Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

ryanblakeley.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 117 posts

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#31

Post by iambateman »

tony_cannistra wrote: post #8
woodruffw wrote: post #7

On top of roadkill itself, there's a reasonable (IMO) argument to be made that car-centric development is a big source of our looming water problems: the US has drained or redeveloped astounding amounts of natural swamp, marsh, and wetlands to make space for car-dependent living patterns. That means less water percolating into already over-stressed aquifers. It's a trite thing to say, but our grandchildren are going…

This is most definitely the case. It has also caused enormous problems for places where flooding was already a threat, by removing the natural buffering capabilities that places like wetlands have. In fact, a whole field (stormwater engineering) exists to mitigate this.

“A field exists to mitigate this” is a great way to end that comment.

:)

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#32

Post by woodruffw »

tony_cannistra wrote: post #17
alphanumeric0 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We're in the middle of this biodiversity crisis and extinction event that is human caused, with cars kind of at the center of it in a lot of ways"

I'm just not that compelled by that argument. If cars are at the center, then so are a hundred other things that are impacting biodiversity at least as much. I'm really not trying to be a car stan here, I don't really care about cars. But focusing on cars is kindof a dumb distraction, in my opinion.

I think you're right that cars are not a unique ill here. But I think it's worth observing that car-dependent societies disproportionately exhibit complexes of destructive patterns: car dependency goes hand-in-hand with insufficient urban design, poor transit networks, food deserts, etc. The latter aren't uniquely produced by car dependency, but are substantially aggravated by it.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#33

Post by bullfightonmars »

tony_cannistra wrote: post #17
alphanumeric0 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We're in the middle of this biodiversity crisis and extinction event that is human caused, with cars kind of at the center of it in a lot of ways"

I'm just not that compelled by that argument. If cars are at the center, then so are a hundred other things that are impacting biodiversity at least as much. I'm really not trying to be a car stan here, I don't really care about cars. But focusing on cars is kindof a dumb distraction, in my opinion.

There are 2 billion parking spots in the US, enough to pave over the state of Connecticut.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#34

Post by Tade0 »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #24
tony_cannistra wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm just not that compelled by that argument. If cars are at the center, then so are a hundred other things that are impacting biodiversity at least as much. I'm really not trying to be a car stan here, I don't really care about cars. But focusing on cars is kindof a dumb distraction, in my opinion.

It's not so much cars themselves as it is car-centric development that causes many problems. In the US at least, this is pretty clear: when you design new areas and cities around cars as the primary or even only way to get around, this hurts the environment a lot more than denser, multi-modal style of developments. It results in more total space needed per person, and it results in higher energy expenditures. If you…

> It's not so much cars themselves as it is car-centric development that causes many problems.

I wouldn't call it car centric, more like everyone-gets-to-have-a-lawn-and-2000-sq-ft-home centric.

Herein lies the crux of the problem, not in the mode of transportation. Americans are used to such huge spaces per inhabitant that driving appears to be the only option.

We have districts with detached houses where I live and to me they were always sort of a dead zone. No shops, no restaurants, not even a way to get across, as every square metre is someone's property, so at times you'll have to take a huge detour on the way to your destination.

Do the people living there drive everywhere? Apparently not all of them and instead they accept that they have to walk a significant distance to get to the next bus stop. All because they're used to having a lot of space and will never sacrifice it for an apartment in a place where everything is closer.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#35

Post by woah »

woodruffw wrote: post #7

On top of roadkill itself, there's a reasonable (IMO) argument to be made that car-centric development is a big source of our looming water problems: the US has drained or redeveloped astounding amounts of natural swamp, marsh, and wetlands to make space for car-dependent living patterns. That means less water percolating into already over-stressed aquifers. It's a trite thing to say, but our grandchildren are going…

It's simply not possible for many families to live in the cramped environments of a city. How am I going to pick up 12 gallons of milk on my weekly grocery shopping trip without a pickup truck? That's about 125lb of milk. Not going to be able to get that onto a fixie in the city. How am I going to park the truck without a garage? The garage needs 3 spaces, one for the truck, one for the car, and one for my garage refrigerator to hold the 12 gallons of milk. You're not going to find a house with a 3 car garage that hasn't been built on marshland.

Sites like this one like to browbeat hardworking Americans, but the reality is that not everyone can live an eco-friendly lifestyle. I'm not sure what the solution is but shaming people isn't it.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#36

Post by belorn »

woodruffw wrote: post #7

On top of roadkill itself, there's a reasonable (IMO) argument to be made that car-centric development is a big source of our looming water problems: the US has drained or redeveloped astounding amounts of natural swamp, marsh, and wetlands to make space for car-dependent living patterns. That means less water percolating into already over-stressed aquifers. It's a trite thing to say, but our grandchildren are going…

How much of that swamp, marsh, and wetlands was drained in order to enable/improve farming and forestry? To me this has less to do with living patterns and more to do with commercial exploitation of land. I am unsure how much of a reduction in draining we would see if we remove cars and roads from the equation.

Looking at Sweden, there was a major movement in the last century to drain wetlands in order to improve timber production. This forestry policy is argued to currently produce about 1/4 of all green house gases released in this region, and a major cause to lower ecological diversity.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#37

Post by 0xfae »

explaininjs wrote: post #16
woodruffw wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t literally associate my grandparents with leaded gasoline. It was meant to be metonymic.

I don’t think dissolving the blame is particularly helpful here. A minuscule number of individuals had full control over the use and knowledge of the impact of leaded gasoline, and everyone else had absolutely none. For 99.999% of folks those people have no relation to their grandparents, and “blaming” an entire generation for the malice of a few is ill guided at best.

It wasn't their fault, but the effects of lead on crime, personality, and mental health for that generation is clearly documented.

So yes, that generation is remembered for it. I don't think anyone is saying their grandparents deserved it or are to blame.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#38

Post by maeil »

woah wrote: post #35
woodruffw wrote: post #7

On top of roadkill itself, there's a reasonable (IMO) argument to be made that car-centric development is a big source of our looming water problems: the US has drained or redeveloped astounding amounts of natural swamp, marsh, and wetlands to make space for car-dependent living patterns. That means less water percolating into already over-stressed aquifers. It's a trite thing to say, but our grandchildren are going…

It's simply not possible for many families to live in the cramped environments of a city. How am I going to pick up 12 gallons of milk on my weekly grocery shopping trip without a pickup truck? That's about 125lb of milk. Not going to be able to get that onto a fixie in the city. How am I going to park the truck without a garage? The garage needs 3 spaces, one for the truck, one for the car, and one for my garage ref…

The reality is that the rest of the developed world manages just fine living in houses without such garages, driving smaller cars. And having a family isn't a uniquely American concept. Of course everyone can live an eco-friendly lifestyle; for all but a tiny speck of human existence, everyone did indeed do so, and the majority of people on the earth actually still do so to a reasonable extent. It's not a "not everyone can" or "not possible", it's a "not everyone wants to".

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#39

Post by shmageggy »

"Noise is really a form of habitat loss."

This really resonates. It's kind of obvious once it's stated, but the aural environment is part of the habitat. I bet the examples they give, such as owls listening for the sound of mice, are only a tiny subset of the ecological disruption caused by the noise of civilization, which is primarily road noise. Hopefully there will be more studies in the future like the phantom road noise experiment they mention.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#40

Post by cpursley »

explaininjs wrote: post #10
pengaru wrote: post #5

They've certainly decimated the Tortoise population in the hi-desert near JTNP where I own property. Automobiles are way too fast for those to stand a chance.

> where I own property You hit the nail on the head workout realizing it. The real problem is mass property ownership in remote areas. The huge uptick in car travelers and according roads are a result of that.

What came first - the chicken or the egg?

Government roads effectively subsidies access to land.

Post reply on HN