Life greener in cities than in the countryside?

September 26, 2008

A man wearing a bowler hat cycles during the morning rush-hour in central London July 17, 2008. REUTERS/Toby Melville (BRITAIN)City-dwelling, bike-riding recyclers are finally getting the recognition they deserve for their environmentally friendly lifestyles.
A researcher at the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development argues in a journal article published on Friday that many city residents actually pollute less than families in rural areas.
“People who live in the suburbs or commute actually have much higher greenhouse gas emissions per person than people living in (the London district of) Chelsea for the same income level,” David Satterthwaite told Reuters.
That’s because country-dwellers tend to have larger homes that need to be heated or cooled and higher car use per household.
The study in the journal  Environment and Urbanization says cities are often blamed for producing most of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions but actually generate just two-fifths or less.
Satterthwaite argues that cities in wealthy nations can set an example for low carbon living by providing good public transport and energy-efficient buildings. He singles out Barcelona – which has a third of Spain’s average emissions per person – and other historic compact cities like Amsterdam which are easy to walk around. 
Culture is also an ally in the fight against climate change. “There’s so much in London or Paris that isn’t high greenhouse gas-emitting: the culture, the art, the buildings, the theatre, the music, the museums, the libraries,” Satterthwaite said.
But while cities are often unfairly blamed for producing 75 to 80 percent of the world’s greenhous gas emissions, their responsibility creeps back up when you look at it from a consumption perspective.  Vehicles drive past Dharavi, Asia’s largest slum area in Mumbai April 9, 2008. With one of Asia’s largest slums, congested streets and sometimes startling whiffs of human waste, Mumbai may not be everyone’s first choice for a world-class financial centre. Yet that is exactly what India hopes it will become in the next decade as it rises to the challenge of financing one of the world’s fastest growing major economies after China. To match feature INDIA-MUMBAI/ REUTERS/Punit Paranjpe (INDIA)
Satterthwaite believes it would be fairer to allocate greenhouse gas emissions according to the location of the people who consume the goods and services responsible for the emissions rather than to the place they are produced. 

So if you live in Berlin and buy a Chinese-made T-shirt or digital camera, the emissions caused by the manufacturing process would go into your city’s pot, not Guangzhou’s.
On this measure, Satterthwaite estimates city emissions would account for between 60 and 70 percent of the global total. Breaking that down, richer cities would be the clear culprits.
Some parts of poor cities – like the inner-city settlement of Dharavi in Mumbai where 600,000 people live and work crammed into an area around 2 km square – might even have a negative tally, especially if they’re home to poor people who survive by reclaiming and recycling waste. 
“Allocating emissions to consumers rather than producers shows that the problem is not cities but a minority of the world’s population with high-consumption lifestyles,” Satterthwaite said.
“But I can see the huge – or probably impossible – political difficulties of getting that accepted, if suddenly the responsibility of the rich world goes up even further,” he admitted.
What do you think? How could your city cut its carbon emissions? Should we measure emissions from the perspective of production or consumption?


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

“Allocating emissions to consumers rather than producers shows that the problem is not cities but a minority of the world’s population with high-consumption lifestyles”.

– Here, here!

Posted by Brett | Report as abusive

[…] source […]

Posted by Life greener in cities than in the countryside? « Rashid’s Blog | Report as abusive

[…] it a revelation for many of us? Megan Rowling thinks that cities are more greener than the […]

Posted by Top 20 posts of the week: CSR, Sustainability, Greener Options | Social Bridges | Report as abusive

city dwellers are responsible for the emissions to bring all their food from the country to the city, and other retail items from elsewhere.

Posted by Muriel Strand | Report as abusive

When you’re rowing a boat to pick up unpasteurized milk from your neighbours cows, you can begin to poin the finger at who is responsible for GHG emissions. Until then, make a marked effort to use your head and reduce your consumption. Small things like not leaving unused electronics plugged in can make a significant impact. Let’s not all be American all the time :)

Posted by michael | Report as abusive

One thing seems to be missing in the analysis and that is the cumulative effect of the city dwellers. Even though they be producing less per person, the concentration of their emissions is greater.

As a related example, in Thailand their is an industrial estate which now has a serious air pollution problem because the EIA’s for each plant only considered the individual plant and not the entire estate.

Posted by John Stampe | Report as abusive