You cant tear down every inefficient building in the US and rebuild it without creating a metric fuck ton of unforeseen problems.
Sometimes the greener solution is to just keep using the old stuff (buildings, cars, etc) you already have. The things that are greener to operate also have a manufacturing cost (raw materials, processing, transportation, construction, etc) with respect to climate change. The operational savings might not offset manufacturing costs. In such a case its greener to keep using the less efficient than to replace it with the more efficient. To delay the replacement until the old stuff wears out and has to be repl
The more air pollution the more dense the population. I suspect cramming too many people into too little space is a bigger problem than the air pollution that results.
This study result happily pulled out of my ass for approximately $0.0 federal dollars spent.
You ask, if I may paraphrase a bit, why look to Denmark and the USA for this study instead of far more polluted places like China? My guess is because a place like China would not allow such a study to take place. Another guess is because that there is little doubt that extreme pollution causes stress on the body, which would manifest as illnesses in physical and mental forms, the study in places with less pollution would better reveal how sensitive the human body is to pollution.
This is why I want the "Green New Deal" (besides the prospect of 20 million middle class jobs). Forget all the Shave the Whales crap I want clean air.
You cant tear down every inefficient building in the US and rebuild it without creating a metric fuck ton of unforeseen problems.
Sometimes the greener solution is to just keep using the old stuff (buildings, cars, etc) you already have. The things that are greener to operate also have a manufacturing cost (raw materials, processing, transportation, construction, etc) with respect to climate change. The operational savings might not offset manufacturing costs. In such a case its greener to keep using the less efficient than to replace it with the more efficient. To delay the replacement until the old stuff wears out and has to be repl
This study result happily pulled out of my ass for approximately $0.0 federal dollars spent.
You ask, if I may paraphrase a bit, why look to Denmark and the USA for this study instead of far more polluted places like China? My guess is because a place like China would not allow such a study to take place. Another guess is because that there is little doubt that extreme pollution causes stress on the body, which would manifest as illnesses in physical and mental forms, the study in places with less pollution would better reveal how sensitive the human body is to pollution.
China is in obvious need