I would be more likely to live in a city with more options of public transportation, like more frequent, trams and more skytrains. Some additional things that could be added are more frequent buses on busy routes, additional skytrain lines that service busier parts of the city, and electric trams that service smaller neighbourhoods. This could give people options to take public transit rather than driving to somewhat farther areas within their city and take another car off the road.

Did you know only 25% of 5-17 year olds in Canada use active modes of transportation. This is why it is really important to use transportation as much as you possibly can because only 1/4 kids do. Just think of how much gas gets put in the air in one day and how much you and the people around you can prevent that. You can't change everyones carbon footprint but you can change yours so use that opportunity and use it to your advantage to try and save our earth!

I agree with this as ,riding a bike or even walking to school your helping out the ecosystem by not using as much gas as you would be if you were driving. Even taking the bus is good and that's a good way for transportation as well. But imagine how much you can help out just by doing the smallest things can help make a good impact on our environment.

Hi this can help make a Sustainable

edit sing is single sorry

I agree because single use plastic will just turn into micro-plastic and stay in the air

I agree stop using single use plastic. It very much effects our environment as it is only "single use" using reusable water bottles such as Hydro Flask might cost more but wont cost more then thousands of single use plastic material. Don't use single plastics!

I agree with ethlou, Single use plastics are so bad and dangerous. When we are done with them we just chuck them in the garbage not thinking of the consequences. They can end up in the ocean and hurt our sea life or end up in a landfill and never break down. If Single use plastics end up in the ocean some of them could get caught around animals necks or fins and cause them to suffocate or die. Animals in the ocean could also confuse plastic as food which could make them very sick and/or cause animals to suffocate from the inside. If plastics do break down, they could turn into microplastics which are also very harmful in similar and different ways. Microplastics have been found to cause heart attacks, health affects and even death. Instead of using single use plastics we should use reusable water bottles, wooden cutlery, beeswax wrap instead or Saran Wrap (yes this more expensive, but you can reuse them multiple times so in the end you end up saving money.) And if you do end up using single use plastics try to recycle them properly so the can be reused in a different way.

i think nina is correct single use plastics are very bad for the environment and getting rid of them would genuinely not even be that difficult to do. All you have to do is be careful about what we buy a lot of things have single use plastic containers but as long as you take a moment to look wether or not you can recycle the plastic. This seems like one of the easier things to drop for most people and it is very important too. single use plastic is incredibly bad for the environment because it does not break down really at all and therefore they can kill many, many animals every year especially in the ocean which is already in bad shape because of ocean acidification.

use more public transport  and increase car sharing.

I agree, but I suggest walking or biking instead of driving because burning fossil fuels release a large amount of carbon dioxide (CO2). If you're going somewhere far, then that's when it is suggested taking public transportation and carpooling. If you're planning on buying a car, then consider buying an electric one with cheaper models. Even though electric cars run on electricity produced from fossil fuels, they reduce the amount of air pollution as well as causing fewer greenhouse gas emissions.

I feel like I have a lot of everyday purchases especially food so if we all cut down on our everyday purchases like food or stuff that we don't need but want like toys or video games (physical copies) then our carbon emissions would go way down as well we would have more food to help out other countries that may be struggling with hunger and we would also have more toys to donate to struggling families.

Instead of putting out more carbon emissions in the air we could start to bike to destinations rather than driving for a minute and a half to get there.

I think that I should start doing this more I usually take public transportation

I completely agree that that is such an easy and affordable fix. I think a big reason our society doesn’t just all bike is how lazy people are getting. People eat so much fast food and don’t exercise enough to balance. This is a big problem and personally I am trying to walk/ bike more often when possible. Cars that are gas powered produce so much carbon and it’s pretty easy and it saves so much money to not drive often.

I think a great way cities can reduce their carbon footprint is installing mandatory solar panels. Solar panels are really easy to install and once done produce very limited amounts of carbon. To start off solar panels could just power lights and small appliances. As the solar panel technology gets more advanced they can start to be the main energy source for heating, cooling and now major appliances as well. Once we get to this energy saving form of electricity, the world will burn way less fossil fuels, reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere.

Make sustainable city is easy ? Why it's difficult ?

yes

Cold Fusion, or low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) is basically a hypothesized type of nuclear reaction that should occur at room temperature. There is currently no widely accepted theoretical model that would allow cold fusion to occur.

Theoretically, it should provide virtually LIMITLESS energy and minimal nuclear waste, and pretty much no environmental impact compared to, say, fossil fuels.

See, current nuclear power plants use nuclear fission (not fusion), which, as the name suggests, consists of splitting heavy atoms (such as uranium-235 or plutonium-239) into smaller fragments, which releases a large amount of energy. The problem is, along with energy, fission also produces additional neutrons and radioactive fission products.

These radioactive fission products are typically unstable isotopes of elements such as cesium strontium, iodine, and plutonium. These isotopes decay and emit radiation in the form of alpha, beta, and gamma particles. Some of these isotopes can remain for thousands to millions of years.

Cold fusion, on the other hand, is a nuclear reaction which is quite frankly the opposite of fission. It involves two like atomic nuclei (often involving hydrogen isotopes such as deuterium and tritium) merging together to form a heavier nucleus (helium nuclei), releasing a significant amount of energy in the process. he energy released is due to the conservation of mass into energy, described in Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc^2, because if you look at the mass of the reactants and compare it to the mass of the product, you’ll find that its not equal, which means some of the mass has been transferred into energy.

The reason this occurs is because the speed of light (c) is a very large number, even the smallest of mass could theoretically be converted into a large amount of energy. This process occurs at near room temperature. This low energy requirement reduces harmful nuclear byproducts. Hydrogen isotopes are also relatively lighter than nuclear fission reactants, and therefore should generate more stable elements.

If we can somehow harness this release of energy, it could be a potential source of clean and abundant form of energy, proving to be superior to the fossil fuel and nuclear fission energy we use today…

(if ya read all of that congrats u officially don't have the attention span of a 6 year old yayyy)

.

This is true, I agree.

I completely agree because E=MC2 is one of the most famous equations developed by albert einstein and this is completly true. The speed of light squared is actualy about 9 times 10 to the 16 power m per second which just shows how much limitless energy we can get.

Yes, but what is the cost of doing such things, and how would we go about doing this? Would the practice methods be sustainable?

I love this and I completely agree! I am someone who is highly interested in nuclear physics and the use of nuclear power (which is why I have 235 in my username), and it's always great to see others take an interest in it as well. It's disappointing that a lot of people tend to shy away from anything that involves the word nuclear since they immediately equate it to being disastrous. The use of nuclear power, especially cold fusion, is very interesting and I think that if more people took the time to learn about it we would be more open to using it.

lmao i was pleasantly surprised when my post from half a year ago got a reply

Converting to energy-efficient buildings offers significant economic value both in the short and long term. Energy-efficient buildings reduce operational costs by lowering energy consumption, leading to substantial savings on electricity, heating, and cooling. This reduction in utility expenses can offset initial investments in energy-saving technologies like better insulation, energy-efficient windows, and smart lighting systems. Additionally, energy-efficient buildings often increase property values and attract tenants or buyers who prioritize sustainability, creating a competitive advantage in the real estate market. On a broader scale, reducing energy demand also alleviates pressure on power grids and reduces the need for expensive infrastructure expansions. Government incentives and tax breaks for adopting energy-efficient technologies further enhance the financial appeal of this conversion, making it a smart economic choice for both individuals and businesses.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/energy-effi … 0Champion.

I understand that people love living in big homes and having a mansion of their own, but let's be realistic, no one needs a house that big for one person or even a whole family unless you bring an entire city with you. It's a waste of resources and basically living space. It's even expensive, so here's what I suggest, we can do compact living and only live with what we need, that was we'd always have money saved, our house would be easier to manage, and we wouldn't be raising our footprints so much. And I know some may say that a studio apartment can be much more expensive than normal housing, but that comes down to the person and how far they're willing to go to search for sustainable housing and something within their means. Not above it.

I 100% agree with this and how compact living would lower our carbon footprints drastically. Now, I'm not going to say everyone needs to change the way they live to complete minimalism; however, I feel if people lived with a minimal amount of devices and avoided living in excessively large spaces, there would be a large decrease in resource use and our carbon footprints.

I also agree on this matter, a lot of land and habitats have been cleared for big houses to only house one or two people only for the house to end up being abandoned and left there for years or even decades. It is undoubtedly a waste of resources.

Although you may think that public transit can give off more carbon due to things like trains and subways being much bigger than the average car, that is actually not the case. Especially with big family cars like S.U.V.s, the standards car companies have to meet is much lower than the criteria that average public transit has to follow. Public Transit is made to have their vehicles emit less and less carbon every year, something that most companies do not follow. According to newyorker.com, car companies are able to classify S.U.V.s as trucks, making it so the window of carbon they are allow to emit is much larger than the average car. To conclude, yes more public transit is a solution to help stop climate change of carbon emissions.

I never knew that fact about SUVs and I'm also glad that you included a cited source as well. People should switch to public transit or at least try to find a more sustainable means of traveling. If cities were more walkable, we wouldn't even have to worry much about transportation in general!