Conferences Series Events
CLIMATE CHANGE   |   ENERGY   |   SUSTAINABILITY   |   ENVIRONMENT   |   TRANSPORTATION   |   POLICY   |   BUILDINGS

Resilient Cities: Urbanism in the Age of Climate Change

More from this partner:

1
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
2,787 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

similar698 Avatar
similar698
Posts: 178
Posted: Today, 01:52 AM
I really experienced what you had to say. Keep going because you definitely carry a new display to this topic. Not many individuals would say what you've said and still create it excitingAustin
oxilationtime Avatar
oxilationtime
Posts: 2
Posted: 04.29.12, 11:22 PM
I am currently working on an assignment and I have been exploring your blog for a few hours. Thank you for your post it proved helpful for me.
sell my house fast
Andrew Atkin Avatar
Andrew Atkin
Posts: 36
Posted: 04.24.11, 04:40 PM
So why not just increase the tax on fuel? An eco-tax? With the price signal people could then choose to either move location, or buy a more efficient car, or other. How effecient can cars be? Take a look at the X-tracer. It uses 5% of the fuel of an average car today and can be all-electric. Vastly more energy efficient than both cars as we know them AND public transport.

But no. This guy, like all his ilk, would rather use carbon commission's as an excuse to FORCE people into high-density cities, whether they like it or not. That's what Metropolitan Urban Limits (MUL's) facilitate. He will NEVER tell you about the X-tracer (and other).

Also, there is no broad evidence to suggest that high-density cities are more energy-efficient than low-density cities. In an urban context, it's actually more about stop-and-go than distance. He won't tell you that, either. And nor will he tell you that urbanization in the USA is only about 3-5% of the land area, depending on how you measure. The human footprint has far more to do with farms, namely meat consumption

I could go on and on. But believe me, there is another side to this story.
Andrew Atkin Avatar
Andrew Atkin
Posts: 36
Posted: 04.22.11, 04:21 AM
What it boils down to is "How do you justify forcing people into a compact city, for whether they want to live like that or not"? That is and has always been the real question.

You can't justify forced intensification on lifestyle, because how you live is nobody's business but your own. But you can justify it on environmental grounds - that is, if there is in fact a serious environemtnal advantage for forced-intensification ahead of other alternatives.

Want to hear some real facts? The facts that Smart Growth advocates never volunteer? Please check out this.
mvanderford Avatar
mvanderford
Posts: 17
Posted: 04.15.11, 12:20 PM
Nice talk, refreshing use of facts to make points.
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
Advertisement


LAW  |   ECONOMY  |   STEVE JOBS  |   INVESTING  |   MARKETING  |   ENTREPRENEURSHIP  |   RECOVERY  |   ECONOMIC POLICY  |   GLOBALIZATION  |   EMERGING MARKETS
CLIMATE CHANGE  |   ENERGY  |   SUSTAINABILITY  |   ENVIRONMENT  |   TRANSPORTATION  |   POLICY  |   BUILDINGS
OCCUPY WALL STREET  |   ELECTION 2012  |   MUSLIM WORLD  |   HEALTHCARE  |   SOCIAL ISSUES  |   FOREIGN POLICY  |   TERRORISM  |   CAPITOL HILL
SPACE  |   EVOLUTION  |   PHYSICS  |   SOCIAL SCIENCES  |   NATURAL SCIENCES  |   DNA  |   PSYCHOLOGY  |   BIOTECH  |   MEDICINE  |   ANTHROPOLOGY  |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET  |   NEW MEDIA  |   START-UPS  |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY  |   WIRELESS  |   COMPUTING  |   ENGINEERING  |   CEOS
RELIGION  |   GAMING  |   FILM  |   FASHION  |   SEX  |   PHILOSOPHY  |   EDUCATION  |   HISTORY  |   ARTS  |   MUSIC  |   TRAVEL  |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now