Cui bono?

Tyler Cowen makes one excellent point and one debatable one in the comments:

Cities are mostly low-carbon because they discourage people from having children, or limit the number of children people decide to have. (Taxing education, or other correlates of children, is in fact one substitute for a carbon tax.) But cities also export their complementary and indeed financially required pollution to more distant geographic areas; that means that cities are not low-carbon per se.

Dense cities are a tax on having children, but that's not an inherent quality of cities. If we had taller buildings next to spots of green space, you could have more residential space and a convenient play space, and built-in play spaces for your children. If you had school choice, you could solve many of the fears about the urban school system that lead affluent families to flee the city. If the tax system weren't set up so that localities bear the responsibility for caring for the indigent, you wouldn't have affluent families moving out to get away from the tax burden. A dense city is in many places a better place to raise a child than a suburb: you spend a lot fewer years shuttling the kids around, and there are many more options and activities for them than for suburban children. But current political culture makes them child-unfriendly.

To be sure, one cannot just wish away current political culture, but if I am imagining something as unlikely as a change in transportation subsidies, cannot I then imagine a more sanely conducted city government?

On the carbon export angle, I completely agree. City dwellers are far too self-satisfied with their allegedly low-carbon lifestyle, too willing to impose carbon taxes in the belief it won't affect them much. It is especially irritating to hear people who take multiple annual long-haul flights complain about SUV drivers, but the general phenomenon is broader than that. I expect that in the event a carbon tax is enacted, I will see a lot of my costs go up--as they should, to the extent that I am exporting my carbon emissions elsewhere. But nonetheless, I don't think they'll go up as much as those of people in suburban homes, because heating, cooling, and driving to those homes really is simply massively less efficient than doing the same thing in an urban area.

Comments

I agree that the suburban lifestyle is still much worse from a carbon point of view than the city lifestyle even if the full costs for the city lifestyle are not always fully realized.

The example of long haul flights is a good one but there is nothing that prevents a suburban dweller from having an SUV, higher heating costs AND taking the same vacations as a city dweller.

In particular, city dwelling makes certain options (e.g. mass transit) more logical and these can have a massive effect. Good public transportation systems are hard to create (they need to run frequently and go to useful places in a logical pattern) but they can be much nicer than cars in cities. I found Montreal's metro system preferable to driving in the city at any time of year.

Posted by Joseph Delaney | October 1, 2007 12:18 PM

I think the kid tax is actually based on it being a pain to have kids in the city beyond the issues of greenspace and so forth. If you have always been accustomed to apartment life, it is possible to raise a family there. But I'd wager the group that has the means to move to a house, mostly does. Finding an apartment large enough to contain kids is difficult... unless you enjoy them whining about sharing a bedroom. How expensive is a 3 bedroom apt.? 4? Can you even FIND a 4? These are the disincentives to doing it. Even bigger is that if you were raised in a house, you usually want that for your kids too, EVEN if you like the apartment life when you don't have kids.

That seems to point to forcing people to do that by making it prohibitively expensive to live in a single family home, ARTIFICIALLY.

If people are willing to re-locate to get their kids in a good school, they will be willing to do a lot of lifestyle changes to give their kids the life they want them to have. That was the first thing I heard after finding out I was to be a father. "We need to buy a house."

If I was to need do it over now, I'd be buying a house with a seperate office inside, and I'd go telecommuter immediately. Which may well be the best answer to the commuting question since so much of everything is already in place. You don't need any kind of mass transit if you just have to walk downstairs to the office... I have friends that both telecommute, and the kid is in school. They do some juggling to make it work, naturally, but they're always crowing about how low their fuel bill is, and they live in the sticks.

Posted by D | October 1, 2007 12:32 PM

Unfortunately, it is way too facile to simply equate global warming with carbon dioxide emissions. Cities have always been "heat islands" because they lower the earth's albedo, and they would continue to do so even if they emitted no greenhouse gasses at all. (It may be that the lower-density but larger-area suburban development is just as bad, but we have no idea if the effect is linear or not.)

Posted by pct | October 1, 2007 1:02 PM

To argue against myself for a moment, a contrarian could claim that cities are where the young and childless pair up, before moving to the suburbs to have and raise their kids. If we forced everyone young, good-looking, and hip to truly hang out in the suburbs 24/7, maybe they would have no chance of reproducing at all.

Posted by Tyler Cowen | October 1, 2007 1:13 PM

um, Tyler? what do you think there is to do in the suburbs, besides recreate?

Maybe we should force them to stay in the city instead...

Posted by D | October 1, 2007 1:26 PM

One forgets that the most celebrated urban neighborhoods: Dupont Circle in DC, Rittenhouse Sq or Society Hill in Philadelphia, Pacific Heights in San Francisco, consist of densly packed single-family homes or rowhouses, not apartment blocks.

Posted by C L | October 1, 2007 1:36 PM

No amount of greenpace is going to make a difference to me if it isn't mine. When my kids were 5 or so I could let them play unsupervised in the backyard. Not something you can do with greenspace. That's why parents want to move to the suburbs, they kids will have a safe place to play.

Posted by Todd Fletcher | October 1, 2007 1:43 PM

On the cost of urban neighborhoods: why are there such large negative economies of scale in government? In the private sector, there are almost always large positive economies of scale - so that high volume producers can sell more cheaply than low volume ones. Logically, wouldn't the same hold for government? A single New York policeman can protect many more people than one in North Dakota (and a NY garbageman can pick up more peoples' garbage, etc.) So why is the cost of New York government (= taxes) so much more higher than that of rural administrations? If there were positive economies of scale to government, the cities would be much more attractive.

Posted by JimB | October 1, 2007 1:47 PM

If we had taller buildings next to spots of green space, you could have more residential space and a convenient play space, and built-in play spaces for your children.

Perhaps you need to re-read Jane Jacobs on this. This is exactly the panacea that gave NY the projects...

Posted by Kevin Marks | October 1, 2007 2:03 PM

A dense city is in many places a better place to raise a child than a suburb: you spend a lot fewer years shuttling the kids around, and there are many more options and activities for them than for suburban children.

I'ms keptical, and while cities may have more activities for hip 20-somethings, in terms of density of kid-friendly activities, the suburbs often still win out. Pretty much every subdivision has at least a small park in it and kid-friendly activities tend to be located around the perimeter of residential developments. Also, a dense city doesn't really give that much better options. You're probably not doing any better in terms of kid-related activities within walking distance and most parents aren't going to send pre-teen kids on mass transit on their own. Once the kids are in their teens, a lot of parents actually seem to prefer their limited independent mobility; requiring that they ask for a ride or to borrow the car allows parents to keep closer tabs on the whereabouts of their teenage kids.

Posted by MattXIV | October 1, 2007 2:13 PM

" So why is the cost of New York government (= taxes) so much more higher than that of rural administrations? If there were positive economies of scale to government, the cities would be much more attractive. "

Cities need to pay public sector employees enough to live in them. They have high population densities because they are attractive job markets. This drives up labor costs, rents, goods and services etc.

In addition, government is essentially the solution to the problems caused by the interaction of individuals who are not likely to solve their difficulties voluntarily. You don't get as much of that in low population density areas. The government taxes the prosperity generated by the density to pay for ameliorating the problems the density causes.

Posted by Njorl | October 1, 2007 2:16 PM

"single New York policeman can protect many more people than one in North Dakota"

True, but remember that economies of scale apply to crime as well. Crime is much more lucrative in NY (because of density, anonymity, etc.) and so each person will need more police protection.

Posted by Dan Miller | October 1, 2007 2:22 PM

So why is the cost of New York government (= taxes) so much more higher than that of rural administrations? If there were positive economies of scale to government, the cities would be much more attractive.

Cities also tend to be dominated by one-party political machines, with the expected consequences for the quality of government. Public sector unions also tend to be quite influential in these systems relative to other areas, which also adds to costs.

Posted by MattXIV | October 1, 2007 2:32 PM

A dense city is in many places a better place to raise a child than a suburb: you spend a lot fewer years shuttling the kids around, and there are many more options and activities for them than for suburban children.

How many baseball diamonds and soccer fields are there in Manhattan? For that matter, how many elementary and secondary schools? If I live in a particular school district in Manhattan and don't like the elementary school, how easy is it to send my child to another? Do I have to find a new apartment in a different district? How easy is that? If that's the most desirable school district in Manhattan, isn't there a limit to how many people can live in that district? What happens to the rest, are their children simply doomed to get a substandard (or sub-optimal) education? Is that acceptable in our Good Society?

It's SO myopic to breezily declare "well, they can just CHOOSE to move to a better school district" or "get a better job." The real-life logistics of such common-sense changes are daunting. Discounting them and demanding that no one interfere with YOUR perquisites and lifestyle is elitism of the crassest sort.

Posted by liberalrob | October 1, 2007 3:05 PM

I am still waiting for Tyler Cowen to explain how cities discourage carbon emissions by discouraging having kids. Putting my kids on the subway, wheeling them around Manhattan in a stroller, and heating their bedrooms in winter all emit vastly less CO2 than would the same activities in the suburbs. So if the cities were to encourage having kids rather than discourage it, how would this lead to a rise in CO2 emissions? I'm starting to feel like Cowen's initial comment made no sense.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 1, 2007 3:14 PM

Ciu gives a shit? It's fucking gift-wrapped.

Posted by Matt Damon | October 1, 2007 3:20 PM

Both his points are wrong, and his attempt at a larger argument is wrong.

Cities are not low carbon because they discourage children. A high cost of living space discourages children. Note that the number of children in the Bronx and Brooklyn far outstrip the child population of Manhattan, and it's not because the Bronx is a bucolic wonderland, it's because an electrician can't afford a three bedroom apartment in Manhattan below 96th.

Next, why are we to assume that children lead to pollution. Is there something about children 'per se' which causes them to spew greenhouse gases any more than non-children?

Most importantly, cities are 'low carbon' because they heat, cool and move people around more efficiently. The other stuff, the carbon footprint of eating, drinking, leaving the bathroom light on is insensitive to suburban versus urban living. And it's not clear (especially since Megan didn't provide a link) what 'financially required pollution' is. Does he mean that the level of pollution is necessarily tied to our economic product? That completely ignores differences in efficiency, that is, the source of reduced carbon use in the city.

Posted by BT | October 1, 2007 3:31 PM

>Is there something about children 'per se' which causes them to spew greenhouse gases any more than non-children?

Yes, the fact that they breathe. And then they grow up to be adults and breathe even more. So simply replacing adults with children (which I think is what you were getting at) is not a solution, unless you're advocating a "Menudo" policy of eliminating kids on their 16th birthday...

Posted by Matt B | October 1, 2007 3:45 PM

"because heating, cooling, and driving to those homes really is simply massively less efficient than doing the same thing in an urban area."

Ummmm...........is that supposed to be a "given"? Driving, maybe so. But it isn't obvious that heating and cooling a suburban home is "massively" less efficient unless one assumes that the suburban living space is "massively" larger per person. Even then, one seldom sees suburban homes with the windows opened during heating season.

Posted by MikeinAppalachia | October 1, 2007 3:46 PM

"Is there something about children 'per se' which causes them to spew greenhouse gases any more than non-children?" -BT

well, that depends on what you feed 'em... well, yeah, only parents may find that funny.

"Most importantly, cities are 'low carbon' because they heat, cool and move people around more efficiently." -BT

I'd love to see some numbers on that... Saying high density=high efficiancy sounds like the big lie to me. Does your apartment have double or tripple pane argon windows? High efficiency furnace? R-30+ in the ceilings? Do you have central aire or a window unit? Set back thermostat?

If you live in a single family home, you may have or intend to do all of that because it saves you money. A building owner on the other hand has virtually no incentive to do any of that, because they are not paying utilities, you are. a high rise MAY be more efficient, but it isn't a foregone conclusion. Generally in high rises, heating is additive, and cheaper [heat going up] but cooling is far more, and is more expensive, because you have to use electric for it.

Posted by D | October 1, 2007 3:50 PM

My parents' apartment is on the top floor of an 8-story building in Manhattan. They keep the heat turned off for most of the winter. The heat coming up the stairwell and elevator shaft from apartments below theirs is enough to keep the place warm.

I'm sure suburban houses would be significantly more heat-efficient if only they were stacked on top of each other.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 1, 2007 4:20 PM

More Randian myopia on display:If the tax system weren't set up so that localities bear the responsibility for caring for the indigent, you wouldn't have affluent families moving out to get away from the tax burden.

If localities don't care for the indigent, who will?

Is it really true that "affluent families mov[e] out to get away from the tax burden?" Is that the only or even primary reason they leave?

Posted by liberalrob | October 1, 2007 4:31 PM

"My parents' apartment is on the top floor of an 8-story building in Manhattan. " -brooksfoe

ah, but you have to average the consumption for every unit in the building, because they are sharing, to get a real figure. How new is the building? Do they pay for their heat individually, or is that within their rent?

I know of no case studies, but it would be good to see one. Also? What is their AC bill like? You have to look at the whole cycle. That heat rise is a big negative in the summer, I'm guessin'

Posted by D | October 1, 2007 4:55 PM

I have no data to support this impression, but I wonder if carbon footprint is really reduced by:
(a) humongous traffic gridlocks,
(b) shared (noncustomized and centrally managed) heating, cooling and lighting systems,
(c) public utilities that run 24 hours per day and 365 days per year, even when it's not efficient to do so.
(d) overcooking and substantial food waste (due to inadequate sanitary conditions and dine out habits);
(d) glitzy, conspicuous lifestyles that are not sustainable due to insufficient procreation.
Cities are very good at bringing the tragedy of the commons to many dimensions of life that otherwise would be privately managed. Sci-fi has always played on this intuition by presenting cities as a necessary element of dystopian and dysfunctional societies. Economists emphasize the scale advantages of cities but tend to ignore its commons inefficiencies. I see some similarities here with those past years when the Soviet Union was considered by many economists to be more efficient than capitalist western economies. In other words, if large cities are really more efficient than suburbs, then why is it that the majority of us don't want to live in cities anymore?

Posted by Badger | October 1, 2007 5:06 PM

Guys, stacked housing is massively more heat efficient than suburban housing. The average suburban house radiates energy 360 degrees, all of which is lost. In contrast, an apartment radiates heat through only one side, its exposed face. Likewise cooling. This isn't controversial; it's why heating and cooling bills are so much lower in the city than in the suburbs.

Posted by Megan McArdle | October 1, 2007 5:30 PM

This isn't controversial; it's why heating and cooling bills are so much lower in the city than in the suburbs.

Heating bills, yes. Cooling, not necessarily. You are correct that the housing is more heat efficient for heating and cooling. However, higher density increases the local temperature because of the urban heat island effect, because nearly every process produces waste heat. That makes it doubly good in the winter when you want to heat, of course, but is a problem in the summer when you want to cool. In my experience living in the South, cooling bills are not "so much lower" in the city. And in the South, cooling bills can be much more important. I suspect that you're overgeneralizing your NYC experience once again, just as you did when discussing the sources of urban road funding.

Posted by John Thacker | October 1, 2007 5:41 PM

In contrast, an apartment radiates heat through only one side, its exposed face.

Every apartment building has four sides. What you mean is that as the volume of the building gets larger, the ratio of the surface area to the volume decreases, hence the rate of heat radiation decreases.

Posted by John Thacker | October 1, 2007 5:43 PM

D -

I live in an 85 year old 15 story apartment building with ~120 apartments.

Does your apartment have double or triple pane argon windows?
Double pane. Eight years old, but mostly heat escapes to the apartments on either side.

High efficiency furnace?
6 year old natural gas furnace. Steam heat throughout the building.

R-30+ in the ceilings?
I don't know. What's the rating of 11 floors of apartments?

Badger -- why is the gridlock the fault of the city dwellers? We're not driving to work -- the gridlock is caused by the people who don't live here.

Posted by BT | October 1, 2007 5:43 PM

"Guys, stacked housing is massively more heat efficient than suburban housing." - Megan

and you found those number where? I see the LOGIC that they should be MASSIVELY more, but then I have lived in drafty older late 60's high rises with single pane windows, patiodoors that didn't shut all the way and a next door neighbor that kept her thermostat at 75F all the time. In Chicago. In the Winter. Because she wasn't paying for the heat anyway, and she had a primative thermostat.

If we are talkin' apples to apples late 60's housing without changes, then yeah, it's logic to think the apartment building is better for heat. But single family homes get changed by individuals, and the change is generally an upgrade, like new windows that are 3 pane argons with an r value of 5 or 6... Better furnaces, more insulation and the like. Compare that back to your 60's apartment building, and I think we can call bull on that being better. ESPECIALLY if you count in cooling, which is MORE difficult in an aprtment building. Yes?

If you are going to make the assertion Megan you need numbers, and hopefully I can find some this evening to share...

Posted by D | October 1, 2007 5:54 PM

and BT comes in for the win... I might even be hopefull if I saw this stuff regularly... but I live in an area of mid-60's buildings. When I was looking I looked at many of them, and not a new window in the bunch. Top floor is nasty in the summer w/ little/no insulation. Even if they are well kept, windows are fixed only when broken...

Posted by D | October 1, 2007 6:01 PM

BT, gridlock due to excessive traffic density, no matter how much mass transportation is available. I don't know of any large city in the world that is not gridlocked. I've been to many countries, all large cities were terrible. Madrid, Geneva, Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Dallas, Rio, Buenos Aires, Seoul, all the same. To move through these cities has never been easy. A friend has just spent 4 hours crossing London by train and bus. Regarding the supposed superior heat efficiency of apartment buildings, they're clearly not efficient when it comes to cooling. Insufficient ventilation, excessive insolation due to lack of natural green coverage, relatively large glass windows in relation to the living areas, all contribute to low efficiency. Large glass windows can also result in lower heating efficiency BTW. Besides, elevators are energy hogs, just think about the physics of it: bringing stuff up and down, nonstop, many times empty. I lived once in a building where one of the largest condo expenses was elevator energy and maintenance. It was so bad that they decided to shut down half of the elevators during a recession.

Posted by Bager | October 1, 2007 6:10 PM

Badger -- why is the gridlock the fault of the city dwellers? We're not driving to work -- the gridlock is caused by the people who don't live here.

This is also a reason why it doesn't necessarily follow that encouranging urbanization would reduce emissions even if living in the city involves less emissions than living in the suburbs. People who live in the suburbs near a major urban area tend to have much longer (5-10x) commutes than people living in suburbs not attached to a major urban center. When I lived in the Baltimore/DC suburbs, almost everybody had a >30 min commute to their job, which they drove to because they were outside of the attached mass transit systems of the cities and it would take them even longer to get to work if they took them. My own job at the time involved a commute to downtown Baltimore that was 45 min on avg. In contrast, in the suburbs of a mid-sized midwestern city where I live now where commutes are typically less than 10 min and many people walk or bike and I honestly can't think of anything worth going to on a regular basis that would require more than 20 min to get to - I currently have a less than 5 min commute. The longest commutes belong to those who live in the hipper downtown neighborhoods and have to commute out to the suburbs to work.

I think city residents have a somewhat distorted view of how commute-heavy the suburbs are due to the ring of very commute-heavy suburbs that springs up around large cities that is a consquence of the presence of the city. Subruban commuters are a consquence of urban densities, not some unrelated phenomenon they can be contrasted with.

Posted by MattXIV | October 1, 2007 6:21 PM

Megan,

Your remarks don't seem well-informed here.

You write: "If we had taller buildings next to spots of green space, you could have more residential space and a convenient play space, and built-in play spaces for your children."

Seems like a great idea-- but does not work. Can you say "Cabrini Green?"

The big problem is not the mathematical ratio of play space to residential space.

The big problem is demand for parental labor. I think the "let them live in towers" notion appeals mainly to the unsophisticated imaginations of childless or rich people (rich enough to employ servants to care for their children). As soon as you have kids to care for, you want a backyard.

Why? So you can send your kids out to play in it while you cook or work on a web-page or whatever. Parks and other communal "convenient play spaces" are extremely inconvenient because you have to escort your children to them then hang around watching the kids for their own safety. If your children are small this isn't just a good idea, it's the law.

As a practical matter, while supervising children in the park you cannot do anything else more complicated than crocheting or reading the newspaper.

"If you had school choice, you could solve many of the fears about the urban school system that lead affluent families to flee the city."

Yeah, and if we had Star Trek transporters we wouldn't need 747's.

Why do you think, after fifty years of debate and political struggle, we still don't have school vouchers? More to the point, why do you think we'll get them anytime soon?

School officials, teachers' unions, and the most influential parents do not want school choice.

First, recognize that "nice" schools are those filled with nice, smart kids.

(Nearly) All parents want to send their children to nice schools; those in which all of the other kids are bright and well behaved. To this end parents look at the income of the other kids' parents as a proxy for the qualities desired in the kids. Whether we like it or not, that approach is largely valid.

School choice would mean that inner-city kids waving vouchers would claim the right to attend "nice" schools too. If they actually did, their very presence would destroy the "niceness" they seek to enjoy.

It might seem that the obvious way to to overcome objections to public-school choice is simply to sort pupils by intelligence, diligence, and good behaviour. "Tracking" within a school is a partial implementation, distinct schools ("Metro Latin Academy" vs. "Southside Elementary") would be a full implementation. However, this approach is taboo nowadays, for two distinct reasons:

(1) Parents of less bright or less-well-behaved children will not accept the sorting, no matter how just. Parents of dimwits and troublemakers hope that their own kids will do better if surrounded by good examples--or at least, have fewer opportunities to "hang around with slackers" and get into trouble.

More affluent parents work (very effectively) to prevent school-choice programs so they can continue to buy places in better schools for their children (as a side effect of buying housing).

(2) Sorting (tracking) will reveal ethnic disparities in academic performance. No matter how real these are, no matter how objectively they are measured, any program which reveals them will be denounced as racist. People will sue the school authorities, alleging racial bigotry.

School officials work to prevent school-choice programs for many reasons, but one key reason is so they won't have to make decisions which would be denounced as racist. Schools in communities sorted by income serve pupils pretty well pre-sorted by race, so staff never make academic decisions which incidentally reveal ethnic disparities.

Together these problems will sink any attempt to provide serious school choice in our current society.

"A dense city is in many places a better place to raise a child than a suburb: you spend a lot fewer years shuttling the kids around, and there are many more options and activities for them than for suburban children. But current political culture makes them child-unfriendly."

I don't think you can defend these assertions. Dense cities are child-unfriendly because they offer much less room for kids to do things, yet they supply many more hazards for unsupervised kids. City parents are the ones who must shuttle kids around to protect them from bad drivers, kidnappers, and dope dealers. Suburban kids can (and do) ride their bikes, to school, to friends' homes, to shopping. Suburbs allow kids many more activities, particularly those involving animals (most apartment towers forbid even small pets, much less livestock. No 4-H for city kids!).

(Blather about museums is inapposite. Kids don't go to museums every day-- not that they could afford the admission fees anyway. Suburban parents and schools take kids to museums, plays, concerts, etc. no less often than city kids. As for parks, parks take up a much larger percentage of land area in suburbia than in dense cities.)

Finally, you write: "But nonetheless, I don't think [energy costs will] go up as much as those of people in suburban homes, because heating, cooling, and driving to those homes really is simply massively less efficient than doing the same thing in an urban area.

Megan, that is simply false. Suburban residents consume about the same amount of energy as urban ones, according to the U.S. Dept. of Energy. The simplest table (which I linked first) seems to show suburban homes using something like 20% more energy, but the average number of people in a household is higher in suburbia, so city dwellers don't really save energy on a per-capita basis.[1]

As for commuting fuel use, even urban dwellers in most American cities drive to work. Thanks to traffic congestion they burn nearly the same amount of auto fuel as suburban residents on a per-capita basis. (Anyway, subways and so-forth aren't really fuel-efficient because they burn a lot of fuel running empty off peak hours. It's not fair to just divide rush-hour user counts by rush-hour fuel consumption, you have to divide total rider counts by total fuel consumption-- and the results are not pleasing.)

[1] There are practical reasons for this. To note just one, residents of "urban heat islands" use much more air-conditioning than suburbanites.

Posted by Mark Seecof | October 1, 2007 9:05 PM

Guys, stacked housing is massively more heat efficient than suburban housing. The average suburban house radiates energy 360 degrees, all of which is lost. In contrast, an apartment radiates heat through only one side, its exposed face. Likewise cooling. This isn't controversial; it's why heating and cooling bills are so much lower in the city than in the suburbs.

I'm pretty sure that heat transfers by conduction and convection dominate radiative transfers at typical Earth temperatures. That's why you insulate your home with fiberglass and don't wrap it in mylar. Also don't know what you mean by "heat efficiency," but if it means that it takes longer to reach thermal equilibrium with the outside air, that is probably correct. This is good when you need to keep heat in but bad when you want to move it out.

Regardless, I would like to see if the heating and cooling bills for a 400 square foot studio are that much different from one-sixth of those for a 2,400 square foot single family residence.

If we had taller buildings next to spots of green space, you could have more residential space and a convenient play space, and built-in play spaces for your children.

The space is useless during the workday and at night and is hard to police. The ideas of Le Corbusier have been debunked by revealed preferences. Look at your Manhattan and see where people actually want to live: mixed residential/retail at (relatively) medium density.

Posted by Kwyjibo | October 1, 2007 11:18 PM

Unmentioned so far are natural carbon offsets, namely plants and trees. Would the carbon absorbed by a suburbanite's wooded lot be deducted from his carbon taxes, and a city dweller's share of the urban heat island added to his?

Posted by Steve French | October 1, 2007 11:55 PM

It is especially irritating to hear people who take multiple annual long-haul flights complain about SUV drivers

Why? People on long-haul (or short, what's the difference?) are in vehicles (aircraft) that routinely get 60-100 MPG per passenger.

Look it up. Or just keep misinforming people. Why change now?

Posted by Steve Kelso | October 2, 2007 6:53 AM

Hey Steve - I think you're missing the point. Taking a long-haul flight anywhere is using a tremendous amount of fuel. Even if the plane is 100% occupied, it's still going to burn about 20,000 gallons to get from NY to London so you can have the pleasure of getting your Burberry priced in Pounds.

Posted by MIchael W | October 2, 2007 9:54 AM

Michael W, I don't think so. Clearly McArdle's comment went to supposed hypocrisy, SUVs VS aircraft. And the planes are at 100%, or close enough these days.

Posted by Steve Kelso | October 2, 2007 10:06 AM

Steve,

The point is that you could stay home, and that you'd have to drive an SUV a heck of a lot around your home town to equal that one flight to London. So maybe being a passportless American should be a mark of environmental virtue?

Posted by Amy P | October 2, 2007 10:23 AM

The idea that city living is somehow less energy intensive than the suburbs, and therefor generates less carbon emission is silly just based on physics.

It all comes down to the work needed to move mass. People in the suburbs spread out so the suburbs move mass sideways parallel to the ground. People in the city pile up on top on one another so cities move mass up and down. Moving mass, doing work, in any direction, takes energy.

In New York city, every change in altitude takes energy. Go up an elevator? That takes energy. Go down an elevator? That takes energy. Even water must be pumped up using a great deal of energy. Creating multi-story buildings takes more energy that making the same square footage spread out over ground level. Heating and cooling these giant structures takes more energy. Tunneling subways takes energy.

I could go on.

The only advantage that city dwellers have over suburbanites in energy consumption is that they consume more of their electricity and some of our electricity comes from low carbon hydroelectric and nuclear sources.

Cost is an excellent proxy for energy use and the higher cost of living in dense urban areas suggest that it take more energy, not less, to live there than in the suburbs or country.

I have long noted that people who live in dense urban areas tend to think of the massive infrastructure around them as parts of the natural landscape. They don't seem to intuitively grasp that they live in the heart of vast machine that runs 24/7 gobbling energy all the while.

Posted by Shannon Love | October 2, 2007 11:24 AM

Kids seem to be major carbon producers in general. Instead of punishing non-breeders via the tax code, wouldnt it be more ecologically sound to reward them with tax incentives not to have children? Heh. That'll happen. Lets take a reality check- we NEVER use government to help with social issues per say. Sometimes it has that effect, but the truth is we use these incentives and punishments to favor some preferred plurality- generally the affluent middle class. See Security, Social.

Posted by Mark Buehner | October 2, 2007 11:34 AM

thank you matt damon for making the most trenchant comment. and i think you are a cawp, my son.

(3.20, Oct 1)

Posted by sean m | October 2, 2007 11:37 AM

Once you have children, mass transit is no longer suitable. Can you imagine bringing home seven grocery bags each week riding the train or a bus? Smaller more convenient stores within walking distance in a dense urban area limit choice and increase costs.

Posted by Bernie | October 2, 2007 11:50 AM

Let's not start pitting American cities against American suburbs, okay? We need them both for diversity's sake (no, not the PC kind) and we should be working to make everything as energy-efficient as possible. All this "He said...She said" is just a lot of wasted energy going nowhere.

Posted by Irene | October 2, 2007 11:56 AM

Aircraft emissions at altitude contribute significantly more to the greenhouse effect than CO2 equivalents at ground level.

Posted by apetrelli | October 2, 2007 12:03 PM

Shannon Love wrote: I have long noted that people who live in dense urban areas tend to think of the massive infrastructure around them as parts of the natural landscape. They don't seem to intuitively grasp that they live in the heart of vast machine that runs 24/7 gobbling energy all the while.

Bingo. And a lot of this ignorance probably comes from using personal utilities and vehicle ownership as a proxy for estimated energy consumption. These may be lower in the city, but they do not always take into account the higher energy costs associated with running collective or public infrastructure. A lot of city energy consumption is bound up in things like HOA fees and the higher tax rates.

Posted by anony-mouse | October 2, 2007 12:14 PM

Steve - MPG is a meaningless comparision - it may be more efficient to fly to LA than drive there alone in a car, but that's not really the point. A single NY-LA roundtrip is just under 5,000 miles. Take 60 mpg flying vs 20 mpg driving and that's roughly equivalent to 2 months of a 20 mile each way commute. NY-Paris? 7,500 miles, or 3 months commuting. That's the thing about long-haul trips - you go a LONG way, a lot further than most people drive on a monthly basis.

Posted by phwest | October 2, 2007 12:31 PM

The idea cities heat and cool more efficiently is a theory, but no one has put up any number to support it.
I have found the opposite to be true. There are so many old buildings, with inefficient old windows and insulation, window unit AC. In my condo we have radiated heat so hot I leave my windows wide open all winter. How is that efficient? That's what it's like in a city.
High rises in general have central heat and air and windows won't even open. Of course that is more wasteful in the fall and spring when you can't have a breeze you need the AC. But then a lot more people live in 3-6 flats than high rises.

Density does not necessarily mean more efficiency. As someone wrote above there's no incentive for a developer to use efficient products when the buyers or renters are the ones paying for the inefficiency.

It's all just a guessing game of anecdotes without hard numbers.

Posted by plutosdad | October 2, 2007 12:33 PM

everyone young, good-looking, and hip to truly hang out in the suburbs 24/7, maybe they would have no chance of reproducing at all.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Thanks for the laugh, I hope you meant it ironically, but one can never tell when trying to estimate the parochial ignorance of city folk.

Posted by yorick | October 2, 2007 12:42 PM

We all tend to justify where we live, whether it is in the city or sububurbs, or wherever. My criteria has been good public schools, convenience and a feeling of safety. I generally picked close-in suburbs.

The problem with carbon taxation is it probably won't be applied equitably. It will most likely be applied or exempted based on political pressures.

Surely it will be applied to gasoline for my SUV. But will the same tax/BTU be applied to motor fuel used by government run transit systems? Will electric utilities be exempted? Will the steam plants that provide heat, and yes, very inefficient air conditioning to Manhatten buildings, also be taxed?

Will we end up driving personal transportation into the public transportation sector, which may or may not be more carbon efficient, because of unequal disincentives. My SUV gets 38 seat mpg when occupied by two, doesn't have to deadhead back during the rush hour and I don't need a taxi to take me to my final destination.

For those in the city who think there won't be increased costs, guess again. Your rents will go up to pay for higher heating costs, your already heavily subsidized transit system will be more costly. Your taxis fares will be higher. And your taxes will increase.

Posted by Corky Boyd | October 2, 2007 12:45 PM

Kids seem to be major carbon producers in general. Instead of punishing non-breeders via the tax code, wouldnt it be more ecologically sound to reward them with tax incentives not to have children?

Having children is a gigantic investment of time, emotion, and money. People who do it can hardly be rewarded enough. Unless the idea of dying among your superannuated, childless but virtuous cohort, starving for lack of food, stinking for lack of care, writhing in pain for lack of medicine, all of which will be produced by those children you resent, is appealling to you.

Posted by yorick | October 2, 2007 12:52 PM

Metroplexes such as New York and environs are not only sinks of monied insularity but scandalously overweighted in political contexts.

Per our original Great Compromise, whereby rural Rhode Island and overweening New York State both acquired but two Senate seats, why not amend our Founding Document to specify that Electoral College votes --an invaluable franchise fiction-- be based on County rather than State boundaries?

This at a stroke removes the glaring anomaly of urban agglomerations carrying all before them... winner-take-all, as ever, but on a qualitative basis rather than sheer size. Given today's population distributions, candidates and initiatives would perforce undergo a genuinely radical sea-change: Post-Amendment "Democrats" might retain the name, but under no circumstances could they survive electoral scrutiny of their current defeatist, something-for-nothing, taxaholic programs.

Marginalize the Upper West Side, what's left but dribs-and-drabs of crapulent complaint? We need real candidates addressing real issues, and we need 'em now.

Posted by John Blake | October 2, 2007 12:56 PM

If we had a proper energy policy (city, state and federal levels) we might see solar panels (in the form of attractive roof tiles) across the suburbs of sunny states. That might drastically change the carbon footprint equation.

If you're gonna wish for a more sanely conducted city government, why stop there?

Posted by rjschwarz | October 2, 2007 1:05 PM

Has anyone thought of the fact that the infrastructure is already there in the city and energy is not being spent to build it new (i.e., laying sewer systems, sidewalks, roads, etc.) whereas suburbs are constantly expanding, being built farther and farther out. This is using new resources to build the additional infrastructure and increasing energy use by creating longer commutes.

Once built, arguably, the suburbs are very similar in energy needed for maintenance. But the act of building the new housing is very energy expensive.

If you compare the energy use to create the place, build the new buildings, shopping centers, the city is more efficient because it already exists.

Posted by Robynn | October 2, 2007 1:42 PM

Here is the simple difference between flying and airplane and driving an SUV. Let's assume for the sake of argument that all destinations are equally valid. (I may be driving my SUV to some frivolous event or going to something vital--similarly, I may be doing the same with my airplane ticket. Let's call it a wash.)

Now, flying is estimated to create something like 70% more pollution per passenger mile than driving (tho no doubt it's a less amount when compared strictly to suv's).

But here is the difference -- If I need to go from NY to Chicago in a reasonable amount of time--I really have no practical alternative to flying (with Amtrak being so poorly run and slow). Most people can't - let alone have the time - to grind out the 18+ hours such a drive would take.

Yet if I am going to the Quickie Mart I can drive any number of comfortable, fuel-efficient vehicles rather than a giant SUV -- whose cargo capacity I rarely if ever actually need. I live in NYC and most SUV's seem to carry on average one passenger. Except for a smaller subset of people (who may actually need the size) an SUV is simply doing the same job a car could do for more in terms of pollution. It's American "fatness" at its worst.

Posted by Lee Kane | October 2, 2007 1:48 PM

"New York... [a]uthorities hope to implement an $81.5 million version of the ring of steel for lower Manhattan, featuring surveillance cameras as well as barriers that could automatically block streets."
http://www.newsday.com

Speaking of the massive infrastructure as part of the natural landscape, I wonder how long before most cities have such wonderful amenities.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick with my quiet, boring, suburban neighborhood. I can actually hear my kids playing in the backyard.

Posted by John Carroll | October 2, 2007 1:50 PM

Robynn-You are incorrect in that "building the infrastructure" is the reason suburban dwelling is more inefficient than city. In fact, suburban houses are larger than city dwellings and require many times over more electricity, gas and/or oil to maintain. In addition, suburban dwelling promotes driving greater distances and driving more often (vs. walking or public transportation) -- to name just a few of the reasons suburban dwelling burns far more resources on average than city dwelling...It's not moralizing to say this--it's simply the way it is.

Posted by Lee Kane | October 2, 2007 1:53 PM

Ok, Megan, I've got a challenge for you. I'll put carbon output against yours. We'll add EVERYTHING up, not just the obvious. We'll tally up your transportation (cabs, subway, etc) vs. mine (a Chevy TrailBlaze) and we'll tally your NYC apartment versus my 3 bed, 2 bath on partial wooded, partial manicured lawn and see who winds up with the greatest NET output.

My hickory's, pine's, oak's and St. Aug's will beat your concrete jungle's and my heatpump will beat your oil fired furnace.

I'll even include my dog and still have a less of a NET footprint than you do.

Sorry, but what city dwellers don't figure in is the landscaping. Fast growing grass absorbs CO2 better than old growth forest, and far better than concrete.

Posted by Jason Coleman | October 2, 2007 2:01 PM

Don't forget that cities use a lot more energy than may be immediately evident because of the support systems— it takes energy to move food and other necessities into the city.

In fact, I've seen studies that say everything from city life being only slightly more efficient at its global "footprint" to vastly less efficient. But in general, it's a good idea to remind the "holier than thou" city types that the amount of land required to sustain a city is just as big as if the same amount of people were living in a suburban space.

Incidentally, did you know that the city of Los Angeles actually has a higher population density than New York City? You'd think differently, but even with Manhattan there's enough brownstones and business towers to tip the scales the other way.

Posted by B. Durbin | October 2, 2007 2:21 PM

Wow!

Some people seem to have never been kids, and apparently have never seen any close up.

But is this anyone's reality?

"I'm glad there's a used record store downstairs. I'd much rather live here than have a pony like my cousins!" - Jenny, age 10.

"No, I never did want a BB gun." - Johnny, age 8.

"I'm really glad that the first bluebird I ever saw was a dead one in the Natural History Museum." - Jack, age 45, to his therapist.

"God I'd hate to have a model train setup in an extra bedroom like uncle Bill has!" - Mike, age 9.

"Having street gangs at my school has really made it easy to earn this merit scholarship! Thank you, Mom and Dad, for choosing to live in a urban core instead of one of those awful houses in a safe neighborhood a few miles away." - Sarah, age 17.

"You know, I never really wanted to go walking down a path along a stream after school with my dog. I just want to know that there's a great wine shop on the corner!" - Josh, age 11.

Another thing... I live in one of the ten largest cities in the US. Where I live is not classically urban, though density is not low.

Some of this stuff makes it sound like people don't know the difference between a city, an urban core or "downtown", a suburb, an exurb, and a rural area.

Sure, exurban kids might wish that Dad was around more than two hours a week. But that phenomenon does not describe all, or even most, suburbs or similar locales.

Posted by Barry | October 2, 2007 2:23 PM

I have always wanted to break out temperature changes over the past 100 years by were the thermometer was located in an urban area the entire 100 years vs the ones who are urban now due to encroachment. I suspect that a large part of 'global warming' is directly related to the heat island of increasing urbanization. I think there was a footnote reference in a Michael Crichton book but haven't looked. Sad that I rely on a fiction book as a reference I know....

And I doubt ANY apartment is as efficient as my geothermal system. Try one of those in Manhattan.

Posted by Mike in Cincinnati | October 2, 2007 3:10 PM

CL said,

"One forgets that the most celebrated urban neighborhoods: Dupont Circle in DC, Rittenhouse Sq or Society Hill in Philadelphia, Pacific Heights in San Francisco, consist of densly packed single-family homes or rowhouses, not apartment blocks."

Sure they are.

And only the wealthy can afford to live in those places, too. Certainly not anyone I know that has kids.

............................................

Memo to Barry:

BINGO! We have a winner!

.............................................

I have an idea. Why not cut off the pipelines going to New England from Houston with all that gasoline and heating oil in January and see just how fast NYC, Boston and Philly come to a grinding halt. While we are at it let's have a nice blizzard thrown in so the thousands of trucks and airplanes bringing these people their food and luxury goods can't get through for a good week or so-naw, let's make it a month. I think it would be helpful because it would force all these sanctimonious bloviators live that "green lifestyle" they claim they do. I wonder if the NYPD will start shooting the servants of the rich folks because they are chopping down trees so their employers can have firewood for a fire in their luxury apartments 35 stories above Central Park.

Posted by Ennis | October 2, 2007 3:16 PM

>>Once built, arguably, the suburbs are very similar in energy needed for maintenance.

Posted by H. Tuttle | October 2, 2007 3:21 PM

Speaking of externalities, Houston is the location for the petroleum processing for about 1/8th of the country. And we get constant grief for our pollution levels being high with threats of various punishments from the EPA. I'd like to see that 1/8th of the country help us pay for cleaning up our air...

Failing that, just leave us alone. We like air you can see... let's you keep an eye on it.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 2, 2007 3:56 PM

Has anyone thought of the fact that the infrastructure is already there in the city

Huh? What city do you live in? I've never seen any city where streets are not being continually torn up and repaved.

Denver is a very small, new city, so perhaps that is why it is under construction constantly. I moved here six years ago and well over a dozen sky-line-altering builds have gone up in that time - and innumerable smaller infill projects. Not to mention the $500 million in "neglected infrastructure" the idiot government wants us to pass on the ballot this fall (idiot == if they spent infrastructure maintenance funds on non-maintenance in the past, why will the future be different?).

Moscow is a very large, old city, so perhaps that is why it is under construction constantly.

Just my two most recent city experiences.

Posted by mrsizer | October 2, 2007 4:06 PM

Yeah, the City Council in my city thought of the fact that "the infrastructure is already there."

Hence, there's plenty of money to spend on "street beautification" so we have something pretty to look at along the side of the roads. I guess it does help divert one's attention from the growing potholes and huge cracks in the pavement. When the sewers leak, though, the smell is kind of noticeable and the art on our signal control boxes doesn't help much to alleviate it.

Posted by Barry | October 2, 2007 4:22 PM

even if you could assume a city's infrastructure is bought and paid for, with no improvement or maintenance costs -- and you can't -- it's just silly to ignore the costs of building the city "originally" when comparing it to suburbs. so what it some large part of nyc's carbon footprint was incurred over a longer period than some shiny new suburb in jersey? still goes into the equation if you're comparing the two fairly.

Posted by dj superflat | October 2, 2007 5:09 PM

If we had a proper energy policy (city, state and federal levels) we might see solar panels (in the form of attractive roof tiles) across the suburbs of sunny states. That might drastically change the carbon footprint equation.

If you're gonna wish for a more sanely conducted city government, why stop there?

Posted by rjschwarz | October 2, 2007 1:05 PM
***********************************************

You mean like the Million Solar Roofs program signed into law in California last year?

http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/energy/million-solar-roofs

Posted by Campesino | October 2, 2007 6:28 PM

Are solar panels economical yet? I keep reading about great efficiency improvements in the lab, but the ones that you can actually buy don't appear to have a positive ROI.

Links to some panel manufacturers along with some cost projections would be appreciated.

Posted by SG | October 2, 2007 7:00 PM

Folks, I think we can sum up all these arguments with this simple fact: It is nearly impossible, given all the nearly infinite number of variables involved (many expressed above) to make an accurate calculation of whether urban or suburban living is more carbon efficient.
Just for fun, I'll add a few more variables no one has mentioned (I think -- I may have missed it in this big comment thread) - Taxis. The urban dwellers here are talking about their own carbon footprint, using mass transit, etc. But you'd have to calculate all those taxis that zip those folks without cars around the city and spend a lot of time driving around looking for fares as well. Or how about the added carbon to transport all the food and goods to city shops so that urban dwellers can shop til they drop? In suburban areas many of those goods don't have to take as carbon heavy a journey to their sale destination. Or as some have pointed out above - what sort of city are you talking about? Where in the U.S.? Several of the cities I have lived in have had virtually no mass transit to speak of (Some lightly ridden busses and maybe a track or two of cable car) and are set up more like suburban residential areas clustered around a small downtown (Tampa, San Diego)

The point is - none of us know which is more efficient- urban or suburban, and like those folks trying to calculate the effects of warming 30-100 years in the future, I won't trust anyone who tries to say they do. I did a bit of this sort of math in college and it has made me a total skeptic when I hear people proclaiming that they are using "computer models" to predict far out in the future, or that they can unequivocally say that urban is better than suburban or vise versa.

The moral of the story is that instead of talking about carbon taxes people who think this sort of thing is important should change their own habits and try to change what they can locally and stop trying to impose their unsubstantiated assumptions on everyone else.

Posted by DBK | October 2, 2007 7:52 PM

"I live in NYC and most SUV's seem to carry on average one passenger. Except for a smaller subset of people (who may actually need the size) an SUV is simply doing the same job a car could do for more in terms of pollution. It's American "fatness" at its worst."

Lee-You have no clue why those vehicles were purchased-I'm also betting you never look twice at fuel guzzling monsters like a big Mercedes sedan or a Ford Crown Vic.

Without those factors brought into consideration-and other factors like safety, (I only add it Because a tree crushed my Saturn SL and a Jeep Wagoneer saved me from a bus.) real usage and how the driver actually drives-your "fatness" argument is silly. (My sister often gets her Prius down to about 4 miles per gallon-something I'll never do in my truck.)

Having an SUV can cause you to pollute more-but it doesn't necessarily do so. Especially now that a Hybrid Tahoe gets better mileage than a 4 cylinder Camry.

Posted by Sam | October 2, 2007 8:04 PM

A dense city is in many places a better place to raise a child than a suburb

no doubt accounting for the virtual barrenness of the denser cities.

Posted by bandit | October 3, 2007 8:50 AM

Keep in mind that some people who drive an SUV or truck need that vehicle some of the time but not all of the time. Is it better for the environment for them to buy and keep a second car with all of the resource consumption and carbon production that the manufacturing entails or is it better for them to just use the truck all of the time? It probably depends on how much they need it. That guy in rush hour traffic with an SUV might be ferrying six kids to school each day... you just don't see him then.

EI

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | October 3, 2007 10:50 AM

Two things. First: While it is true that many suburbanites commute long distances to the cities for their jobs, by no means all of them do. I work from my home in the suburbs, using the wonders of telecommunication. In addition, many suburbs and exurbs have become centers of various industries, making it possible for people to order their lives around less punishing commutes. In Chicago, we have the Western Corridor, which is a string of industries following the highways directly west of the city. Between telecommuting and jobs right here in the suburbs, I would think only a fraction of the suburbanites go into the city regularly. On Monday mornings, the suburbs to not really empty themselves into the city.

Second: The entire basis of the argument between the suburbs and the city is the plan to punitively tax people who live differently than we do. The cities and their suburbs have evolved a highly complex, symbiotic relationship, and an attempt to punish one over the other is simply social engineering, typically arising from outdated utopian worldviews and an aesthetic distaste for other people's choices. And I don't like it because it smacks of blameshifting, rather than problem-solving.

Posted by SK | October 3, 2007 1:11 PM

Jeez what a hot button, Megan.

Despite what some have said, it is obvious that, in the abstract, tall multifamily houses with a number of units stacked on top of each other are more energy efficient than single family "horizontal" houses. And to answer the question about elevators, most don't have elevators. and even if you consider the elevator, it is not a lot of energy to run an electric motor to raise a body weight a few stories. By far the biggest energy issue is moving and generating heat.

It is also obvious that you can anecdotally find large buildings with inefficient energy use. But if you are going to think about it all, you have to assume average age and efficiency. There are plenty of inefficient single family houses in the burbs and climate controlled garages and swimming pools. However the savings on average for both heat and cooling must swing to the side of large buildings.

It is also requires some mental gymnastics to think that 7 million public transportation rides every day in New York does not result in a giant saving in fossil fuel consumption

Finally on the child question. I don't know or care if where you live has an effect on childbearing. What is obvious is that all of our environmental problems would go away if there were far fewer people in the world. The only problem is how to get to such a world....

Posted by RobbL | October 3, 2007 3:20 PM

Robbi-
You go first. Thanks

Posted by m | October 3, 2007 9:52 PM

RobbL,

It's certainly not "obvious, in the abstract" that tall multi-family units are more energy efficient. That's a ludicrous assumption on your part.

Firstly, you've got lots of heated and cooled common areas, second, you've got lots of inefficiencies in insulation and older structures. Third, elevators use ALOT of juice. Just stating that you're lifting a body doesn't cut it. Alot of energy is wasted moving an empty elevator between floors.

Then you have to consider what systems are being used for heating and cooling. ALOT of urban buildings are using oil fired STEAM boilers, and that's a VERY inefficient system compared with suburban central AC systems (especially heatpumps).

Your 7million rides, doesn't factor in the massive cost in lighting stations, powering adminstration offices, running the trains at less than max capacity, etc etc. You're making biased assumptions.

Posted by Jason Coleman | October 4, 2007 6:20 PM