> "James Heartfield" <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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.)
> This sort of thing is quite dishonest, really.
Yeah - all this is associated with Demographia, well-known to be one of Wendell Cox's dodgy pseudo-scholarly astroturf-roots front groups.
Cheers, Mike