Philosophical Vegan Forum

When googling this question all that comes up are the greenest cities and countries in the world. However, I'm less interested in what actions the governments and people have already taken and more interested in which place an individual or family should settle to minimize its carbon footprint.

I can think of the following factors to consider and would appreciate if you all can help me think of others:

Amount of sun (or wind) for power.
An annual temperature that minimizes the need for heating and/or air conditioning.
Proximity to the sea (to make boat travel and transportation more easily accessible).
Fertile soil.

In order to facilitate the discussion, I think it's better to ignore external factors, such as how many people are already living there, job availability, amount of crime etc.

I don't know if this would fall under external factors or not. Since it involves population/human geography to a degree rather than purely 'natural' geographic factors. I also figure you know this, but didn't mention it yet as far as I can tell, so it's probably irrelevant, but I feel like posting it just in case it helps, though I doubt it does.

Living in an Urban area with mass public transportation/good cycling routes/livable areas via just walking afaik, would be more environmental in regards to transport versus people living in suburbs or the country where many families have two cars and they use a lot of fuel, often travelling alone, and going longer distances to where they want to go.

Dream Sphere wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:55 amLiving in an Urban area with mass public transportation/good cycling routes/livable areas via just walking afaik, would be more environmental in regards to transport versus people living in suburbs or the country where many families have two cars and they use a lot of fuel, often travelling alone, and going longer distances to where they want to go.

Yes, but this is assuming the infrastructure is already in place. The best, of course, would be to find a place where one feels little need to travel, i.e. where one can live close to work, friends and family, leisure activities.

Like Dream Sphere said, Urban density is very important. But having a mostly self contained community situation with housing, restaurants, and other businesses integrated to make it unnecessary to walk far could work outside a city; you'd need to be very selective about the people living there so you got a good balance and enough entertainment to keep people put.
What you don't want to attempt to do is grow all of your own food where people are living, because the footprint that takes spreads people out too far and means more time and resources spent on commuting.

If you want to go solar and grow your own vegetables (both good ways to reduce impact), amount of sun is important too, and that's something you can accomplish in yards and on roofs (just not all of your calorie staples like beans, cereal grains, and oil seeds).

Temperature doesn't matter as much unless you get to the extremes. Insulation goes a long way to moderating indoor temperatures against outside fluctuations, and thermal mass, geothermal, and heat exchangers pretty much resolve the rest.
What you want is a tolerable yearly average temperature or a bit lower than desirable because of your body heat and waste heat from essentials.
The use of AC and heating is mostly due to bad infrastructure, and failure to utilize geothermal power and passive solar, inadequate insulation, etc. A well built residence (like an Earthship) doesn't suffer from these issues... although you will suffer from excessive heat if you go outside.
I would avoid the tropics, because the climbing temperatures are going to make even ground temperature uncomfortable and make thermal mass less useful.

Proximity to sea is important for trade if you can't produce much locally, but if you can handle all of your essentials (or most) and you use green building techniques with local materials then it's not too important. Travel, if infrequent, isn't such a big deal if you have a good line to a port (like a bus).

Fertile soil doesn't matter much, because it's relatively easy to build up new soil or grow hydroponically. Vegetables and fruit are what you'd want to grow locally, cereal grains and legumes could be shipped in dry with a pretty low impact.

Of course, you don't want to be too close to the sea or you'll be washed out as the sea levels rise, and nowhere that may get hurricanes (which probably means avoiding the East coast of North America which is likely to get hit harder and harder every year).

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 3:05 amWhat you don't want to attempt to do is grow all of your own food where people are living, because the footprint that takes spreads people out too far and means more time and resources spent on commuting.

I'm thinking the perfect village design would be round with a radius of 1-2 km, with the food market and other popular venues in the middle. The food production would be surrounding the village.

Jebus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:02 am I'm thinking the perfect village design would be round with a radius of 1-2 km, with the food market and other popular venues in the middle. The food production would be surrounding the village.

Smaller is better, for the city center you want to build up (and down), not out. A single tall building is a pretty good design, the only problem is the embodied energy in the materials required. Shorter buildings of around 4 floors can use lower impact materials (adobe, CEB, Cobb, wood, etc.) without pushing the structural limits. What you don't want are 1-2 floor buildings (big waste) or large streets.

You might figure out the ideal population (large enough to have all required professions in enough numbers to create stability, small enough to prevent high crime rates and other problems), the square footage each needs (maybe with "tiny house" style design, and some shared facilities), and then work out a radius based on that accounting for an average of a couple floors (considering staggered roofs and gaps for air and light).

Isn't Iceland known for its massive geothermal energy production?

Having such a "green" energy source could provide for many other endeavors, since even such energy production methods as wind have negative consequences. ( Wind farms are also referred to as "Bird Choppers" ) Hydroelectric is great, except for the fish and other marine life, and costly to maintain.

The fact that the energy is so green could help offset the negative effects of heating and cooling homes. Heating being simple, and cooling not necessary for much of the year. It's near the sea (being an island), I'm not sure of soil fertility, but it would seem less of an impact to enrich the soil than to live in a more fertile area using harmful means to produce electricity.

Just be sure not to upset any of the local elves.

Jebus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:27 am
1. Amount of sun (or wind) for power.
2. An annual temperature that minimizes the need for heating and/or air conditioning.
3. Proximity to the sea (to make boat travel and transportation more easily accessible).
4. Fertile soil.

I've edited your text to add numbers to facilitate my response. I hope you don't mind.

1. True, but as a practical matter you don't need to analyze the sun or wind unless you are planning to build your own solar/wind sources. The latter is largely impractical for individuals, and the former is an expensive way to only reduce your carbon footprint a small amount. I considered it myself, but my electricity consumption for my residential home use is only 2%-3% of my total footprint, and it would cost me many thousands of dollars to reduce that down with solar panels, and it might take several years to realize the gains given the embedded carbon footprint in the solar panel production. I haven't completely rejected the idea, but it is definately on the back burner. Arguably, if you have say $5,000 to spend on solar panels you could do more good elsewhere. Instead, you need to seek a country or city that already has a low carbon electricity grid. I may be able to produce more info later.

2. True, good point, and this could help realize a big saving. Heating is a good chunk of carbon footprint and hard to do without producing global warming or other bad environmental effects.

3. Not convinced about this one since in practice our society does not really use boat travel. Not practical.

4. I guess what you are looking for is a country that doesn't import much food. If so, that would indeed be a saving. A double saving if you find a country with a low carbon electricity grid since the food produced locally would have less CO2e. Add to this cutting out beef and low food wastage and you are on to a winner.

Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:53 pm the former is an expensive way to only reduce your carbon footprint a small amount. I considered it myself, but my electricity consumption for my residential home use is only 2%-3% of my total footprint, and it would cost me many thousands of dollars to reduce that down with solar panels, and it might take several years to realize the gains given the embedded carbon footprint in the solar panel production. I haven't completely rejected the idea, but it is definately on the back burner.

It's not that expensive if you have a good amount of sunlight and you use your energy mostly while the sun is shining, because you'll see financial returns.
There are some companies that offer financing for installation so you end up paying about what you would for electricity.

Jamie in Chile wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:53 pmInstead, you need to seek a country or city that already has a low carbon electricity grid. I may be able to produce more info later.

That would be ideal. A country running on nuclear, geothermal, or hydroelectric is going to be better than trying to get energy from solar.

But countries like that also often sell their unused electricity to neighbors... which means if YOU use it, somebody else is getting less power and is going to burn coal (or something else) to make up for it.

I think residential solar makes sense, because energy is being produced where it's used, and also because residential nuclear isn't an option. Nationally and industrially we need nuclear, but there's not as much individuals can do about that.

Whatever you power your house on, though, make sure you use one of these to heat your water:



Sunlight -> heat is very efficient
And this infrastructure requires much less embodied energy (evacuated glass tubes rather than silicon).

Jebus wrote: ↑Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:27 am interested in which place an individual or family should settle to minimize its carbon footprint.

I assume you are doing this as hypothetical exercise?

PART 1: HOW TO REDUCE
First, you want to start with this:

https://ecometrica.com/assets/Electricity-specific-emission-factors-for-grid-electricity.pdf

It tells you about the electricity grid of a country and the Electricity specific factors (kgCO2/kWh). The difference between the best and the worst could perhaps be say an immediate 10% saving on your personal carbon footprint related to your electrical consumption at home. The carbon intensity of some countries' grids can be 10 times better than others. However there will be further electricity related savings in your indirect carbon footprint, for instance the office you work at, the electricity used to produce the products you buy, to light the roads you drive on, to power the hospitals and schools you might need, and so on. The right choice of location could make a 20%-30% reduction on your total carbon footprint from electricity overall including indirect consumption. Decarbonizing a country's grid is crucial.

However, keep in mind that not all countries have a national grid and there may be in country variation. The carbon intensity of Germany's electricity grid is unimpressive overall, but there are certain places with local grids that are much better. So you would need to check this before moving.

Once you have got to a place with a renewable electricity grid, you can then buy an electric car, which is environmentally friendly in such a country. If, that is, the country has availability to purchase enough of these cars in your price range and a decent charging network. If not a practical option right away, it might at least be a future option for some years after moving.

But better still do not even own a car. Move to a country, like a European country perhaps, that has a good public transport network, or move to a city where you don't need a car. I agree with the previous comments. Choose a city rather than the country for environmentally sound living. You will be travelling shorter distances, public transport will be crowded so the emissions per person are less. Also the embedded carbon footprint of your home will be lower because it is smaller. And in apartments, you can use less heating than houses since you get the heating from your neighbours.

To really get the benefit of moving to a country with a lower electricity grid, buy locally from within country using products produced on that renewable elecctricity grid. For products you can't get in country - e.g. electronics perhaps, buy very occassionally and make them last, or buy second hand.

Consider the per capita CO2e of each country before moving http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.WgUPvXZrzIU since you may end up picking up the habits of the locals. If you move to the USA you may end up buying a large home because there aren't as many small ones available or to keep up with the neighbours, or having a large car because small cars barely exist, or because you want to culturally fit in. If you move to the USA and get a tiny house and car, your kids will not thank you for it when they see what their friends have.

Keep in mind that in a rich country your footprint may include around 2 tonnes of CO2e (it's about 30% of my own total, for instance) just from your fair share of public services. In a poor country, this will be less.

PART 2: DON'T DO THIS IF IT WILL MEAN MORE FLIGHTS
If, after moving, you then decide to take long-haul flights back to your home country now and then to see family and friends, then the whole scheme is pointless and you had better stay where you are.

For example, say you live in the US. You read all the above and you might come up with Paris as a location, for instance. But then you decide to fly back to the US 2 times per year to visit family. No matter how large your carbon reductions are due to living in Paris, your flights will probably completely negate them. You'd be better off to stay at home.

So the scheme only works if you either
a) - only consider locations close to home. A UK person could consider Norway, while someone from small town in Montana might consider going to San Francisco. Even then you would probably need to keep the flights back to your home location down to 1-2 per year to be able to realize significant savings.
OR
b) - you have no family and friends in the country you are leaving and know you won't be going back for weddings and funerals, and are willing to cut all ties.

Finally, if you take long-haul flights to and from 1 or more countries to see them and evaluating living there, you are immediately creating a large amount of emissions that would take several years to gain back. Also, aside from the flight to get there and maybe one before to visit the country to decide, moving from one country to another may have a significant carbon footprint in itself if you have a lot of possessions. You either have to send all your possessions in a shipping container, or buy new possessions when you get there, and I'm guessing either will be expensive. However if you are pretty sure your move will be for many years this is less of a factor.