Two days ago I posted a neat interactive map of carbon footprints across America. It was taken from an Atlantic Cities article. But in the same post, I questioned the (Atlantic Cities) article’s headline and main assertion that increasing population density won’t help to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

This didn’t make sense to me.

Well it turns out that the supporting research data was slightly misinterpreted. According to the Per Square Mile blog, the UC Berkeley study associated with the interactive map reveals a more nuanced relationship between population density and carbon emissions. It turns out that people who live in the middle of nowhere (rural residents) actually have fairly low carbon footprints. Even though they’re reliant on cars, they tend to drive and consume relatively little.

And so initially, as population densities increase, so do carbon footprints. That is until it reaches about 3,000 people per square mile. At that point, carbon emissions start to drop off dramatically—roughly 35% on average from suburb to city.

Below is a graph I found in the comment section of the original Atlantic Cities article that demonstrates this phenomenon. Population density is on the x-axis and carbon emissions are on the y-axis.

So here’s the big takeaway. If you’re looking to optimize around your carbon footprint, you need to pick a side: Either be urban or be rural. But don’t be somewhere in the middle. Don’t be suburban.

The Globe and Mail published an article yesterday morning called, “Why a lower loonie is (mostly) good for Canada." It talks about the recent decline of the Canadian dollar from parity last May to roughly USD $0.92 today. But that the drop is essentially because of a rising US dollar. 

Irrespective of what’s causing the devaluation though, the article takes the tone that it’s generally good for the country:

“On net, this could be seen as a good thing because it’s making Canadian goods and services more competitive,” said Michael Devereux, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s Vancouver School of Economics.

But this viewpoint always gets me concerned. 

Canadian goods and services shouldn’t be competitive because they’re cheaper; they should be competitive because they’re the best damn good and services in the world. And so my fear with statements, like the one above, is that it almost makes us believe that a weak dollar is a prerequisite for competitiveness. It’s not.

In fact, research done by Professor Walid Hejazi at the Rotman School has shown that a weak Canadian dollar actually lowers productivity levels and creates a disincentive for innovation. Why bother to innovate when you can always get your goods and services to market at a lower cost than your competitors?

Thankfully, the outgoing Senior Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada (and upcoming Dean of the Rotman School), Tiff Macklem, has acknowledged this perspective. In a talk at Queen’s University last January, he said:

"What should Canadian businesses do? First, don’t count on a weaker Canadian dollar. Hoping for a weaker Canadian dollar is not a business plan. A sustainable export strategy cannot rely on expectations of a more favourable exchange rate, since Canada is likely to remain an attractive investment destination."

That sounds like good advice to me.

Atlantic Cities recently published an article called, “Beefing Up Population Density Won’t Curb Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” And in it, they link to a really neat interactive map created at UC Berkeley that outlines the carbon emissions of nearly every zip code in America (2013 numbers). 

Not surprisingly, it shows that urban folk generally have a much smaller carbon footprint as compared to suburbanites. Here’s what New York City looks like (green is lower carbon emissions and red is higher):

But the article also goes on to say that the solution is not to work towards increasing population densities in either urban centers or suburbs. And that, in fact, efforts to increase population densities in the suburbs would only make things worse–emission levels have been shown to only go up and then new suburbs end up getting formed around the intensified ones.

I understand the last point about endless suburbs, but I don’t fully understand this recommendation. Do carbon emissions go up in the suburbs when population densities are increased because it still remains car dependent and so all you have is more people driving?

Intuitively, it would seem that if more people stopped driving, shopped locally and lived in more compact spaces, carbon emissions would fall. But perhaps I’m missing something.

If anyone has any insights on this topic, I would love to hear from you in the comment section below or on twitter.