> But the evidence is that suburban contribution to greenhouse gas
> emissions is less than urban.
>
> www.propertyoz.com.au/library/RDC_ACF_Greenhouse-Report.pdf
Sad, flimsy, tendentious stuff. The technique here is to compare the GHG implications of *all* consumption -- they even apparently include State consumption, e.g. military expenditures, and prorate that somehow over the population in the inner, urban areas and the outer, low-density areas. (How this magic is done does not clearly appear since the study depends on another source, the Australian Conservation Foundation Consumption Atlas.)
Of course this doesn't take into account either the fact that urbanites might have more money and thus consume more, or that they might spend the money they would otherwise spend on a second car on some high-footprint delicacy -- fugu fish, let's say, helicoptered in from Hokkaido.
In other words, the study lumps together things that do have some connection with urban form, and things that have none, and apparently doesn't correct for household or personal income, as far as I can see.
This sort of thing is quite dishonest, really.
--
Michael Smith mjs at smithbowen.net http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com