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

71–80 of 117 posts

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#71

Post by sandworm101 »

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…

Whether it is car, bus, train, Uber or hovercar, we will still need roads. Until personal jetpacks and flying school busses are a thing, the road issue is totally divorced from the type and environmental impact of vehicles driving upon the. Some form of road will be there regardless of the means, or even the amount of traffic, so long as a connection is needed.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#72

Post by woodruffw »

sandworm101 wrote: post #71
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…

Whether it is car, bus, train, Uber or hovercar, we will still need roads. Until personal jetpacks and flying school busses are a thing, the road issue is totally divorced from the type and environmental impact of vehicles driving upon the. Some form of road will be there regardless of the means, or even the amount of traffic, so long as a connection is needed.

Of course we need roads. We just don't need all of the roads we currently have; many could be (and were, until very recently) eminently more sustainable forms of mass transit. Similarly, many of our roads could be narrowed and augmented to induce demand away from unsustainable development patterns.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#73

Post by kuhewa »

sandworm101 wrote: post #71
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…

Whether it is car, bus, train, Uber or hovercar, we will still need roads. Until personal jetpacks and flying school busses are a thing, the road issue is totally divorced from the type and environmental impact of vehicles driving upon the. Some form of road will be there regardless of the means, or even the amount of traffic, so long as a connection is needed.

DDT in very particular situations has also been a net positive. It's really the widespread indiscriminate use of it in nature areas and dumping it by the ton into municipal sewers that caused the terrible ecological outcomes. Similarly, organising ourselves into sprawling suburbs (rather than higher density cities with sparse rural communities and nature areas in between) was ecologically, the less optimal deployment of roads.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#74

Post by slowmovintarget »

woodruffw wrote: post #32
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.

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.

I thought crime rates caused food deserts, not cars.

Edit: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/food-deserts#locations-...

Concentration of the poor, and segregation are identified as the primary causes there. Not cars.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#75

Post by DoughnutHole »

EnigmaFlare wrote: post #65
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…

There's a trade-off between preserving the environment and having human development. We already remember our grandparents for the contributions they made to human development. Our lives are vastly better now because of it. Future generations will also benefit from our contributions, including the things we did using roads. They might have less aquifer water or whatever, but that's not really essential. We can always…

I don’t think vast suburban single family home housing developments, big box store parking lots and Wendys drive thrus are the drivers of technological development you’re making them out to be.

The overwhelming majority of environmental degradation is not being caused by cutting edge technological development. Wasteful and destructive development patterns are not what’s driving technological growth.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#76

Post by toddsiegel »

tony_cannistra wrote: post #2

Road ecology is a very interesting and important field, particularly the modeling of animal interactions with road crossings - all very interesting and important. The rhetorical title is absurd, however, and I'd argue even Ben Goldfarb would agree with that. Habitat loss is the single largest driver of biodiversity loss, as a result of many, many drivers. You've heard of all of them. The presence and proliferation of…

My understanding jibes with yours: habitat loss in all its forms.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#77

Post by jimberlage »

jimberlage wrote: post #30

One thing you can do, in addition to advocating for public transit - if you have a lawn of short grass, grow native plants and let them get tall. They provide the habitats for animals that have gradually been taken away. Cut and burn the brush 1x/year and put some landscaping rocks between your house and the grass to encourage animals to stay in the landscaped areas, and you’ll be great.

Another benefit of this is - short grass holds almost no water because of the shallow root system, which means that during storms the water flows to low areas like your basement. Native plant gardens grow deep roots and absorb groundwater which would naturally move towards your foundation.

Re: Are roads the biggest driver of ecological destruction?

#78

Post by woodruffw »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #74
woodruffw wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought crime rates caused food deserts, not cars. Edit: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/food-deserts#locations-... Concentration of the poor, and segregation are identified as the primary causes there. Not cars.

They're related phenomena. In general, sprawl (associated with car dependence) tracks with food deserts[1]. Reduce the sprawl, and you reduce the need for cars to access affordable, healthy food (and corresponding absence of access when people can't afford cars).

[1]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190805181637.h...

Post reply on HN