Syt's Pictorial Collection of Stuff and Things (image heavy)

[The Larch]

Tamas, if you want to see vast swathes of open space, come visit central Spain, you won't be dissapointed. 

[Sheilbh]

There's swathes of open space in Scotland too - I used to live in part of it and it is lovely.

Although I don't know if I'd say you really had access to "current first world comforts". We were 2-3 hours from the nearest cinema or big shops for example

[garbon]

That's where the inconvenient point comes in. Restrict where cars can go in the cities make them more expensive.

Should people then ideally not live in Shooter's Hill? Should there a be a retrenchment of where we reside?

Yeah - I think we can deal with global pandemics. We have handled this badly in the West (even "good" countries like Germany have failed in comparison with South Korea and Japan. The only difference I can see in how successful countries have been with managing the response to this is experience of pandemics. So some of the densest cities in the world in East Asia are functioning fine despite the pandemic. I could be wrong but I imagine at the next pandemic (if it's within the next, say, 30 years) we'll handle it better because we'll have the sort of cultural memory of how to respond (as with SARS) and automatically start distancing etc.

But I think you have to balance that risks of density with the impact we have on the environment and climate.

Feels a bit sunny, optimistic on how we'll change our responses - particularly at a time that we continue to fail here. But I guess when you are advocating a radical restructuring of society, that's just one more insignificant detail.

Note, pandemics aren't the only concern about cities. As per WHO:

https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/4/10-010410/en/#:~:text=Health%20challenges%20particularly%20evident%20in,the%20risks%20associated%20with%20disease

Health challenges particularly evident in cities relate to water, environment, violence and injury, noncommunicable diseases (cardiovascular diseases, cancers, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases), unhealthy diets and physical inactivity, harmful use of alcohol as well as the risks associated with disease outbreaks. City living and its increased pressures of mass marketing, availability of unhealthy food choices and accessibility to automation and transport all have an effect on lifestyle that directly affect health.

The fuel is part of it but the amount of carbon in producing cars is also very high. At the minute environmentally you are always better off buying a used, petrol using, really unhealthy car than buying a new one whether electronic or clean petrol or whatever.

Got it. So idea is that we all move to higher density areas to limit mass production?

[Sheilbh]

Should people then ideally not live in Shooter's Hill? Should there a be a retrenchment of where we reside?

Yeah if it's an issue for them that the public transport isn't sufficient. I live in an area with no tube or DLR and find the buses are enough because they're pretty regular.

But yeah there should be a change in where we live - as I say we've lived without cars before. People lived in the towns or cities they worked in, and the people who lived in the countryside either needed to for work or because they were the ultra-rich with country houses/chateaus. I don't see an issue with that and with home working it could even be easier to live in different towns/cities or country. And we can do urban areas (including towns) better than we could then.

Feels a bit sunny, optimistic on how we'll change our responses - particularly at a time that we continue to fail here. But I guess when you are advocating a radical restructuring of society, that's just one more insignificant detail.

I am an optimist. But I do think we'll socially be better at handling the next pandemic because we'll have had recent experience and I think with the correct aims we can adjust our way of living in a way that let's us live without destroying the climate

And for what it's worth I think climate is likely to cause a radical restructuring of society - the question is do we try and actively shape it or do we just react to the consequences.

Note, pandemics aren't the only concern about cities. As per WHO:

None of those issues are insurmountable though.

Got it. So idea is that we all move to higher density areas to limit mass production?

And other environmental costs of low density - for example we could move to more district heating, we would have less distribution etc.

[garbon]

Yeah if it's an issue for them that the public transport isn't sufficient. I live in an area with no tube or DLR and find the buses are enough because they're pretty regular.

So you are willing to recognise that inconveniences you are willing to suffer may not be so easily accepted in others? For myself access to a metro stop is key and why I'd not consider living somewhere like Shooter's Hill absent a car.

But yeah there should be a change in where we live - as I say we've lived without cars before. People lived in the towns or cities they worked in, and the people who lived in the countryside either needed to for work or because they were the ultra-rich with country houses/chateaus. I don't see an issue with that and with home working it could even be easier to live in different towns/cities or country. And we can do urban areas (including towns) better than we could then.

I don't quite get this. Humans also lived without all the electric conveniences we have now. Why not push for a severe reduction/ban on those?

I am an optimist. But I do think we'll socially be better at handling the next pandemic because we'll have had recent experience and I think with the correct aims we can adjust our way of living in a way that let's us live without destroying the climate

And for what it's worth I think climate is likely to cause a radical restructuring of society - the question is do we try and actively shape it or do we just react to the consequences.

I guess I'm not convinced that private transport is the key issue / forcing everyone to cram together is the best solution. After all, if we look at say NYC and climate change, that's actually a place people should likely flee given expected changes in water levels.

And I'm not sure that climate change would be enough of a reason for people to be willing to accept radical changes in how they currently live.

[Sheilbh]

So you are willing to recognise that inconveniences you are willing to suffer may not be so easily accepted in others? For myself access to a metro stop is key and why I'd not consider living somewhere like Shooter's Hill absent a car.

To be honest I don't find it inconvenient. It hadn't occurred to me that it was - but I get that it's why the area is a little bit cheaper. But as I say as long as there are regular buses or alternatives.

And part of that is probably that I didn't use the tube very much because where I previously lived it was always rammed so I'd look at the more comfortable alternatives - train/overground, buses etc. We measure inconvenience against what we know. And we give priority to convenience over everything else. I think one of the challenges with every change we've made for environmental reasons is that it is normally a move away from convenience - whether it's doing recycling or not using a plane for short trips etc. But I think we are nibbling at the edges and the big issues are the way we live and the way we travel on a day-to-day basis.

In a way I have less of an issue with the people and communities who genuinely need a car and use it every day. But there's nothing more wasteful than a new-ish car that is used maybe every weekend or every other weekend. The sort of sunk environmental costs of making that car are enormous, even ignoring the impact every time it's used. But that it's just for the purpose of pottering about is an issue.

I don't quite get this. Humans also lived without all the electric conveniences we have now. Why not push for a severe reduction/ban on those?

Yeah - but the impact of electricity is lower environmentally, especially now in the UK. But I agree in terms of general products we own in the home we should be encouraging people to be mindful of what they purchase etc.

I guess I'm not convinced that private transport is the key issue / forcing everyone to cram together is the best solution. After all, if we look at say NYC and climate change, that's actually a place people should likely flee given expected changes in water levels.

The reason I flag private transport is in a European context it's the only bit of the climate pie that is still growing (this includes manufacture of those cars). The carbon emitted by residential energy, industry, energy production itself etc are shrinking - that's a good thing. Cars are still growing and as you have all pointed out we can't expect that to shrink without changing the way we live.

But also more broadly as I say there are large swathes of the world where cars are not the norm and I don't think we could deal with the impact of the rest of the world developing in the way Europe and America have - that level of car ownership would be disastrous environmentally.  But we caused this issue, we're the rich bits of the world that can afford to try new things and I think because of that we have a responsibility to work out what the alternatives are.

And I'm not sure that climate change would be enough of a reason for people to be willing to accept radical changes in how they currently live.

I agree at this stage. But my view is we either have radical changes in how we live because of climate change, or we try to make them now to avert that.

[Josquius]

The key challenge will be dealing with the countryside.
Taxing cars to hell and making decent public transport is easy enough for those living around cities and for the rich with their country estates, but there are plenty of normal people who live out in the Highlands et al.
I can't really think of a way to handle this fairly as it does seem you'd need some kind of subsidy in place for country-dwellers to get the necessary car and avoid unnecessarily enforcing a rule whereby if you're not rich you have to move to an urban area (though past government certainly have pushed for this in the north east and encouraging it is wise), but at the same time you don't want to subsidise wealthy people who want to move out of the city.


On the rest of the world wanting western lifestyles....Yeah. Thats a big problem for sure. In much of the world cars are a status symbol. At university in Sweden, in a very bikey city, an Iranian classmate refused to get a bike for the longest time as he insisted they were childrens toys and that as a grown man he couldn't be seen dead on one, it was a car or nothing.
In China too there's a huge push that you need to own property and a car to be considered a reputable adult- though there it is quite funny in that people will try to buy a flashy brand name car, but don't actually care about the quality, its showing people you have a Mercedes rather than having a Mercedes that matters. I've heard it said they also commonly have far smaller engines than elsewhere, as its just having the shell of the fancy car that matters, a tiny engine is no issue.

[Sheilbh]

The key challenge will be dealing with the countryside.
Taxing cars to hell and making decent public transport is easy enough for those living around cities and for the rich with their country estates, but there are plenty of normal people who live out in the Highlands et al.
I can't really think of a way to handle this fairly as it does seem you'd need some kind of subsidy in place for country-dwellers to get the necessary car and avoid unnecessarily enforcing a rule whereby if you're not rich you have to move to an urban area (though past government certainly have pushed for this in the north east and encouraging it is wise), but at the same time you don't want to subsidise wealthy people who want to move out of the city.

I mean I think a large chunk of people in the Highlands are obviously ordinary but they also clearly need their personal transport for their jobs - you know I mean I went to a school which closed for extra holidays in autumn because of the number of kids working the harvest who would otherwise just be pulled out of school

But yeah the Highlands and Islands population density in US terms is somewhere between Nebraska and Idaho. And there needs to be some adjustment as I say for big empty places.

[Valmy]

I mean what is more feasible? Phasing in electric cars or rebuilding an entire continent of cities?

[Duque de Bragança]

Tamas, if you want to see vast swathes of open space, come visit central Spain, you won't be dissapointed. 

Alentejo is not too bad in Portugal as well. ;)This mostly empty region is the lest Covid-afflicted region (cf. the map Sheilbh posted in another thread). 

[spoiler]Really too hot in the summer though and it's not going to improve anytime soon.[/spoiler]

[Valmy]

Didn't want to spoil Portuguese weather patterns?

[Duque de Bragança]

Climate change could spoil them much more than I ever could. 
Yes, Alentejo is hellish in summer.

[PDH]

Tamas, if you want to see vast swathes of open space, come visit central Spain, you won't be dissapointed. 

If he wants REAL open space with a feeling of being alone in the world, he should have his car break down on December 24th on the road from Casper, Wyoming to Shoshoni, Wyoming.  I almost guarantee he will not want to ever visit such vast swath of open space again.

[Valmy]

Yeah try West Texas if you want vast open spaces hundreds of miles from civilization. Or Siberia if you want the cold version.

[Malthus]

Try driving Highway 599 in Ontario to Pickle Lake ... 😄