Quote Originally Posted by Waterways View Post
..

It is quite simple. Something like 42% of emissions are via domestic homes. Introduce:
  • superinsulation,
  • air-tightness
  • passive solar design on all buildings.

....



These building standards can be applied just as well in low density ?countryside? as in high density cities.

Actually these would on the one hand (superinsulation) slightly favour smaller houses with a lower perimeter to volume ratio (contrary to the ?space-to-live? argument) ie. small, fat houses on cold climates but on the other hand (passive solar gain) favour a higher perimeter to volume ratio as well as single orientation ie., long skinny houses in hot climates. The ?third hand? (airtightness) is particularly appropriate to extremes of cold climate and produces poor quality air environments unless counter-productive and recycled and hence re-conditioned air is used at the expense of increasing carbon footprint.

In short, you can?t throw all the ?positives? in the pot and expect a beneficial result and you can?t use the same systems, anywhere and at anytime. There is value in imroving building efficiencies. You should and could attack the 40% carbon-in-use if you can choose a system appropriate to the geography but the nett result is largely the same no matter where ever you are. Thus the choice of building construction is a ?non-variable? in comparing ways of planning cities and planning city density.

Other significant drivers of carbon footprint are extremes of climate and ?degree of development? ie the hot and cold and highly developed countries produce really high amounts of carbon. The top four countries are in the Middle East. The USA, Canada and Australia are 9th, 10th and 11th respectively and the UK is 41st.

The Middle East is unique in terms of its climate, development and access to oil. However the three ?former colonies? have roughly the same degree of development and extremes of climate - either extreme hot or extreme cold, but Canada has both which would distort any comparison. The other two also have ?denser? cities and ?suburban? cities of which the UK has none to compare. It is thus possible to compare high and low density cities in the USA and Australia whilst eliminating the ?non-variables?.

For example, in the US ?The population of the 100 metro areas grew by [only] 6.3 percent. As a result, the average per capita [carbon] footprint of the 100 metro areas grew by only 1.1 percent during the five-year period, while the [total] U.S. partial carbon footprint increased twice as rapidly (by 2.2 percent) during this same timeframe.? In other words, the population outside the metro areas doubled the average.

Whereas London has a population of about 10 million within the M25 which has a diameter of approximately 40miles, whilst Sydney with its open and relaxed suburbs and ?plenty? of space for all, is of a similar physical size but has a population of a mere 4 million and produces twice as much carbon per capita (and both have very effective public transport).



Australia is of course a huge and ?empty? country. It doesn?t matter how much land you have available, it?s how much land you use that counts.