• grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, but looser zoning codes can. We need more multi-family housing and less single-family housing, both because sharing walls between units saves energy on heating and cooling and because walkable dense development saves energy on transportation.

    • lewdian69@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right? If since 1988, 100 companies have been responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions, then housing codes are gonna do fuck all.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s not what I was saying at all.

        What I was saying is that single-family house in a car-dependent neighborhood, even one that’s a net-zero passivehaus, is likely to cause more overall greenhouse gas emissions than an apartment in a walkable city center, even an old, uninsulated one, simply because the former forces the occupants to drive everywhere but the latter doesn’t.

        Sure, we need to regulate industrial emissions at the source instead of transferring blame to consumers, but housing and transportation emissions have nothing to do with that. Increasing energy efficiency of housing really would do a lot to lower emissions, but ending car-dependency of housing would do even more.

        • lewdian69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          “That’s not what I was saying at all.”

          Oh that’s too bad. Good that both things can be true.

          “Increasing energy efficiency of housing really would do a lot to lower emissions, but ending car-dependency of housing would do even more.”

          And yet still be a drop in the bucket.

          • grue@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And yet still be a drop in the bucket.

            That’s not true. Housing and (car) transportation are a large fraction of total greenhouse gas emissions.

  • lntl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    it seems unlikely. could probably help and i figure the issue we’ve been having is more complicated than what can be accomplished with building codes alone.

    • sodalite@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      yeah I’m thinking if anything it’s maybe a step to prevent greedy real estate people from making matters worse in the interim. this sort of thing could force them to follow “green” rules during the transition to a larger more systemic overhaul.

  • Sonori@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    No, law of headlines that end in a question and all that, but they might help in some small way.

    • sodalite@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      yeah, it’s not gonna be one-thing solution, it’s gonna take this plus a whole bunch of other stuff

  • DessertStorms@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Could Tougher Building Codes Fix Climate Change?

    No.

    The only way to no longer fix, but try to avoid the worst of, climate change, is to abolish capitalism.

    No band-aid on a symptom of a cancer will fix the cancer, and as warm and fuzzy it might make some people feel to think we can just regulate or reform our way out of this shit, that’s never going to happen, and clinging on to these futile notions is not just ridiculous, but actively counterproductive (by shifting focus away from the only solution).