Extinction Rebellion

James

Striker
Agree about the tyranny of the car but I can also see why expecting any change as things stand it fairly unrealistic.

Out of interest, you've included 'live in a city' amongst your sustainable lifestyle actions. I'm genuinely interested why this would be included?
Why is it unrealistic? It could change rapidly if we were serious about climate change.

Cities are denser so I would assume are more efficient in terms of energy usage and less wasteful. Public transport can serve more people covering less ground, you're closer to work and other activities so it's easier to walk and cycle, less private car usage, waste can be collected doing less miles etc, easier to connect into district heating networks and all that.

I'd assume that dense urban living is better for the environment than suburban sprawl. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong, and that's fine. :lol:
 
Yeah thanks for the lecture
It's a pleasure - could see you were wanting someone to do your thinking for you.
Why is it unrealistic? It could change rapidly if we were serious about climate change.

Cities are denser so I would assume are more efficient in terms of energy usage and less wasteful. Public transport can serve more people covering less ground, you're closer to work and other activities so it's easier to walk and cycle, less private car usage, waste can be collected doing less miles etc, easier to connect into district heating networks and all that.

I'd assume that dense urban living is better for the environment than suburban sprawl. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong, and that's fine. :lol:
Sounds right although I'm sure there are negatives to counter those positives, but you still ain't getting me into the city.
 
Last edited:

zwartekat

Striker
Why is it unrealistic? It could change rapidly if we were serious about climate change.

Cities are denser so I would assume are more efficient in terms of energy usage and less wasteful. Public transport can serve more people covering less ground, you're closer to work and other activities so it's easier to walk and cycle, less private car usage, waste can be collected doing less miles etc, easier to connect into district heating networks and all that.

I'd assume that dense urban living is better for the environment than suburban sprawl. I'm sure someone will tell me I'm wrong, and that's fine. :lol:
You only need to read a few posts on this thread to see why it is unrealistic. Outside of London we are a long way from being able to persuade people away from their cars and understandably so. As usual, cost is a massive prohibiting factor.
 

PNEFC111

Goalkeeper
You only need to read a few posts on this thread to see why it is unrealistic. Outside of London we are a long way from being able to persuade people away from their cars and understandably so. As usual, cost is a massive prohibiting factor.
I read that spending on public transport in London far exceeds urban centres like Liverpool and Manchester here in the NW.

When I m in London I have to admit it’s so easy and (relatively cheap ) to get around. In fact a pal of mine who lives in London doesn’t even own a car - just hires one on rare the occasions he leaves the city.

The NW has an excellent motorway network and you can wizz around the Liverpool / Manchester / Preston triangle very easily. The Manchester tram system is brilliant.

But am I going to hoof it to the bus stop from the Preston suburbs into the city , in December , in Lancashire , in that weather ?

Not with an X Trail ( with heater ) on the drive.

Sorry.
 

Top