-has-the-bigger-carbon-footprint-rural-or-urban-dwellers/

          Even though city-dwellers may not see a starry night for a long time, rural residents still emit more carbon emissions than their slick city counterparts.

          The BBC article agrees. When carbon emissions are compared between residents of rural and urban areas, the former appear to have a higher carbon footprint.

          Homes in large towns or apartments in cities tend to be smaller and denser, thus easier to heat. People in cities drive short distances to work or may even commute to work, but residents in rural areas tend to drive long distances for work or leisure.