Matt Yglesias

Urban Land Use Reform as a Game-Changer

Smart growth and transit-oriented development in Arlington, Virginia (Wikimedia)

I love talking about this stuff, and now thanks to Kevin Drum I see the study I’ve been waiting for on urban land use and climate change. Kaid Benfield from the NRDC explains:

Which is a pretty long introduction to a new report that will make smart growth harder to ignore as a carbon-reducing strategy. In particular, the Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) released a study last Friday documenting how comprehensive application of smart growth best practices and improved transportation choices can significantly reduce transportation emissions at a cost savings to society. The report makes a strong case for investing a portion of cap-and-trade revenues in smart growth. Here are some of the key findings:

— Smart growth and smart transportation choices can reduce the amount Americans need to drive – as measured in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) – by 10 percent per capita from 2005 levels.

— A 10 percent reduction in per capita VMT would reduce annual transportation emissions by 145 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2) in the year 2030, equivalent to the annual emissions of about 30 million cars or 35 large coal plants.

— These reductions would equal approximately 6 percent of the 2030 greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goal proposed in the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

The fact that these kind of moves are economically beneficial is hugely important. This is essentially greenhouse gas emissions achieved purely by using the land more efficiently. Using the land more efficiently is economically healthier than our current wasteful approach. So you’re not only reducing pollution, you’re making it possible to afford even more reductions. What’s more, this is purely a look at the transportation reductions in energy usage. In practice, intensively used land also leads to much more energy efficiency in buildings.

7 Responses to “Urban Land Use Reform as a Game-Changer”

1. joe from Lowell Says:
   June 23rd, 2009 at 4:00 pm

   …and that’s just the transportation benefits. Land use reform will also mean reductions in per capita energy use for heating and cooling buildings.

2. Njorl Says:
   June 23rd, 2009 at 4:13 pm

   The fact that these kind of moves are economically beneficial is hugely important.

   I’d go further and say that the fact that they are economically beneficial is pretty much their exclusive importance. Six percent of our greenhouse emissions targets for 2030 isn’t really a big deal.

   The things that translate well to other countries are the things that will make a difference. The US has had singularly inefficient deveolpment. Other countries can’t benefit from eliminating these inefficiencies, because they don’t have them to our degree. Other developed countries were restricted by lack of land, while poorer countries didn’t have sufficient wealth to waste energy like us. It would certainly be nice to make these economical and environmentally favorable changes, but they aren’t a big deal.

3. Stefan Says:
   June 23rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm

   Why are there no trees in that photo? Jesus, that’s hideous.

4. David Sucher Says:
   June 23rd, 2009 at 9:57 pm

   Three comments on an important post about land use and global warming.

   Sixty-three comments on nothing Appalachian Trail gossip.

   No wonder People magazine is such a success.

5. Max424 Says:
   June 24th, 2009 at 5:48 am

   Trains, trains, trains. Love ‘em. I would like to have one coming right up my driveway with a lovely little bike path right next to it. All for it. For selfish and selfless reasons.

   And discussing VMT reductions is fantastic. People need to get out of their cars. We need to enjoy life more, it runs out fast.

   But if a 10% reduction in VMT would eliminate 35 coal plants, what an all electric solar powered auto fleet do? It would eliminate 300 coal plants. Wouldn’t that be helpful?

   Left-wing (centrist, really) bloggers are mankind’s last hope. If you fail us, all is lost.

   Priorities.

6. serial catowner Says:
   June 24th, 2009 at 9:55 am

   Yeah, ya gotta love it- five, count ‘em, five comments on the big issue for America.

   Oh, sure, cars in the future will run on some magic stuff and we’ll get even more savings by continuing suburban development. Or it won’t matter anyway because most of the people in the world don’t live here.

   Or, you could take a more realistic viewpoint that if you live a mile closer to work, that’s two miles a say of travel you save yourself without lifting a finger. I don’t care if your car runs on your own farts, add up enough of those miles not traveled and you have some spare time and money.

   A word, to the wise, will be sufficient.

7. Stuart Says:
   June 24th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

   Stephan, there are trees on those blocks but the pic is taken in winter so they are hard to see with no leaves. Check out the Google street view for a better idea of what the area looks like. Nothing groundbreaking but considering the location it could be much worse without the consideration the planners put into it

   http://maps.google.com/maps?q=arlington,+va&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF8&split=0&gl=us&ei=4HVCSvKMI4HOMdKL-cAH&ll=38.881279,-77.111535&spn=0.0038,0.009645&z=17&layer=c&cbll=38.882134,-77.111664&panoid=fo0qr_zL81bcFDZ9ECvxLA&cbp=12,140.83,,0,-3.63