There is a very important difference between direct (narrow) and indirect(wide) boundary analysis. All that food in New York, had to be shipped from all over the world. I didnt mean to pick on New York in my example, but we have to look at the total footprint underlying ones lifestyle - even if one makes millions and doesn't spend a penny, their employer likely uses a great deal of resources.

Regarding wood and natural gas - I will repost my analysis on that tomorrow - $ are irrelevant - it takes alot of wood to replaces natural gas and heating oil...

Now we are on to the second major fallacy common around here, that not growing food in your backyard is some kind of environmental sin. Cities have been around for thousands of years, and they have always gotten their food from somewhere else. New York City used to be fed by New Jersey, Connecticut and the farms upstate accessible by the Hudson. This was not really any different than Alexandria being fed by farmers upstream on the Nile. Nothing particularly unsound about that. Indeed, given how long its been going on, I would say it's about the most "sustainable" pattern that anyone could ever hope to find.

That was a straw man fallacy!

C'mon, eating food in NYC that comes from New Jersey is technically "from the backyard".

I agree! But the religious types around here will whack you on the knuckles with a stick if you bring it up. If you aren't picking slugs off your backyard tomatoes, no greenie points for you! The idea of the "division of labor" is a bit too much of a mind bender, apparently.

Cities are large groups of people who exceed the carrying capacity of their environment. Which means trade is necessary. Which means resources must be brought in from elsewhere. Which means more energy expended to move necessary resources over a distance, and which means war if someone else doesn't want to trade.