In January, Australian smart-growth guru Peter Newman published a book on how smart growth will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A few months before, the Urban Land Institute published a book on the same topic. Last September, California passed a law requiring its cities to practice smart growth to reduce greenhouse emissions.
The Antiplanner will review these books in detail in the future. In the meantime, what kind of assumptions do we have to make to justify using smart growth in order to reduce greenhouse emissions?
First, we have to assume that row houses and multifamily homes use more less energy than single-family homes. But according to the Department of Energy, they don’t, at least not on a per-square-foot basis (see p. 2-7). If single-family homes use less energy, they also emit less greenhouse gases. Plus, according to the Antiplanner’s faithful ally, Wendell Cox, the Department of Energy numbers do not include the electricity used in the common areas of multi-family buildings — at least not those that are individually metered.
In response to sexual stimulations, the brain releases nitric oxide in the blood stream to relax the penis muscles and the hardened penile arteries that block the flow of blood cialis sale purchasing that to the penis and makes sure that the blood does not reach to the penis. The second kind, the type that makes you lose sleep, can actually be bad sildenafil discount for your mental and physical health. It helps to correct atheroscerosis, hypertension and depression, absentmindedness and memory problems. buy viagra online in Food and Drug administration generic cialis overnight for treating impotence. Second, we have to assume that constructing multifamily housing emits less greenhouse gases than single-family. I don’t yet have data on this, but mid-rise and high-rise requires more steel and concrete than single-family, and making steel and concrete emits lots more greenhouse gases than the wood that dominates single-family and other low-rise construction.
Third, we have to assume that heavy investments in transit and transit-oriented developments — a major requirement of the California law and leading recommendation in both ULI’s and Newman’s books — significantly alter people’s travel habits. The Antiplanner has expressed much doubt about that.
Fourth, we have to assume that transit emits significantly less greenhouse gases than driving. The Antiplanner has already shown that this is untrue.
Fifth, we have to assume that the increased congestion that results from packing people in at higher densities doesn’t lead to more emissions that completely offset whatever slight reductions are made from those densities. That’s a quantitative question that will require a lot more work.
Finally, we have to assume that, if these policies do have a net effect of reducing greenhouse emissions, that they are the more cost-effective than simply reducing the weight of cars, switching to electric cars, or other alternatives. McKinsey says that we can achieve greenhouse gas reduction targets for less than $50 a ton of abated gases. Since ULI’s and Newman’s proposals will be expensive and have only marginal effects, it is unlikely that they will cost less than $50 a ton.
These are a lot of doubts, and any one of them, if true, could pretty much shatter the smart-growth hypothesis. We have to fill in some gaps, so feel free to let me know of any research reports that might be helpful.
JK:
Don’t forget transitions communities in the list of nut cases advocating re-ordering of society to prepare for these two non delusional events.
Portland already has some of these fools traveling around the city selling the twin snake oil of peak oil and AGW global warming.
Of course local gardens are part of the mix as if smart growth allowed such wasted spaces inside the Portland Wall.
Thanks
JK
Antiplanner wrote:
“But according to the Department of Energy, they don’t, at least not on a per-square-foot basis (see p. 2-7). ”
I’m looking at the same table. I would suggest that every house or apartment has space dependent energy use (heating, cooling) and other uses which are more likely to be per person or per dwelling.
This would explain why some of the highest rates per square foot are for apartments, whereas the amount of energy per household or person is highest for the detached houses (Table 2.1.10, columns 2,3,4 respectively).
“Third, we have to assume that heavy investments in transit and transit-oriented developments  a major requirement of the California law and leading recommendation in both ULI’s and Newman’s books  significantly alter people’s travel habits. The Antiplanner has expressed much doubt about that.”
It all comes down to the quality of the proposed replacement. In a free market people can choose to stay put, or change.
It’s a mistake though to argue that transport system ‘X’ has a dominant position, so that transport system ‘Y’ will never get more than a toe-hold, if that. Once upon a time, cars had to be hand-cranked, and, because they didn’t have antifreeze in the radiator, the radiators had to be drained every day in cold weather. Then the manufacturers got the secret formula right, and cars took over from the forms of transport that EVERYONE could see were the future, horses and trains. So convinced was the UK government that trains were the future that they passed into law the famous Red Flag Act of 1865.
From what I can tell, the Antiplanner has never explained to his readers why he cares about greenhouse gas emissions.
First, we have to assume that row houses and multifamily homes use more energy than single-family homes
Why would we have to assume this in order to justify Smart Growth? Seems like we’d have to assume the opposite…
Anyway, Antiplanner readers might be interested in a recent study by economist Edward Glaeser in which he found that Americans who live in low-density suburbs have a significantly deeper carbon footprint than Americans who live in urban high rises. From what I can tell, the Antiplanner has yet to acknowledge or comment on these findings.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see that multi unit housing consumes more energy than single family housing. If you’re trying to make money of a rental property there’s less incentive to invest in energy efficiency. A lot of these properties seem to change hands every few years. If it takes 10 years for something like new windows to pay off, it doesn’t make much sense for the owner to do it. I’d imagine some of the other little things add to issue to such as the power for the electricity or how residents have little incentive to use CFLs.
D4P said “From what I can tell, the Antiplanner has never explained to his readers why he cares about greenhouse gas emissions.” and I agree.
I fear the antiplanner has drunk the global warming kool-aid all without even noticing it and thereby internalized surrender. There is no man made global warming except perhaps in minor degree. Global warming is not harmful. Carbon has f***all to do with f***all. The whole thing is a grand plot inspired by the work of Canada Bill Jones.
To that extent I approve of it for the whole whirligig gigantic spinning ad hoc structure of lies, fairy tales, morality plays and illusions has admirably parted many suckers from much money by hypnotizing them with motion and colored lights. Clearly they did not deserve to keep their money and thereby the average amount of morality in the universe has increased. On a personal level, I resent the increased prices and taxes which the con-men of AGW have gotten out of me.
D4P also refers to a study by Edward Glaeser and I request a link.
ROT:First, we have to assume that row houses and multifamily homes use more energy than single-family homes. But according to the Department of Energy, they don’t, at least not on a per-square-foot basis (see p. 2-7). If single-family homes use less energy, they also emit less greenhouse gases.
ws: But they don’t. So stop assuming. The book shows that single family houses use twice the total energy of multi-units. Per square foot is irrelevant because it is an average based statistic, and larger does not mean more energy savings.
You also have to figure in context. Single buildings are meaningless unless we address the whole system, and at the moment, sprawling suburbs consume vastly more energy than dense cities.
ROT:Second, we have to assume that constructing multifamily housing emits less greenhouse gases than single-family. I don’t yet have data on this, but mid-rise and high-rise requires more steel and concrete than single-family, and making steel and concrete emits lots more greenhouse gases than the wood that dominates single-family and other low-rise construction.</i
ws: Any study would need to factor in the lifespan of the building and the total # occupants of such buildings. Steel buildings last longer than wood frame structures, they house more people and are generally in context of dense cities.
They also consume less land, and conversion of a ecologically intact (greenfields, which are natural carbon sinks) areas to single family homes w/ lush water and energy consuming grass is a huge environmental impact.
Once again, any such study needs to factor in the whole system, not just the individual parts.
Speaking of Wendell Cox, he “concluded” that city dwellers consume more energy and emit more GHGs because he broadly assumed that city dwellers owned more than one home. Now that’s a study.
What……A…….Joke….How much does it take to pay someone to make up this stuff?
ROT: Fourth, we have to assume that transit emits significantly less greenhouse gases than driving. The Antiplanner has already shown that this is untrue.
ws: The antiplanner has shown nothing. Get a peer-reviewed paper by a credible group and then we’ll talk. What are the GHG emissions of producing and manufacturing individual cars? Pretty darn high.
JK Don’t forget transitions communities in the list of nut cases advocating re-ordering of society to prepare for these two non delusional events.
Portland already has some of these fools traveling around the city selling the twin snake oil of peak oil and AGW global warming.
Of course local gardens are part of the mix as if smart growth allowed such wasted spaces inside the Portland Wall.
ws: You’re right, Portland should have put single family houses on farmland surrounding the UGB instead. You are completely inept to the concept of urban agriculture anyways.
ws: You’re right, Portland should have put single family houses on farmland surrounding the UGB instead. You are completely inept to the concept of urban agriculture anyways
JK:Urban agriculture? Where? On a bike path or side walk? Because that is all of the non-condo tower land the smart growth idiots have in their vision. Well, OK, there are parks. But that is for poodle poop, not growing food.
They think that because Cuba did it, we can too. Actually Portland is doing it just like Cuba did – lie! That is how Cuba’s little gardens fed the people – Cuba lied. Just like Gore, Stalin, Hitler, Mao – they all lied and sucked in the media to lend authority to the lies.
Thanks
JK
When will Mr. Karlock begin ridiculing the Antiplanner for being concerned about greenhouse gas emissions?
JK:Urban agriculture? Where? On a bike path or side walk? Because that is all of the non-condo tower land the smart growth idiots have in their vision. Well, OK, there are parks. But that is for poodle poop, not growing food.
THWM: So much for the victory garden.
Also even a place like Rockefeller Center has a lawn on top of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rockefeller_2007.jpg
There is a great deal of urban agriculture in the basements of Portland. How does that figure into the carbon footprint of urban areas?
Karlock is unwilling to admit that growth boundaries preserve farmland. Sure, farmland is eaten up inside a UGB, but low-density, strip mall sprawl eats up way more farmland otherwise. Sorry, but intensive farmland around neighborhoods are not compatible uses.
Who knew Karlock is so anti-growth? What a radical!
One thing I enjoy is taking a short ride into the country and going berry picking in the summer for the best berries around. JK’s utopia wants to bulldoze the fertile Willamette Valley and nice farms with ticky-tack and highways. Once it’s developed — it’s essentially lost. Thanks, Karlock!
I wonder what teabaggers think about this stuff?
http://hoveround.com/medicare-options/index.html
Ululating from fringe denialists aside: I’ve had this conversation already, and the fringe denialists tried the same denialist boilerplate argumentation. They were clueless there too.
Nonetheless, it is clear from the charts Randal provides that non-ideologues can see the benefit comes from reduced emissions from not having auto dependency. The ideologues call auto dependency “fraydum” to try and dupe the gullible – one wonders how many of these ideologues are in the employ of dinosaur Detroit.
DS
Dan: The ideologues call auto dependency “fraydum†to try and dupe the gullible – one wonders how many of these ideologues are in the employ of dinosaur Detroit.
THWM: Mr.O’Toole once got $50,000 from Koch. http://www.kochoil.com/
THWM:Mr.O’Toole once got $50,000 from Koch. http://www.kochoil.com/
ws:Well, the Best Laid Plans are conducted by corporate interest, afterall.