It's about time these dots were connected.  Even though this is a case in the California state court, it's going to have national implications:

 

Sprawl clashes with Global Warming

San Francisco Chronicle

by Mark Martin

(05-27) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- California's pioneering push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is colliding with one of the state's most ingrained legacies: urban sprawl.

 

In litigation and legislation, environmentalists, lawmakers and Attorney General Jerry Brown are using a landmark law enacted last year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to argue that the state must rethink the kind of immense and far-flung housing developments that have defined California land-use patterns for decades.

 

The global warming fight has given new ammunition to the battle against sprawl, which detractors argue creates more cars on the road and energy use and is therefore a key ingredient in the climate-change crisis that threatens the California coastline and snowpack...

 

Original article link gone.  Article archived here:

http://postcarboncities.net/sprawl-clashes-global-warming-efforts-california

 

 

You should post that article in more places -- spread it far and wide. I wonder if similar lawsuits could be filed against communities and/or developers in more places, yet under the federal 1990 Clean Air Act? Is it germane?

Could California get any more freaking progressive?

 

Here, I can't walk a hundred yards without passing someone sitting in their car, eating Wendy's, talking on their cell, using their idling engine as a 250hp phone charger.

 

 

You should post that article in more places -- spread it far and wide. I wonder if similar lawsuits could be filed against communities and/or developers in more places, yet under the federal 1990 Clean Air Act? Is it germane?

 

It may be.  I've always wondered if suits could be filed by disabled our elderly groups for not providing enough non-automobile transportation options. 

You should post that article in more places -- spread it far and wide. I wonder if similar lawsuits could be filed against communities and/or developers in more places, yet under the federal 1990 Clean Air Act? Is it germane?

 

Then the door would be open for other suits, the obese could sue the developers for making them use cars? EPA could sue the Electorate of Hamilton County for voting down the Light Rail plan? Trouble is, you can pin it all on the big bad developers; you would have to sue the Feds for the various laws etc that promote(d) suburbanization, the automobile lobby, The FHA, the FHWA, other lobbyists groups...where would it stop? Lots of money would be spent on the suit proving culpability, that would be better spend on land use and planning modifications under our existing free market framework in order to curb the de-densifying

Welcome to our litigious society. Fact is, policy is often made or enforced through the courts, and selectively targeted at "statement" cases.

 

And when did the free market exist when it comes to determining land use patterns?

The irony here is that many of those who don't think human caused "global warming" is taking place believe that the data used by those who believe in it is skewed by the "urban heat island" effect, where urban areas are significantly warmer than their surroundings.

 

But leaving that aside, what its critics call "sprawl" is really nothing more than people acting according to their own individual preferences.  Anyone who's ever seen a park, beach, or seating area where one location is not significantly better than any other knows that its the natural tendency of (at least)Americans to spread out and establish a certain degree of personal space whenever possible. 

 

Attempting to use the force of government to coerce other behavior inevitably leads to unintended consequences, as Americans in general tend to resent such efforts and have no qualms about finding ways to evade them.

You mean like the federal government subsidizing oil company costs to such an extent that gasoline prices are half of what they would be if there was no government intervention? And if those subsidies didn't exist, how many would choose to live in sprawling communities?

 

Or how would people live and shop if the costs of managing storm water run-off were fully allocated to sprawling development patterns (particularly large, free parking lots) which require expensive water control projects/maintenance?

 

Or if the demand/supply equation when it comes to highway use included a price component? Since our highways are government owned and operated (not private enterprise like its railway competitors or the private transit agencies they replaced), increasing the price of using highways is seldom used to manage congestion/demand. Instead, the solution almost always used is to increase the supply of highways. How/where would we live if price was used as much as supply to balance those with the demand side of the equation?

 

These are just three examples of how government forces its way into transportation and land use decisionmaking by individuals, businesses and communities. But Americans in our little corner of the world don't usually see them because they have been institutionalized norms over the past 50 years. I doubt fish notice their water either.

^^^Bravo. Well put. :clap:

KJP is my leader.

You mean like the federal government subsidizing oil company costs to such an extent that gasoline prices are half of what they would be if there was no government intervention? And if those subsidies didn't exist, how many would choose to live in sprawling communities?

 

Or how would people live and shop if the costs of managing storm water run-off were fully allocated to sprawling development patterns (particularly large, free parking lots) which require expensive water control projects/maintenance?

 

Or if the demand/supply equation when it comes to highway use included a price component? Since our highways are government owned and operated (not private enterprise like its railway competitors or the private transit agencies they replaced), increasing the price of using highways is seldom used to manage congestion/demand. Instead, the solution almost always used is to increase the supply of highways. How/where would we live if price was used as much as supply to balance those with the demand side of the equation?

 

These are just three examples of how government forces its way into transportation and land use decisionmaking by individuals, businesses and communities. But Americans in our little corner of the world don't usually see them because they have been institutionalized norms over the past 50 years. I doubt fish notice their water either.

 

My point is that this isn't government "forcing its way" into anything.  It's government responding to the clear desires of its ostensible bosses, the taxpayers.  Taxes, of course, make up a significant chunk of the price of gas, estimated at over $0.60 a gallon.

 

"Sprawl" happens even when the roads aren't there to support it.  Take a look at Rt. 82 in Macedonia and Sagamore Hills, or 14 in Streetsboro. 

 

The government's responding to the desires of the taxpayers, when it can.  People (at least Americans) quite simply prefer personal space and private transportation. 

How do you (or anyone) know what Americans prefer when there is no free market when it comes to transportation and land use choices? The marketplace so badly distorted by the fact that:

 

+ Americans don't pay the full costs of driving and living a sprawl lifestyle;

+ Most Americans don't have options to a car-dependent/sprawl lifestyle;

+ And Americans have little or poor information about the costs, choices or the potential alternatives to those lifestyles.

 

If someone offers me a more luxurious, wasteful lifestyle without my having to pay the full costs of it at the moment I incur those costs (or ever), of course I'm going to be interested in choosing that lifestyle!

 

How many of us think the cost of gas is a small part of the costs we incur in driving our cars? Or we think that we have all the oil and land we'll ever need to keep fueling our sprawling lifestyle? Or how the rest of the developed world addresses these issues? In all cases, not very many of us taxpayers. That's bad information, but it's driven public policy and individual choices for decades.

 

I don't blame Americans, necessarily. I'd also choose that lifestyle after being told for most of my life (often by special interests with well-funded PR machines) that there's nothing costly, wasteful or damaging about it. My moral compass won't send me in another direction or cause me to question the information I've been given. Or I just might be selfish enough that I don't care anyway. I'm just a happy American, drunk and blinded by the good life.

 

But if I learn that my choices are actually more expensive than I've been led to believe, I will seek to learn more. When confronted by some of those deferred expenses starting to kick in (higher gas prices, rising food prices, increased traffic congestion, fewer road capacity expansions due to higher construction costs), I probably will make some lifestyle adjustments (though I'll probably blame everyone else for the problem). And when the distorted marketplace can longer support driving uber alles and the profligate suburban sprawl, the supply/demand inequity corrects itself like water trying to find its own level. The denial will be destroyed. That inequity has been held back by an unsustainable dam of unfortunate government policies. Like when a dam bursts, the damage from the suddenly corrected inequity will be equally unpleasant -- fuel shortages, skyrocketing fuel costs, collapse of credit and housing markets and civil unrest.

 

We'll continue to enjoy our subsidized car-dependent sprawl party for a little while longer. We're all happy and drunk from it and in denial. But I suspect I will see the dreaded "morning after" in my lifetime. There's every reason to believe the end has already begun.

 

Then we'll have a better idea which lifestyle people prefer when confronted with the cost of living it.

How many of us think the cost of gas is a small part of the costs we incur in driving our cars?

 

There is also insurance, liscense, and maintenance costs, and car payments and interest charges associated with those payments.

 

Thats why my granfather gave up his car in the 1950s, including his drivers liscense.  He was never "sold" on cars, thought they cost more than they were worth, so he went carless. 

 

That was do-able, still, in the Chicago of the 1950s, 60s and into the 70s even.  But I think Chicago was a special case, and one can't do this except in the largest cities, or ones with good public transit and basic shopping that is walkable (and these are usually the largest cities).

>There is also insurance, liscense, and maintenance costs, and car payments and interest charges associated with those payments.

 

On one hand, I see car ownership for 16 year-olds as a solid fiscal goal and a test of their maturity.  But the problem is that most middle class and above teenagers have a significant part of their car expenses paid for by their parents, if not all.  For example, the kid will get the car but will have to pay for insurance and gas.  In theory they'll pay for maintenance and repairs but in practice the parents actually end up paying for it.  The kids don't think they're really getting that great of a deal (certainly, they don't think they're spoiled) because the car's kind of old and not very cool. 

 

Then people get out of school making $40K or whatever after having had their car stuff subsidized that whole time so the real expense of it really never hits them. 

 

 

Yep. Ask someone how much it costs to drive to X city. They may first look at you funny because you don't have to pay a fare. When they realize you're serious, they'll figure out how many miles it is, ask how much gas mileage you get, and then come up with a number based on current gas prices.

 

Instead, point them to the IRS figure of 47.5 cents per mile (doesn't include parking). The AAA figure is higher, averaging 69 cents per mile.

 

Those get a little closer to the actual cost of driving your own car. But, like I've said before, even those costs are heavily subsidized, starting with the price of gas which is, at best, half of what it would otherwise be without the heavy hand of government.

Instead, point them to the IRS figure of 47.5 cents per mile (doesn't include parking). The AAA figure is higher, averaging 69 cents per mile.

 

How do you get around that? Simple! Rent a car from Hertz for $15/day with unlimited mileage (triumphantly slaps hands together in exagerated wiping motion).

http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/06/19/debating-energy-as-if-communities-mattered

 

Debating Energy as if Communities Mattered

 

by Joe Brewer

 

Congress is debating legislation that will impact our capacity to address the global warming crisis.

 

An energy bill, titled the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, is now being considered on the Senate floor. Proposals include fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, funding of biofuels research, and the strategic idea that OPEC should no longer be allowed to price gouge as gasoline prices rise. These are commendable goals, certainly an improvement over the stagnation of the conservative government in recent years that has refused to even acknowledge the immense threats of global warming and a volatile dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

 

But there are other important considerations that belong in the energy debate if we are to actually rise to the challenges humanity faces. Progressives have not articulated the idea that sound energy policy is meant to promote livable communities and a livable world for all life forms, half of which now face extinction. My purpose here is to clarify the terms of the current debate to reveal a path the discourse can take to promote this central progressive idea.

 

Narrow Focus on Fuels

The climate crisis has finally become a household concern and decision makers are struggling with policy choices. We have gone from thinking about dependence on foreign oil to the recognition that we must reduce our dependence on oil itself. Talk has begun to focus on alternative sources of energy that do not release as many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The public discourse is obsessed with fuel!

 

The same thing happens when we talk about energy independence. The concept for energy includes the source of energy being some kind of fuel. Because the focus on energy independence has been on Middle East oil, energy is commonly taken as referring to fuel. The terms oil and foreign oil, are also associated with fuels. This is why public discourse keeps coming back to the topic of fuel. Each concept has its own frame, thus the meaning shifts as one term is replaced with another, but the problem is being defined as finding an alternative source of fuel.

 

This narrow discussion has missed the most fundamental concern of all, which is that we want our societies and life on Earth to survive indefinitely into the future. Ecology teaches us to think in terms of whole systems, but energy problems have not been approached holistically. We need to look at the society-wide patterns for energy production, distribution, and consumption to find workable solutions at the level of communities as well as the wider patterns that threaten half of the life on Earth. “Energy independence” is an issue with much wider consequences.

 

Clarifying the Terms of Debate

Before exploring the noteworthy ideas that have been excluded from the debate, it is necessary to clarify what is there now. This is not straightforward because the terms of debate have not been made explicit. Progressives and conservatives are using the same words, but as Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin has famously observed “sometimes words have two meanings.” There is a lot of talk about alternative fuels, sustainability, and efficiency. These terms do not mean the same things across the political spectrum.

 

Conservatives talk about being dependent on conventional fuels that threaten our national security, economic independence, and lastly environmental harm, seen as limited to the production of greenhouse gases. They recommend alternative fuels such as nuclear, coal, and corn-based ethanol as ways to become independent from energy sources that pose those threats. They frame the problem as being about the direct link between foreign oil and domestic alternatives.

 

Progressives mean something quite different when we talk about the harms of conventional fuels. Our understanding is based on the systems-approach in ecology that reveals the harms of our energy consumption patterns. Our energy demands are out of balance with healthy ecosystem functioning, especially the heating of the Earth’s atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide through the combustion of fossil fuels. The location relative to national boundaries of energy production is not the principle concern. Rather, it is the impact of using the kinds of fuels in the ways — and the amounts — that we do now that are not working.

 

Care must also be taken when using the word sustainability because it too is contested. Conservatives have started talking about sustaining our current way of life, as though Americans can keep consuming 23% of global energy produced with less than 5% of the population (a discussion of these statistics can be found here). They describe how coal reserves can sustain us for 236 years, as if it were immune to the problems from fossil fuel combustion and the environmental destruction and pollution associated with extracting it. By their argument, it is more important to preserve our consumer choice to drive SUVs than to preserve a livable planet.

 

Sustainability means something else to progressives. It is about having livable communities and a livable world that are built around ecological principles to balance human consumption with the capacity for ecosystems to replenish what we extract. In this view, our current way of life is not sustainable because our consumption patterns are drastically out of balance with ecological rates of recovery. We explicitly recognize our responsibility to our children and grandchildren to restore this balance.

 

This difference is evident with biofuels. While conservatives tout them as a viable alternative fuel that allows Americans to continue current consumption patterns, progressives recognize several problems that need to be taken into consideration:

 

Biofuel production requires us to replace farm land used for food production

The use of monoculture practices (only one crop in a large field) makes the crops vulnerable to pests and diseases

Genetic engineering introduces possibilities for the creation of new invasive species

Excessive use of fertilizers are necessary for large-scale agricultural production, which can harm ecosystems and negatively impact human health

We can emphasize the progressive meaning by focusing the energy debate on livability for our communities now and into the future.

 

Missing Ingredients Crucial for Success

So what’s missing from the energy debate? The necessity to look at our society and our world holistically is absent. This is why the idea of livable communities doesn’t pop up in discussions about energy use. Central to the energy crisis is the amount of energy required to live the way we do now. Here are two new ideas that have not infiltrated the debate:

 

The way our cities have been structured wastes energy.

 

The current debate makes no reference to the way cities are structured. For example, the suburban satellite-community structure of our cities entraps people through geographic constraints (e.g. the travel distance between home and work, how freeways are designed, lack of adequate public transportation, etc.) that make them dependent upon automobiles. The separation of food production from population centers is another consequence of these structures, requiring us to transport heavy loads over long distances. Energy use is deeply intertwined with the kinds of communities we have. This includes the way we lay out our cities and move around within them.

 

Explore the relationship between people and energy infrastructure.

 

The energy bill includes proposals to improve efficiency at the source of production (e.g. power plants updated with new technology) and the source of use (e.g. replace wasteful incandescent light bulbs with superior fluorescent bulbs that use less energy, but may have health problems, e.g. migraines). But we do not talk about the relationship between production and use. Our current energy grid is set up so that large production facilities produce electricity that is transmitted over long distances to end-users. This centralized mode of production is very wasteful. We can cut our energy demand considerably by rethinking the role of people in this relationship. Energy users can become local energy producers. This can happen by promoting local communities to become self-reliant by generating their own electricity (e.g. solar panels, windmills, “green” home designs, etc.).

 

These ideas make sense from the perspective that energy issues are intertwined with the kinds of communities we have. They have not entered the debate because too much emphasis is on energy production in the debate about fuel, which implicitly assumes that the way we live now cannot improve.

 

Energy Use is a Way of Life

Ultimately, the survival of our civilization will depend upon the way we envision community life. Central to this is how we use energy. We must ask ourselves such things as whether to invest in interstate highways and more suburban and exurban development that requires more automobiles, or develop new housing by “infill,” with residences close to work and shopping, allowing for walking, public transportation, even bicycles. This is not merely a personal choice because the structure of our communities places constraints on the feasibility of different options.

 

The challenges we face today are vast. They require a broad vision that includes all central issues. We can no longer afford to merely tweak the system we have without asking if it is the system we should have and can have.

 

The future history of the world depends more than is appreciated on the way the problem is framed, because “solutions” depend on the definition of the problem. What America does will be copied around the world. We have to do it right, not just for America’s sake, but for the world’s sake.

 

I find the proposals put forth in the energy bill to be commendable because they acknowledge that change is essential to preserve our security as a nation. The next step is to broaden the energy debate so that workable solutions become clear. Once the problems are understood, overall workable solutions can be found.

 

Our leaders need to recognize the central idea that livable communities and a livable world are a central component of energy reform.

 

###