Hacker News Reader

Comment by bobthepanda | Hacker News Reader

> Maybe not so good for those who were especially attached to either the vibrant city life or busy office life.

Meh, if there's less people living in cities that's cheaper rent for me.

What's interesting is what impact this could have on the carbon footprint. Generally speaking, higher density living is associated with lower carbon footprint per capita.

View on HN

It is, except there seems to be a sweet spot in medium sized towns where commutes/groceries/activities are all close so no/less driving. If you get too small though you go back to everything being 45 min drive away again like being in the suburbs of a city which is not at all sustainable.

> If you get too small though you go back to everything being 45 min drive away again like being in the suburbs of a city which is not at all sustainable.

This is where I live. I love it. I encourage others to consider it unsustainable.

That's the thing with unsustainability, dude. No individual cares. It's about the aggregate.

I'm aware. Renewables and electric cars are on a tear. Don't force density when you can use technology instead to lower your impact. It's clear the city is too expensive for many, and folks are going to filter out of urban cores until a density equilibrium is reached.

Do you care if I live in the middle of nowhere in the mountains if all of my power is clean solar, our cars are electric, I work from home, and pay for carbon offsets for anything I need shipped to the home (until UPS, Fedex, and USPS electrify)? Personally, I'll pay whatever it costs to not have a neighbor within a 15 minute walk of my property, but still have national parks within a 30 minutes drive.

I don't care because I like to live like that myself for other reasons (city people like authoritarianism too much for me). I don't even care that you live like that now.

That doesn't change the sustainability argument.

We don’t have enough lithium on the planet for everybody to have their own electric car. Just because something is on paper sustainable, doesn’t make it actually sustainable.

That's wildly incorrect. Proven reserves of lithium only are a few decades of consumption, because why would you keep looking and measuring now when you already have so much available?

Lithium is absurdly abundant. It can be recycled. Lithium concentrations in electrolytes are constantly being lowered. Finally it is possible to manufacture batteries without cobalt. Cobalt is a bigger problem than lithium because most production facilities extract cobalt as a byproduct of other mining activities. Dedicated cobalt mines are possible but it would result in higher costs.

Probably because of shortened commutes. But if many commutes disappear altogether, that could offset it.

In many parts of the country, heating plays a large role as well. Heating 100 units in an apartment building is going to be more efficient than heating 100 single family houses.

As the other person said, living spaces generally tend to be larger and less efficient per capita for heating, power, water, etc. Those McMansions with the atriums are an ecological nightmare.

Maybe in the urban core. I have friends who live in "Boston" who are in a rough triangle between Danvers, Providence and Worchester. DC is even more insane.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com