I think many people take it for granted that rural life is a mroe sustainable way of living, but I wonder if that is always the case.
As an urban dweller, I often wonder if rural living is actually a more sustainable way of life. I take public transportation everyday and don't own a car, I live in a small aprtment that is insulated by surrounding apartments and relied on steam heat shared with a hundred other families. Sure, I can't grow my own food, but there are dozens fo farmer's markets around the city where it is stipulated that all things sold must be local (within 200 miles of the city.)
Some rural residents may be closer to their food source, but they must rely on cars to transport them often a hundred miles to a store and they're homes are out in the open and can require more neergy to heat or cool.I have lived in isolated towns in Alaskan and New Hampshire and I felt like I used much more energy for travel and heat than I do in New York.
I understand, that rural inhabitants can rely on wind oor solar power (although urban dwellers can too.) I've just always wondered how the stochiometry of energy consumption of urban vs. rural dwellers might compare, especially since I feel many people assume that rural life is inherently more sustainable.
What do you think?