Syndicate content

Add new comment

Interesting story but it also points to the exclusions from the analysis including employment travel and influence of industry location. To live in relatively dense population centres, well served by public transport, with many destinations within walking distance may well reduce per capita GHG emissions ... but only because that's the way it's been measured. Are all the emissions associated with the infrastructure of these ideal dense poulation centres included? Maybe the locations that support these ideal centres (that is, the ports and industrial centres) should be given credit for the savings they generate for people who dont have to produce food, materials, electricity, water etc?.