Pennsylvania Environmental Council: wanna affect climate change? Redesign living areas
Let us give thanks for the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. Honestly, I don't know much about the PEC, but when they put out a statement like the one I've posted after the jump, it certainly opens the door for people like me to write "No Kidding" posts. Since I like to do this, I give thanks. Here's the gist of the PEC's release, which is about a report the PEC, the Urban Land Institute, Smart Growth America and other organizations released last week: one great way to affect climate change is to reduce the number of miles people drive every day. Therefore, we should work very hard to stop sprawling developments that put people so far away from their jobs, stores, etc., if we want to improve the air we breathe.
Brian Hill, president of the PEC, said in the statement that, "The impact of smart growth is profound, not only because of the increased miles driven by so many people but also because most of those people are also spending a lot more time stuck in traffic, moving slowly if at all while the gas keeps burning. And smart growth is not just about the global environment, it's also about the livability of our communities and the economic cost with high gasoline prices."
Need some warning about the future? The report says that if the current tear-down-the-corn-fields, put-up-a-subdivision trends continue, "the total miles that people drive will increase 59 percent between 2005 and 2030, and carbon emissions from this increased driving will overwhelm expected gains from vehicle efficiency and low-carbon fuels."
No kidding.
[Source: Pennsylvania Environmental Council]
Less Auto-Dependent Development Is Key to Mitigating Climate Change; Pennsylvania Growth Patterns Fueling Increases in Vehicle Emissions
PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Pennsylvania needs a more aggressive approach to global warming based on a new report that shows an alarming increase in how many miles the average person is driving, according to Brian Hill, President of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council.
Sprawling development patterns are a key contributor to global warming and an essential factor in combating it, according to the report released today in Washington, DC, by the Urban Land Institute, Smart Growth America and other organizations.
"Today's report shows that the smart-growth recommendations included in PEC's Climate Change Roadmap for Pennsylvania need to be high on our priority list to overcome global warming," said Mr. Hill, noting that Philadelphia ranks third in the nation in growing vehicle miles traveled.
"The impact of smart growth is profound, not only because of the increased miles driven by so many people but also because most of those people are also spending a lot more time stuck in traffic, moving slowly if at all while the gas keeps burning. And smart growth is not just about the global environment, it's also about the livability of our communities and the economic cost with high gasoline prices," Mr. Hill said.
The landmark report warns that if sprawling development continues, the total miles that people drive will increase 59 percent between 2005 and 2030, and carbon emissions from this increased driving will overwhelm expected gains from vehicle efficiency and low-carbon fuels.
Even with those technological improvements, vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide would be 41 percent above today's levels, well over the goal of reducing CO2 emissions to 1990 levels by 2050, according to Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change.
Pennsylvanian residents are driving more than ever before, fueling increases in vehicle emissions, one of the leading sources of global warming pollution. Spread-out development or sprawl is the key factor in that rate of growth, the research team found in their report based on a comprehensive review of dozens of studies.
Annual vehicle miles traveled by all Pennsylvanians increased 51 percent from 1980 to 2005, and only part of that increase was caused by population growth. Annual VMT per driver in Pennsylvania increased 26 percent in that time period, and mileage does not consider the added impact of people stuck in slow-moving traffic.
As grim as the numbers are, Pennsylvania ranked 42nd among the 51 states and District of Columbia in increased VMT per driver.
The Philadelphia metropolitan area is one of the most problematic, ranking third among 36 metro areas in the rate of growth in vehicle miles traveled with a 51 percent increase from 1992 to 2005. This alarming growth in miles behind the wheel happened despite the slow population growth of only 2.5 percent.
Pittsburgh compared favorably with many other metro areas, ranking 27th among the 36 areas. But vehicle miles traveled increased almost 13 percent even though the population increased only 5 percent.
While demand for such smart-growth development is growing, government regulations, government spending, and transportation policies all still favor sprawling, automobile-dependent development. The ULI report recommends changes in all three areas to make green neighborhoods more available and more affordable. It also calls for including smart-growth strategies as a fundamental tenet in climate change plans at the local, state, and federal level.
"Most people are surprised to learn that the way we drive has a profound impact on Pennsylvania's rivers and streams, and the Chesapeake Bay," said Harry Campbell, Chesapeake Bay Foundation Pennsylvania Scientist. "The pollution that comes out of the tailpipe often finds its way into our waters. Global climate change not only threatens to alter Pennsylvania's environment, but our health and welfare as well. The time to address these issues, including the way land use is managed and our driving habits, is now, not tomorrow."
Mr. Hill added, "Being able to spend less time behind the wheel will benefit our health, our pocketbooks and the environment. We urge Governor Rendell and our state legislators to make smart growth a key strategy to mitigating global warming in Pennsylvania."
The ULI report found:
- On average, Americans living in compact neighborhoods where cars are not the only transportation option drive a third fewer miles than those in typical automobile-oriented places, such as subdivisions and office parks.
- Real estate projections show that two-thirds of development expected to be on the ground in 2050 is not yet built, meaning that the potential for change is profound.
- Shifting 60 percent of new growth to compact patterns would save 53 million tons of CO2 annually by 2030, equivalent to a 16 percent increase in fuel economy standards.
- People who move into compact, "green neighborhoods" are making as big a contribution to fighting global warming as those who buy the most efficient hybrid vehicles, but remain in car-dependent areas.
- Improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency (such as hybrid cars that get more miles per gallon) and reductions in the carbon content of fuels (such as biodiesel fuels) will be overwhelmed by continuing, robust growth in the vehicle miles traveled unless aggressive smart growth initiatives are pursued.
Further information is available at: http://www.pecpa.org/.
[Source: Pennsylvania Environmental Council]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
TX CHL Instructor 8:14PM (9/23/2007)
Ok, if we accept as fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that reducing it would be a good thing, then we should go after the LARGEST sources of CO2 first, right? Wouldn't that make some sense? Then we could concentrate on the 2nd largest source, then the 3rd, etc.
Well, the LARGEST source of CO2 IN THE WORLD is the multiple coal-mine fires in Asia that have been burning for the last couple of decades. Followed in 2nd place by the flares and deliberate clearing-fires in Africa.
Reply
ug 9:41PM (9/23/2007)
I see no shortage of good proposals. What I see a shortage of is action. I think more effort should be spent on finding ways to get plans like this implemented rather than just coming up with more and more white papers.
Reply
Jim 7:55AM (9/24/2007)
It's worth remembering that this kind of development pattern hasn't always been seen as 'green'. In the 1880's when streetcars were developed, and again in the 1910's when automobiles came along in mass quantities, social thinkers and activists praised the new technologies that would allow families to move away from unheatlthy, crime-filled, polluted cities and out to the healthy countryside, while still allowing men to commute into the city to work.
I'm not saying this development model can't benefit some people, or that we should just rip up all the corn fields. Personally I like living in this kind of neighborhood. But not everyone does, and I have a hard time saying we should force everyone to because it seems green to us now.
Today's solution is often tomorrow's problem. Witnes the catalytic converter, which turns carbon monoxide into "harmless CO2". And while "smart growth" and the new urbanism in seen as green today, tomorrow...
Reply
scatter 8:10AM (9/24/2007)
It's been known since the 19th century that CO2 is a greenhouse gas so there's no if about it.
You're absolutely correct that we should attempt to tackle big emissions sources such as these fires (whether that's at all possible or not I have no idea) but it's not the case that there should be some sort of sequential tackling of GHG emissions. There simply isn't time for that.
Cuts need to be made in all sectors starting now. No industry, section of society or country should be exempted. Everyone, everywhere, immediately. And as around 70% of historic GHG emissions have been generated by the West we need to take a lead.
US residential emissions in 2005 were 1.25 billion tonnes of CO2 (21% of energy related emissions) and there is a huge potential for cuts there.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html
Reply
Owen 9:17AM (9/24/2007)
I live in the Lehigh Valley and we are one of the areas most affected by this. You really have no idea how bad it has gotten here. Over 20% of our population is commuters from NYC, which is over 70 miles away. Then there are the people who commute to reading and Philadelphia (45 miles away) There is no rail service or bus service in and out of the area, so everyone is driving and there are NO plans to make such. Every morning and every evening traffic just crawls for an hour or so as people drive single occupancy vehicles to and from. I know that in LA, this is the norm, but for here, it's been a nearly 30% growth in 10 years. The worst part is that none of that growth occured in the urban areas, it's all sprawl, so figure roughly 100,000 new homes in 10 years in areas that ALL used to be farmland. Every house is 3000 sq ft or more with a miniscule lot and contains a one child family. Glutton is running amok. Greenland is shrinking, construction is booming, and the urban areas are all blighted and continue to degrade.
Reply
Owen 9:18AM (9/24/2007)
Oh yeah, and... Go Rendell! The friend of the developer! *sarcasm*
Reply
john riley 9:32AM (9/24/2007)
Visit Toronto and you might get an idea how this can look. Density nodes around subway stops, middle class people with kids living downtown, etc. Unfortunately one of the subway lines still doesn't have the density nodes, and the fastest growing area is Milton, which is at the far edge of the built up area.
The ecomomics still encourage sprawl. You can get twice the sq ft for a given amount of money, as compared with downtown.
Reply
bill 10:00AM (9/24/2007)
Not to worry - the company I work for in Oregon has build a tent city for its employees in the parking lot. Couple the need to not go home each night with extremely low wages that make it impossible to buy gas, and you have the formula for reducing CO2 emissions. I am hoping the company will provide snow shovels for winter so we can shovel a walk to the front door.
Reply
Alex 10:16AM (9/24/2007)
one of the things that i don't like about the majority of these studies is taht they target the developer as being the problem. that's just short-sighted.
developers build where a) the land is cheap b) the labor is cheap and c) where the demand for homes are.
It is significantly less expensive to purchase and develop green-fields as opposed to brown-fields. Not to mention that with a green-field you don't have to worry about who the prior owner was and what chemicals did they possibly spill into the ground.
In philadelphia a developer must hire a minimum of 90% union labor. The unions are outrageously expensive and demanding in this city. To add to this headache, L&I is awful at getting around to processing paperwork and their process is exhaustingly time-consuming.
No one is banging down the doors of developers to move into the city. the residential buuildings in center city that are being put up are going for a million dollars, and all that gets you is a one bedroom place. the areas that are more residential typically have dangerous crime rates keeping your average middle class family out. if the neighborhood wasn't bad enough, the school district will seal the deal.
The problem is a Lernaean Hydra. There are so many heads, that one has a near impossible time of overcoming it. unfortunately, i don't see a shift in consumer desire or government regulations that'll effect change any time soon.
Reply
Yggdrasilly 11:27AM (9/24/2007)
I think many Americans would choose to live in higher-density areas, even if it meant more money for less living space, if--and this is the big "if"--it cut down substantially on their commute times.
The reason they's do this? It's because of the way Americans are. We'll spend any amount of money--sometimes an inordinate amount of money--to get exactly what we want, but *we won't wait an extra minute for it*
Apply this to husing: people are sprnding hundreds of thousands of dollars on housing with all kinds of extras and conveniences, but they're also paying for that housing in time--commutes to and from work, and longer drives for errands. People will eventually want to buy that time back, in which case a move to more expensive inner-city housing will look good.
It's true you won't get as much square footage as you would in the suburbs, but you could get all the conveniences and stutus-symbol extras--wood floors, tiled entries, granite kitchen countertops--that are used to sell McMansions in the suburbs.
Real estate developers will want to position themselves to take advantage of this trend. In many cities, they already are. Government should help by altering zoning laws and putting in the necessary infrastructure to allow this sort of development--just as they did to allow suburbs to be built.
Reply
Ed 12:55PM (10/11/2007)
"In the U.S., buildings are responsible for almost half (48%) of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions annually," according to Edward Mazria, internationally recognized architect and founder of Architecture 2030. Our fleet of automobiles and light trucks, accounting for 15% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US, turns over every 10-15 years. Replacements for these vehicles must meet mandated federal fuel economy standards. Buildings have neither a replacement cycle nor federally mandated energy efficiency standards.
I have a concept to wean America's buildings from fossil fuels @ http://www.magikool.org/
Ed
PS: America Can Only Green 1 Building at a Time
Reply