Building a Greener Future: Let’s Stay Together
Friday, 06/4/2010 - 9:21 am by Jon Rynn | 4 Comments
In honor of World Environment Day on June 5th, a day focused on action across the globe, New Deal 2.0 asked leading thinkers in climate change to describe what they see as the single most important step that can be taken right now.
Residents of New York City contribute less than 30% of the greenhouse gases of the average American, according to David Owen in his book, “Green Metropolis“. Therefore, if everybody lived in a New York City, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would plummet by 70%. This is because the way we place buildings in relation to each other has a profound influence on the way we use energy.
In a dense urban structure, where buildings are large, close together, and serve many different uses, a transportation system that is composed mainly of trains is very effective at bringing people and goods into, out of, and around a city or town. A train-centered passenger and freight transportation system can use electricity for 100% of its energy needs, and an electrical system can be supplied by wind and solar energy.
There are other advantages. Economies of scale can be realized in recycling and the installation of ground source heat pumps for heating and cooling — which apartments buildings retain better than single-family homes. Actually-existing electric car and trucks can be used that are slow, low-range, and small, which is fine for a dense city or town.
There is a growing, unmet demand for walkable neighborhoods on the part of about 30% of the American population, while only 5% are currently able to live in one. Let’s assume, for the sake of simplicity, that 25% of the 100 million American households would gladly live in a 250-unit apartment building in a walkable neighborhood. Then if a government-financed program built 100,000 such units, at $50 million each, spread among the downtowns of dozens of cities and towns, the cost over 10 years would come to about $500 billion per year - and most of it would be paid back by the buyers of such units. And we would lay the groundwork for a truly sustainable society.
Jon Rynn is the author of the book “Manufacturing Green Prosperity: The power to rebuild the American middle class”, available from Praeger Books, Summer 2010.
YES!!! This is single most overlooked issue facing this country today. Glad to see some discussion of it. We need to get people out of the exurbs and let nature reclaim them. They are a waste on every level, and in addition to their obvious economic drawbacks, in sociological terms, they are also complete disasters.
Posted by James Call | June 4th, 2010 at 11:16 am
I agree wholeheartedly, but the big disconnect that is pervasive amongst politicians and leaders as well as many environmentalists is an open and intelligent discussion on human overpopulation.
Until we address this fundamental issue head on, no amount of re-engineering of our world is going to create true sustainability and stave off the imminent disaster resulting from the coalescing of climate change, peak oil, species collapse and our toxification of the planet.
Posted by Steve Dearlove | June 8th, 2010 at 3:17 pm
Note that 250 unit apartment buildings are not necessary to get to urban densities. As Jane Jacobs noted, stacked townhouse apartments that put four houses where an middle suburban lot would place one can get us to urban density.
These could be placed in a quarter mile radius around suburban to urban “commuter rail” stations and provide suburban villages consisting of little pockets of urban density. They can be placed in a quarter mile radius along a streetcar section of a Rapid Streetcar line and provide a suburban town center that is a tendril of urban density.
What is required there is primarily the easement that over-rides suburban residential zoning to permit three story building heights and urban front and side offsets within those zones.
And what might be required for that is to convince the property developers that have such a strong influence on state legislatures that the alternatives are either to allow for infill development and connecting oil free transport routes - or else see an increasing income share go to transport leaving a dwindling share to go in the direction of their pockets.
Posted by BruceMcF | June 20th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
Is anyone out there investigating sky pollution with persistent con trails/chem trails in weather modification, geo-engineering, aerosol spraying of barium and aluminium, solar dimming? Check out californiaskywatch.com for info or geoengineeringwatch.org. Check photos on chem trials on YouTube and “toxic sky” - NBC-TV report. Start looking up! Another “secret program” happening - can it be stopped?
Posted by julie jones | July 3rd, 2010 at 10:28 am