Green in the City, Brown in the Burbs


Here's a piece by economist Ed Glaeser that's worth a look: "Green Cities, Brown Suburbs." Not surprisingly, cities are greener than suburbs, in terms of CO2 emissions per household. Surprisingly, California metro areas are relatively low emitters: despite the stereotype of gridlocked traffic, aggressive regulations plus temperate climates mean California cities claim the lowest five per-household scores. (The highest five will come as no surprise: Houston, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Dallas, and Atlanta.)

Inter-region, the move to sun is a mixed blessing: some Sun Belt regions are energy efficient, while others guzzle lots of gas and air conditioning. Intra-region, Glaeser notes that environmental efforts to stem new construction are counter-productive, in that they move development from denser, less polluting places to more spread out locations (see chart above). Or, as Glaeser deliciously puts it: "Thoreau was wrong. Living in the country is not the right way to care for the Earth. The best thing that we can do for the planet is build more skyscrapers."

Comments

Nicholas said…
I'm wary of thinking which equates lower carbon dioxide emissions with helping the planet, or with doing the right thing. Questions of the effects of these emissions aside, I find these strains of thought naturally tend toward misanthropy. See this comic for a good illustration of what I mean.

That said, I'm all for higher density, eliminating sprawl, reducing driving, and many other things which end up lowering emissions. But it's usually for slightly different reasons than for fighting global warming.

I'm not saying that reducing these emissions is a bad goal. Just that I think we need to be very careful about the implications of such thought.

Popular Posts