471
Cycling like the Dutch would slash the world’s carbon footprint (www.euronews.com)
submitted 1 month ago by [M] to c/climate@slrpnk.net
204 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Dutch people cycle an average of 2.6 kilometres each per day. If this pattern was replicated worldwide, the study suggests, annual global carbon emissions would drop by 686 million tonnes.

This mammoth figure exceeds the entire carbon footprint of most countries, including the UK, Canada, Saudi Arabia and Australia.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 month ago (7 children)

When people complain about lack of density they’re complaining about 2 people living in a 4500+ sq ft suburban house with an even larger yard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    Are they? I've heard that 100sqft is ideal for a single person, but I can't see how.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    Lol. 100 sqft is the legal limit under which you cannot rent a place in France.
    It is the size of the worst rooms in student dormitory. Those have "extra" space that are shared for shower, toilet and kitchen. They barely exist today.
    Not even the cheapest hotel rent that. No sound people wish that.

    I've lived in very small sized appartement and would estimated that ideal to be around 430 sqft (40 m²). Even with a poor laid out place a single person doesn't need more that 590 sqft (55 m²).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Really? The legal limit in the US is 70sqft.

    This is why I get so confused whenever people bring up increasing density without specifying. Like, we just had a local legal initiative about homeless housing where people were arguing that 8x10 units were acceptable for families to live in.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    people were arguing that 8x10 units were acceptable for families to live in.

    8x10 ft? That's crazy.

    Well... The thing is even with 590 sqft per person you could stack them of top of each other and have a low rise appartement building which only used on average 148 sqrt of land per person. Si even with enough space per person and without building new skyline better density can be achived in many spaces.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    It was getting couched as an "it's an emergency measure" and a "if it's uncomfortable, they'll work harder to be less homeless" thing that we love to do over here, to my eternal frustration. Back when I worked at a low-cost hotel, we'd get migrant farm worker companies rolling through town, and they'd get a tiny room with two queen beds and have four workers split it for a couple months at a time, so it's not even a particularly unusual arrangement either.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    As a emergency solution it migh work. I don't thing we should settle for such a low-effort emergency option.

    That won't work for people with claustrophobia, families and I'm sure plenty of other.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    It was the most ridiculously high effort low effort proposal too. I'd be more onboard with emergency housing like that in hotels or apartments, but they wanted to convert shipping containers to housing, take over a city park, and just cram them full of people.

    It was absolutely insane.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent