To have A sustainable city such as Copenhagen Denmark which city has 55% wind-powered city. This is a big contributor to how sustainable they are. Even with wind power they still use coal which is 17% of the energy they use. Copenhagen has some of the best biking opportunities in the world with 45% of people commuting by bike. One of the corporate goals is to be 100% renewable energy by 2050. What are some ways you can reduce the carbon emissions in your city ( info from https://carbonneutralcities.org/cities/copenhagen/)

Some ways that people can reduce emission in their cities is by using public transportation as the cities in Europe have been shown to use. I personally use my cities public transportation called BART, which is a train that takes me from my house to San Ramon every weekend. If I were to take a car every weekend instead of BART then the emissions that just I would emit would be far greater then if I continued using the train. If everyone in my city used as much public transportation then the emissions would decrease a lot.

Do paper straws, that we get in almost every shop whit a drink, actually make a diffrance in the global carbon footprint? I am sceptical because we need to cut down a tree for them and after we use them, we cant reuse them like a plastic straw. Also they usualy come in a plastic pacaging so i dont see the point. At our homes there is a option to use metal straws but i dont like them because they are hard to clean and im not sure if they have better carbon footprint than plastic straws. Please tell me if you know a better alternative to plastic straws.

I know this doesn't seem helpful, but not using straw in general and sipping from a cup is probably the best solution that you'll ever find. One with zero waste and zero down side, unless you count something on your lip when you're drinking something a little more dense. Another solution though that I researched is pasta straws. I found a company named Pasta Life that makes straws made of pasta so you can just eat your straw right after which is also zero waste. The down fall was that you can't use it in hot beverages, but almost all hot beverages are better straight out of the cup anyway.

One way we can make a more sustainable city is first focusing on manageable things like  avoiding fast  fashion. Fast fashion is buying clothes that are currently in style, even if you don't need them, from companies that make them with cheap materials. This creates more clothes waste when these clothes go out of style fast and can cause harm to the environment because of the cheap and therefore more dangerous materials used in fast fashion. The creation of these clothes pollute the water and cause micro fabrics into the ocean as an article, "The Environmental Effect of Fast Fashion Explained" tells us. In order to prevent fast fashion, focus on thrift shopping, or buying higher quality clothes.

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 agree with both statements. I have seen that transportation is a big aspect of lots of peoples live. Now are walk and biking better then driving yes but so many people have to commute so far or there not safer paths for pedestrian to walk safely and that makes it hard to do those things. But we help by making public transportation but for many other and personal a lot of people don’t have public transportation access nearby. If there was a bus to my school that came even close to my house I would ride the bus but there is not. I think that as you continue to try and grow for a better sustainable city we can make a difference by making public transportation more accessible as a start.

Transportation plays a large role in our CO2 emissions. It's something many of us can't avoid and use daily, whether it's for school, work, extracurricular activities, or other purposes. So, how can we reduce the amount of CO2 being produced without just staying home and not going anywhere? As a society, we could try having more electric cars on the road, which can be an expensive option as it may require purchasing a vehicle. Some other less expensive ideas would include trying to carpool more, for example, when taking kids to school, or activities, for example, at the end of swim practice, picking up friends and taking them home, rather than their parents picking them up in another (less necessary) car. We could also start using public transportation, like the many Bishop O'Dowd students who take the AC transit and BART. Lastly, we could ask the city to implement more bike lanes, so that people feel more space when riding their bike from place to place.

In Oakland, the city where I live, I believe that the thing that contributed most to the average persons carbon footprint  was from their home. This means that we should be working on more ways to conserve energy, and find news ways to power things that are more sustainable. These can be achieved by increased use of turbines, solar panels, and wind mills. As of January 2023, an article titled Port of Oakland Utility Green Power Portfolio Grows says that "The Port of Oakland Utility serving customers at the seaport and airport fulfills 66.9% of its power needs from carbon free energy sources, nearly double the state average." This is just the start towards a more clean and sustainable future for Oakland and then the rest of the world.

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.

I agree with the statement about buying food creating more carbon emissions, I tend to get takeout or drinks, which can be very wasteful. I think a way to fix this here at Bishop O'Dowd is to use sustainable packaging. The muffins and other pastries are wrapped in Saran Wrap, we could use paper bags instead. The pre-made lunches come in plastic containers, an easy fix to this is finding compostable to-go plates to use instead. This may cost more and take more effort, but I think if we could make it work here, then other schools would catch on and together make a difference. At O'Dowd, some differences have already been made, like paper forks and cups; we just need to take more steps towards a more sustainable school.

I emit way too much carbon from transportation every year and. I can help by taking public transportation more often because it helps reduce air pollution and lowers greenhouse gas emissions. Buses, trains, and subways use less fuel per person compared to cars, which means fewer harmful gases are released into the atmosphere. By choosing public transit, I can help decrease traffic congestion, save energy, and contribute to a cleaner, healthier environment.

I think we should have renewable energy because renewable energy is good because you can renew it. All members of the city should have access to Solar panels so we can thrive. We should also have easier transportation that relies of electric public transportation and bikes. The UN should also implement their 17 SDGs in local areas and promote, enforce these regulations.

For my city, Oakland, the highest contributor to the average person's carbon footprint is the home aspect. In our town, we should prioritize green energy like solar panels, wind turbines, etc. With help from the legislature and our government, we have the opportunity to change the way energy is consumed. The City of Oakland website tells us that Oakland ranks 5th in the 2024 Clean Energy Scorecard by ACEEE. This is a start towards total clean energy, which Oakland is working to achieve by 2045. I think all this information should become mainstream, and people from all places should have access to clean power.

A city that was a lot more controlling of the citizens carbon footprint would look very green. It would have so many trees and would have a lot of solar panels. I think that I would want to live there because of the cleaner air. I have bad lung problems, and having cleaner air would be amazing for my health.

Forcing people to pay fines if they go over a certain carbon limit would probably help. It wouldn't exactly control people but it would be a huge incentive for people to reduce their impact. Maybe getting some benefit if they go under an amount.

I agree with you, that would definitely be a great solution and also fines in some big cities would help. You can also go to the nearby mountains where the air is definitely cleaner than in your town. Being in nature will have a good effect on your health. Luckily I live in a place where the air is still clean and the water is also drinkable. I find it hard to believe that I have to buy bottled water every day. I can only imagine your situation.

I definitely agree with you, but I think that you're looking at the wrong problem here. The city doesn't really get much just from the carbon footprint of its citizens, instead, they should focus more on educating them about this problem. A lot of people don't even know what a carbon footprint is, let alone how much theirs is.

In my opinion, we could clean up the streets by making a better way of cleaning the streets like adding more machines and workers to clean up trash off the streets and making a more sustainable better looking city.

You have a point. Adding more machines and workers could help keep streets cleaner, and using eco-friendly technologies would make it even more sustainable. Making trash bins more accessible and encouraging recycling could further reduce litter. Involving the community through awareness and volunteer programs could also foster a stronger sense of responsibility for keeping the city clean.

I agree with both of you, keeping the streets clen is very important for a sustainable and healthy city. Adding more machines, workes and eco-friendly technologies can definitely help. I would also suggest introducing educational programs in schools to teach young people about the importance of cleanliness and recycling. If children learn these values early, they are more likely to grow up with a strong sense of environmental responsibility. In the long term, this could lead to cleaner cities and a more environmentally conscious society.

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.

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!

How much of an impact do highways have on the environment?

Taken from the FHWA:
In the United States today, traffic and roads are strongly implicated in many of the major environmental problems: air and water pollution, heavy energy use, fragmented farmland and habitat, wildlife and biodiversity losses, and disruption of ecological communities

While they can help us travel, they do contribute to major pollution. However, they do have solutions for animals being separated, with building highway crossings, such as the one below.

I believe that a great and fairly easy way to reduce carbon emissions in big cities is to make them more walkable. Some ways to do this are
-Lowering the speed limit
-Investing in public transportation
-Planting more trees and plants
-Maintaining sidewalks and crosswalks
-Making roads accessible for disabled people
These actions provide a very clear result, which is a less vehicle-dependent city, this can in turn lowers emissions and according to CNU, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 4 tons a year. Not only does creating a walkable city make it more sustainable, but it also increases the health and even life span of residents.
https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2021/0 … t%20suburb.

I definitely agree. If you look at any large city in the US, it is built for cars, not for walking or biking. But if you look at many cities in Europe, it is quite the opposite. There are tons of people walking and biking, this was even the case for the US before automobiles became a "necessity" in our lives. While it is true that they are a quick form of transportation, it would be much more efficient and eco-friendly if we go back to streets that are made for people, not cars, and if we finally normalize HSRs in the US. Many well developed countries like Japan, Germany, France, and more, all do this.