{"content":[{"text":"Another study which solely measures direct household energy consumption4 \n (thus excluding the effect of purchases) found that annual greenhouse \n emissions from this source in high-rise equated to 5.4 tonnes CO2 per person \n per year whereas that for detached housing was only 2.9 tonnes. So even \n when excluding purchases associated with wealth, high-rise still comes out \n worst. \n Yet another study, also not incorporating factors directly associated with \n wealth5 finds that the total of transport, building operational and building \n embodied annual greenhouse gas emissions per person for city apartments is \n 10 tonnes whereas that for outer suburban dwellers is 7.3 tonnes – once \n again more for apartments. \n The explanation for these findings probably partly arises from lower \n occupancy rates in high-rise compared to single-residential (as revealed in the \n above-mentioned studies) and the use of elevators, clothes dryers, air- \n conditioners and common lighted areas such as parking garages and foyers. \n Most studies do not include this latter important element, simply because they \n are based upon consumer bills which do not include common consumption. In \n addition there is the greater energy per resident required to construct high- \n rise. \n Looking towards the future, if we are to reduce our urban energy and water \n footprint by individually collecting localised solar energy and rainwater it \n appears reasonable that this will only be practical for dwellings that have a \n large roof area per inhabitant. That means low density. \n In summary, in the Australian situation there is no environmental emission \n evidence that justifies forcing people to live in apartments - if anything the \n reverse seems to be the case.","bbox":{"left":0.151204,"top":0.081949,"width":0.696755,"height":0.45924800000000005}},{"text":"Transport. Not only does transport comprise only a minor portion of \n household emissions, the energy difference between the use of public and \n private transport modes is surprising small. The Sydney City Rail website \n states “greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometre for rail transport is \n up to five times less than that of car transport” (my emphasis). \n However one cannot assume optimal conditions to always prevail such as full \n carriages. Such theoretical figures are just that – theoretical. Theoretical \n figures for automobiles would also be much more favourable if one assumes \n for example full occupancy of seats. \n In fact the actual greenhouse gas emissions per passenger kilometre for the \n Sydney rail network, transporting around 500,000 passengers each day, is \n 105 grams6. The figure for automobiles in Australia, assuming an average \n seat occupancy of 1.3, averages 155 grams and is much less for modern fuel- \n efficient vehicles that emit a mere 70 grams. It needs to also be considered \n that direct point to point travel distances by personal transport are frequently \n less than that for equivalent public transport journeys so further reducing the \n energy difference. \n High-density imposed on communities hardly reduces per person travel \n intensity at all. Dudley dismisses a Melbourne study7 I mentioned that shows","bbox":{"left":0.151205,"top":0.568574,"width":0.695188,"height":0.33597200000000005}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}