Why is it that the urban movement bandwagon is predicated upon several assumptions, one being that everyone either currently does, or should and thus one day will, work in their respective inner cities?
A recent report by the Brookings Institution studies the per capita carbon emissions of West Coast metropolitan areas, and while not a West Coast city, Oklahoma City did get some non-love in the article. The reference is best-explained at the
Clawback blog, who gets the hat-tip for the article lead...
There is a growing sense among experts on of climate change that development patterns of communities are a key determinant of greenhouse gas emissions: People who live in more sparsely populated suburbs will inevitably drive more miles and will tend to live in larger homes that use lots of energy, no matter how well they are insulated.
Wouldn't I, as a perimeter dweller (I'm not quite a suburbanite), be creating a
larger carbon footprint if I
did work in the inner city, since I would have to drive there every day from my
very well insulated home on the outskirts? Right now, I drive all of 1 mile to work in my big SUT. I can get 6 working days out of a gallon of gas when it comes to my commute, and I feel pretty green about that.
