they can be--but the default for rural life in USA is much more energy intensive, per person, than urban life (and that's to say nothing of the geographical footprint) https://twitter.com/themechaprimate/status/1037183011601690625 …
Electricity use per capita by state: lowest use is California, highest (by FAR) is Wyoming http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/us_per_capita_electricity.html … Washington DC is notable exception tho! Energy hogs over there
-
-
Residential and transportation-related CO2 emissions highest in rural counties, while commercial CO2 emissions highest in urban: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/10/104011 …
-
The real costs are in infrastructure and maintenance. Brick and mortar, asphalt, etc.. Cannot be kept in good condition without huge outlays of cash. Not so with rural areas. The key to prosperity lies in people+land so they can use their labor to provide.
-
People in rural areas need buildings too, and they produce a helluva lot less cash to maintain it (or the land...or the people). Whereas urban areas, provided they're not stagnant, produce huge surpluses of cash that they can send to rural areas (as farm subsidies, welfare, w/e)
-
In any case: rural life remains, generally, more energy intensive per-resident than urban life
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
no way.