Learning from my suburb
For nearly all of my adult life, I have lived in small towns or urban neighborhoods. But for the past two years, I have lived in sprawl. When I moved to Jacksonville two years ago, I moved to Mandarin, a basically suburban neighborhood about nine miles from downtown. As I looked for apartments in 2006, I noticed that in many ways, Mandarin is typical sprawl: our major commercial street (San Jose Boulevard) is as many as eight lanes in some places, and even most apartments are separated from San Jose’s commerce. [See http://atlantaphotos.fotopic.net/c872477.html for my photos of Mandarin and other Jacksonville neighborhoods.] I thought Mandarin would be a typical suburb: homogenously white and upper-middle class.
But in fact, Mandarin has the same kind of social mix as some of Jacksonville’s more urban neighborhoods. Like many urban neighborhoods, Mandarin has rich and not-so-rich blocks: the rich live in Mandarin’s western edge along the St. Johns River, the areas between the river and San Jose Boulevard (our major commercial street) are middle-to-upper-middle class, and the areas east of San Jose are more humble. And Mandarin has a few apartment complexes, which tend to be not so fancy: my own complex (the most expensive in the area, and the only one west of San Jose) is dominated by retirees, and others are dominated by working-class families of all races. Our retail is not just “big box” stores like Target and Wal-Mart: we have Brazilian, Russian and Asian supermarkets, as well as a variety of ethnic restaurants.
But Mandarin’s diversity is not always a good thing: just as residents of walkable urban neighborhoods often don’t go north of street X or east of street Y at night in order to avoid crime, Mandarin has a bona fide rough area - a street full of highly affordable apartment complexes where there have been at least two murders in the past two years. And I've been confronted by panhandlers twice in the last few weeks. I worry that Mandarin may be turning into one of Jacksonville’s declining inner suburbs, a place forsaken both by urbanites who prefer more walkable neighborhoods and by suburbanites who prefer newer, safer suburbs.
So what have I learned from my years in Mandarin? That both the optimists and the pessimists about suburbia are right. Optimists correctly point out that suburbia is inheriting the diversity of cities- not just their ethnic and economic diversity, but their diversity of commercial forms: the notion that Wal-Mart is a natural monopoly is, in the setting of a large city, simply rubbish.
But pessimists are correct in worrying that as suburbs inherit urban diversity, they may inherit urban crime and decay.
- older posts
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
the case for splitting the difference
"Because the solutions which have been proposed - capping CO2 emissions, subsidizing alternative energy, investing billions in rail transit, localizing food production, and more - have extremely high costs. IMO, the costs of those solutions will reduce standards of living far, far more than will any minuscule rise in global temperatures. Furthermore, I am convinced that none of the solutions I have read will have any significant impact on global temperatures."
I don't think we have to choose between doing "all of the above" (which I agree would have very high costs) and doing "none of the above" (which would have no costs except whatever environmental disasters might result).
It seems to me that in a $5 trillion economy, we can afford to do a lot more than nothing.
Of course, there is a pretty good chance that whatever we do won't be enough to stop global warming. But that's true of doing everything on Mr. Dewey's list as well.
Of course, that begs the question: how do we decide what to do? Two rules of thumb to guide how we should mull over our options:
1. How significant are the overall costs? I don't think imposing a Third World standard of living on the United States is worth doing, because of the risk that we will have the worst of both words- the adverse impacts of global warming and of measures designed to stop global warming. On the other hand, I don't think a few billion here and there of tax money will reduce our standard of living in such a huge economy.
2. Is policy X at least partially worth doing for other reasons {e.g. reducing dependence on foreign oil, improving quality of life)? To put it another way- I don't think we should adopt policy X if global warming is the only reason for policy X, but global warming can be a kind of thumb on the scales that helps us resolve the close calls.
Generally, I'd be more inclined to favor subsidies rather than regulatory measures, since we know the costs up-front and can thus keep them within reasonable bounds. Regulatory measures, as a rule, are more high-risk - but on the other hand, also more high-reward.
OPEC's influence cannot be reduced
At the risk of starting yet another tangent discussion, I'll go ahead and respond to this:
"reducing dependence on foreign oil"
First, I don't know what is your objective. If you mean reduce U.S. imports of Middle East oil, well, we import only a small amount from the Middle East. Our oil comes mainly from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.
Do you wish the U.S. to reduce all imports? Why should we ursue more expensive sources of energy? Woldn't that increase our cost of living and just make our petroleum-dependent exports more expensive relative to those of other nations?
Reducing world energy consumption marginally will have little impact on the world's low cost energy producers - Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other OPEC producers - but will eliminate incentives for pursuing higher cost energy sources. Higher cost energy sources would include:
- deep sea wells off coasts of North America, Africa, and South America;
- North American oil shale;
- North American tar sands;
- wind energy;
- biomass ethanol.
Supply and demand theory, as taught to me at Wharton, shows that reducing demand for energy will increase the share provided by low cost producers - OPEC. I believe that increasing OPEC's share will increase the political influence of those nations.
As much as I wish OPEC could go away, I don't see that happening.
Why focus on costs?
The opponents of environmental action always whine about the costs to the economy, as if there were a simple trade-off of environment and economy. I don't know how much of this is ideology and how much is ignorance at this point, but there is no reason why any action we take should not produce a return on investment that is more than adequate to justify the cost.
I don't know anybody who would want to impose a Third World standard of living on this country (although there are many parts of the country that have gotten there on their own). It is clear that we won't be able to sustain our current standard of living unless we get smarter about how much of our economy is burned up in short-sighted wastefulness.
The opponents of environmental action always seem to be defenders of some status quo. A market-based capitalist economy isn't actually very sustainable if it is obstructed by those very defenders of the status quo who tend to invoke its name as justification for their own self-interest. Those defenders of the status quo are usually defenders of policies, regulations and practices that enable them to continue what they are doing. It is a profound misunderstanding of our economic system to argue that because something has sold in the past, it is both absolutely the best solution and deserves to be continued.
There are a growing number of places in the country who have caught on to the idea that environmentally responsible action is also very good business, that it can generate value and profit, and that it can attract more investment. It seems pretty obvious that it makes sense to think comprehensively about building our social and natural capital as well as our economic capital.
I'm actually quite optimistic that we are on the edge of an age of extraordinary social, civic and technological innovation-- thanks, in part, to the recognition that our well being is connected to the well being of other life on the planet. Even Texas.
Splitting the difference is still too expensive
Michael, the problem I have with any one of those solutions is that each one of is very costly, and each one seems so ineffective relative to the very simple ones: reduce the distance between residences and workplaces; switch to more fuel efficient cars.
High energy prices are already solving the car efficiency issue, much faster than will CAFE standards. Where we undoubtedly differ is in our opinions about the effective way to reduce the distance between residences and workplaces. I am convinced that dispersement of workplaces allows for the reduction of commute lengths. Notice that I wrote "allows" and not "guarantees". I don't know how, other than high gasoline prices, to motivate people to live close to jobs. I frequently meet people who have no problem commuting 40 and 50 miles from their rural or urban fringe homesites. I don't understand them completely, but they probably do not understand people who would choose high density housing.
Wrong.
Because you can't think of other ways to accomplish something, that doesn't mean they aren't out there. Why do you assume that all the solutions are necessarily "costly," that they are simply burdens and not potential investments, potential generators of economic value?
First, of course, you have to admit that there are problems worth trying to solve and that humans have a variety of tools in the box to solve them.
You contradict yourself when you argue for dispersing workplaces but avoiding concentration. What would you propose to do in order to avoid the tendency for businesses to congregate (which they do, even in the age of electronic communication)? I think you misunderstand the mechanisms that govern the pattern of metropolitan dispersion.
"Wrong" is such a rude word, isn't it? Why not "I disagree"?
David Brain: "Why do you assume that all the solutions are necessarily "costly,"
I do not. I listed two which I believe to be very inexpensive: switch to more efficient personal vehicles; and move closer to workplaces. I should add to that making our homes more energy-efficient.
I listed the solutions which I believe to be extaordinarily expensive: capping CO2 emissions; investing billions in rail transit; subsidizing alternative energy; and localizing food production.
David Brain: "What would you propose to do in order to avoid the tendency for businesses to congregate (which they do, even in the age of electronic communication)?"
I believe they congregate because planners have convinced suburban towns that such re-concentration is environmentally desirable. So even the suburbs enact zoning and provide incentives to developers which concentrate workplaces. But that's changing. Edge city development seems to be giving way to edgeless cities. And smaller concentrations - two or three large employers rather than fifteen - do not seem to cause much congestion.
Why is it rude to say something is wrong?
I didn't say "I disagree" because that isn't what I meant. I said what I intended: your claims were wrong, grounded in faulty assumptions and not supported by the evidence. Perhaps it would have been more delicate to have said, "I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you are simply wrong." The meaning is the same, however.
I can't imagine why you think that localizing food production is a costly move. This seems to suggest that you really don't know what this means, or what problems it is intended to solve. It is certainly less costly than trying to convert all of our rolling stock to more efficient vehicles. (For example,do you drive an efficient hybrid? Given the sales of the Prius, why haven't more of them been brought to the market quicker? Maybe something about massive investment required?)
It makes sense that it would help if people moved closer to jobs, but it is not the case that people's homebuying decisions are driven primarily by the urge to shorten commutes. People put up with huge inconvenience in order to get a house they can afford, in a place where they feel safe. Why not do what we can do to make neighborhoods that are affordable for more people and convenient to the things they need and want? When we do this, the market goes crazy. In fact, the problem is that we can't produce enough of this quickly enough to satisfy the pent up market.
You are even jumping to conclusions when you assume that this would be less costly than investing in transit. Subsidizing alternative energy is an easy one. We're already doing it in many places. Have you seen a huge reduction in the quality of your life as a result?
Your statements about metropolitan dispersion make it clear that you really do not understand the mechanisms. It is simply factually inaccurate to think that the concentration of businesses happens because of planners convincing anybody of its environmental benefits. Absent some really agressive intervention by government, there is no way to stabilize the kind of low-density dispersion of business that you seem to idealize. If government tried such a thing, most serious business would go elsewhere. There are too many economic benefits in co-location. You are looking pretty selectively at one thing, and perhaps even one moment in the process, and not at the way the whole pattern of suburbanization works.
The recent data shows that even as businesses are operating more multinationally, they are tending to concentrate more heavily in certain areas. The main reason that planners might get into the act is that they are enjoined by the communities in which they work to help attract economic development to their community. It typically has almost nothing to do with environmental concern, although that might be added to the pile of good reasons.
Thanks for an interesting discussion. I do not ordinarily participate in Planetizen blog discussions, but I was intrigued by your comments. Although I do think you are wrong, I applaud your curiosity and concern regarding these issues. Now its time for me to move on. Cheers.
Economics of food production is not complex
David Brain: "I can't imagine why you think that localizing food production is a costly move."
Two reasons: economies of scale; and geographical variations (quality of farmland and climate). If it was cheaper to produce crops locally instead of on large farms in California and the Midwest, crops would right now be produced locally. But they are not. If fuel costs make it cheaper to grow crops locally, they will be grown locally. Markets are generally economically sound, but planners very often distort economics.
Oy, I can't let that one go.
I promised myself that I would back out of this time sink of a discussion, but this comment shows such a lack of knowledge of the economics of food production.
Which do you suppose would be more costly:
a. Buying tomatoes grown in the next county.
b. Buying tomatoes grown in the next county after they have been trucked to a distribution center in Pennsylvania and back?
We have huge tomato producing fields in counties on every side of us. We have huge fields of celery, lettuce, and other vegetables. If I go to the supermarket, the tomatoes come from Canada and even from the Netherlands. You can't find anything grown locally. So why do you think that makes economic sense to the supermarket chains? Do you think this is a sensible practice, overall, given the way it makes food prices completely yoked to the price of diesel and susceptible to disruption?
How about this, since it might have more resonance for a Texan:
a. Buying beef raised in the same county?
b. Buying beef raised in the same county and shipped by rail to Kansas for fattening and slaughter?
It is interesting to talk to our local ranchers (and we have been one of the main cattle states in the country) about this. What you hear has nothing to do with markets and everything to do with public policy, land values affected by development patterns, taxation.
a. Buying produce grown locally and marketed fresh locally?
b. Buying produce grown 3000 miles away and processed so that it looks fresh when it arrives?
Think about why the apparently irrational and inefficient solutions seem to be the most "economical" (i.e., profitable) at this point. Then think about the real costs, distributed through an economy, of doing dumb things. I guarantee that if you look at the history of commodity agriculture that it has to do with something more than the invisible hand of the market.
Around the world, countries are recognizing the extreme vulnerability that we have generated as a result of the large-scale monocrop commodity agriculture that has been encouraged and supported as a matter of policy. For the most part, the collapse of a (naturally) diverse agricultural economy has been the result of national (and sometimes, as in the case of the EU) policies, including subsidies, cheap loans, and price supports.
And we don't even have to get into the recent scares regarding salmonella, e coli, mad cow, etc.
It is true that planners have typically little knowledge of the economics (or even the practices) of agriculture in their region. But they also have almost nothing to do with it. Planners tend to color that part of the map green and leave it at that (or cave to the pressure to re-zone for development).
Oy Is The Word
I think many of us have realized that it is exasperating to discuss anything with Mr. Dewey, because:
1: He doesn't know many basic facts and principles of the subjects he talks about - EG, he doesn't know about the well documented fact that higher density is correlated with lower VMT or the fundamental economic principle of externatalities.
2: He cherry-picks studies that fit his biases. EG, he cites Kahn's eccentric findings about sprawl and commute time, but he ignores the mainstream scientific consensus about global warming.
3: He does not understand the implications of the studies that he cherry-picks. EG, he said that Kahn's studies show that sprawl reduces energy consumption, though Kahn says that sprawl reduces commute time, not commute distance, and Kahn ignores non-commute trips.
4: When all else fails, he starts starts talking about manners. If you told him that he is wrong to say that 2 + 2 = 5, he would answer: "The word wrong is rude. You should say that you disagree."
He apparently has unlimited time to post his opinions. We can all see that his opinions are dogma with no basis in evidence or logic, and so we are tempted to respond. But I have learned that he is impervious to evidence and reasoning, so I am going to try my best to ignore him.
I repeat the point that I made earlier: If people look back at this discussion in 50 years, when they can see how much damage global warming has done, they will be disgusted to see that Mr. Dewey considers his own minor conveniences more important than the necessities of his grandchildren and of people in the developing nations.
Rather than responding to him, I will try to remember how relieved I am that, a year from now, we will no longer have a like-minded Texan in the Whitehouse.
Charles Siegel
Why I respond, in spite of everything
Charles:
I agree with you, probably especially on the last point. Generally I try to stay out of responding also. Sometimes I'm avoiding other work, however, and sometimes I think it is important, as exasperating as it can be, to respond to arguments from people who don't share the same assumptions, don't take the same things as given, and who are unfamiliar with the body of evidence that we might take for granted.
Initially, I think it is important not because you might change the other's mind, which generally won't happen, but so that any others who are following the discussion understand that there are different opinions and maybe decide which are half-baked and which are well-founded.
There is a pattern of argument that is very common in these generally anonymous internet forums and listservs. Somebody doesn't agree, so they pick at the tangential pieces of another's post, slipping the discussion to avoid the original question, or simply say that they don't believe some piece of evidence. Ultimately they fall back on some ad hominem dismissal, often something like an accusation that one is being intolerant.
As we all know, internet discussions are full of people who really don't know much about what they are talking about, in and amongst people who do. Maybe its my years in education, but I tend to feel the urge to make sure that somebody either makes constructive suggestions (or simply calls bs) when somebody posts something that makes clear that they are not familiar with the field of research and discourse on a topic. I think it is incumbent on those of us who have some more or less professional involvement in a field to be a little patient with people who are interested but maybe not as informed. Many of us started out in a similar place.
I figure if there is one person acting as the troublesome interlocutor, there are some number of lurking others who might benefit from thoughtful responses to them. Think of all the important points we've been stimulated to make!
It can be exasperating, of course. And there comes a moment when a moderator probably needs to call enough.
Yes, censor the T.I., for we cannot stop reading him ourselves
David Brain: "I figure if there is one person acting as the troublesome interlocutor"
Troublesome interlocutor? Is that the term you use to describe those who disagree with your point of view, or the point of view most common to blog commentors?
David Brain: "Ultimately they fall back on some ad hominem dismissal, often something like an accusation that one is being intolerant. "
Oh, that's cute. I've been courteous to the people who responded to my posts, David. Some of the words used by those people have not been so courteous, but I'm not really surprised about that,
No, I consider disagreement a service.
Please. Nobody has proposed censorship.
Who else has done you the courtesy of taking you seriously rather than dismissing you as not informed enough to be worth arguing with? If you read what I wrote, the whole point was that we ought to welcome disagreement, even (and perhaps especially) if the questions and comments don't seem to be very well informed when it comes to information that others in the conversation may take for granted.
However, for your part, the discussion might be more productive if you could pay a little closer attention to what issues are under discussion before responding, and recognize the limits of your own knowledge on certain things.
If you go back and look at many of my previous posts, you'll see that what I was trying to do was NOT simply to argue a position, but clarify why people think there is an issue that you don't seem to see in your world. You also might see that I was really trying to figure the reasoning behind your concern with respect to your suburb. I tried hard to figure out the connection of your posts to the issue that started this discussion, in Mr. Lewyn's original post.
We can't really have a discussion until we admit (whatever our views) that there is an issue on the table. I recognized your issue with defending your own suburban lifestyle, but tried to suggest why people in other places might see things differently. I was clearly not successful.
There is at point at which we should recognize that we are talking past one another, a point at which the discussion is not productive for anybody. I think we're there. It's a pity.
I've been a market player, and I believe in them, David
Well, David, I was a food buyer for a national restaurant chain in the early 80's, and I dealt with suppliers across the nation. I worked with a couple of national restaurant food trucking companies to design an efficient transportation strategy for supplying our restaurants. I was able to learn a few things about the economics of food production and distribution.
Again, if locally grown foods can today be supplied for a lower cost - or if locally grown foods can provide a taste difference that consumers prefer enough to pay a premium - the market will switch to locally grown foods. If not, the market - the food buyers - will continue to source their foods from far away producers.
If you want to argue that the geography of food production has been altered by government land regulations, I can't disagree. But I don't think anyone today is proposing that already-developed land be reconverted to farmland, are they? Well, naybe there are some people kooky enough to think that would happen.
I'm sorry to say that you are evading the questions.
Again, it comes back to your personal experience, missing the point and not addressing any of the questions I raised. So you learned how some of the existing arrangements work, at least well enough to work in that context. Did you consider all the ways that the system you confronted was shaped by politics and not economics? By policies and changeable institutional practices and not market dynamics? All the ways that it might be different and still be a lively, efficient free market? Perhaps even a more efficient market, more open to competition, more diversified, more like what we generally expect the "free market" to deliver?
Do you really think the most efficient food production system is one that ships the commodity out of state so it can be shipped back?
It didn't seem changeable to you because you were in a position where you had (apparently) no choice but accept the existing system. If we've learned nothing else, we ought to have learned that we shouldn't take something for granted just because its all we happen to know.
Everybody recognizes that food buyers (both families and institutions) are sensitive to price, but that they will sometimes pay a premium for quality. Just look at the extraordinary growth in the market for certified organic foods, for a start. There is also a growing market for locally produced foods. These are markets that have been actively built in recent years by humans with values and ideals.
If the current market structures have been shaped by often ill-chosen policy, other market structures can be the result of other policies. Isn't this worth discussing, given the range of possible benefits of a more localized agriculture? It may not be within your experience, but you shouldn't be so dismissive of something just because you don't know anything about it.
In an earlier post, you accused somebody of being more interested in winning the argument than in gaining a better understanding of the issue. It seems to me that you might want to pose that question of yourself. Deeper into each piece of the thread, your posts become more and more flat denial on the basis of your beliefs. Is this just about airing your opinions, or are you interested in considering facts that come from outside your experience?
I'll answer anything I wish to answer
David Brain: "Is this just about airing your opinions, or are you interested in considering facts that come from outside your experience?"
Are you, David?
The opinions I provided are not just mine. I quoted three scientists who have studied climate change. I could find dozens if not hundreds more who are skeptical about the "solid science" of global warming and the need for urgency. I quoted a professor who has written a book on urban growth and the environment, and even contacted him via Email to be certain I did not misunderstand him.
David Brain: Do you really think the most efficient food production system is one that ships the commodity out of state so it can be shipped back?
I don't know and I don't care. As a consumer, the food production and distribution system I want is the one which provides me a product of sufficient quality at the lowest price. If that means buying produce grown in California because the immigrant labor is cheaper and the growing season is longer, fine. It's not my concern how far the produce travels.
If specific government policies are distorting a market and costing me more, make me aware of them. I may advocate changing them. I have written letters to members of Congress asking them to eliminate agriculture subsidies and sugar tariffs. But I'm not going to listen long of the message is that "industrialized agriculture and urban sprawl are similar blights", or that urban residents have become "disconnected from rual and natural surroundings".
Food production and economies.
David,
McKibben's book Deep economy talks about this at length.
We know from recent studies that ~18% of food cost is in transportation, and we also know that regionally grown food has many, many benefits that aren't well-measured in our current food economy, which is concerned only with efficiency, not taste, nutrient density, family farmers, etc.
We also know that agglomeration happens for a reason, and not because of planners. But why go on rebutting arguments from ignorance?
Best,
D
Yep.
Good point. Thanks for the useful link.
I think there is a lot of general ignorance regarding the realities of our food production system and a tendency to assume that if it is happening in a supposedly free market, it must automatically be the best we can hope for.
I don't think most people understand, either, that things can change without the need for massive and heavy-handed government intervention. There is huge economic opportunity in the so-called new ruralism.
So what conclusions do you draw?
I'm not sure how the discussion got side-tracked into arguing about commute times or the low-density dreams of Flower Mound, TX. What you suggest is that the in-between suburbia has become the most problematic-- with growing urban problems comparable to decaying inner city neighborhoods and none of the gentrifying possibilities of neighborhoods with enough potential to be attractive to the wannabe urbanites.
This leaves me wondering what you think the solution might be.
In California, this is a really common pattern-- in the Los Angeles basin, for example, but also in places like San Jose and its surrounding sprawl. Ethnic and immigrant communities move to the affordable suburbs and occupy aging and obsolete strip centers as affordable commercial space for start-up businesses. In LA, this has produced ethnic conflict between Latino and Asian communities.
How would you propose to turn a neighborhood like that around? One of the problems is that I imagine it is difficult to build anything like the kind of community-based capacity for social control that you can establish in less transient, slightly more ethnically homogeneous inner city neighborhoods. It seems unlikely that there would be massive redevelopment of the "highly affordable" housing that may be a big part of the problem. Even with a huge "suburban renewal" clearance of problematic housing, where do those people go? As we saw in the recent Atlantic article, we only create problems in other neighborhoods that way.
So you live in this neighborhood... what do you do if you want to make lemonade out of the lemons you find around you?
Great question
Though I'm not sure I know the answer; the whole mess reminds me of something the comedian Pat Paulsen once wrote: "I'm glad you asked that question. Unfortunately, I'd be even gladder if I could answer it."
Having said that, here's a few hopefully relevant thoughts:
1. It seems to me that to the extent we curb sprawl [by which I mean for the purposes of this post, sprawl as migration from older to newer communities], we can limit save at least some older suburbs. Just as cities were having difficulty competing with suburbs in the 20th century, older suburbs are having difficulty competing with newer ones [and with cities as well, in more prosperous regions] in the 21st. On the other hand, there will always be zones of poverty somewhere, so anti-sprawl policies won't "save" every suburb.
2. The existence of the problem illustrates that it no longer makes sense to assume that sprawl necessarily benefits suburbanites. Sprawl is a revolution that devours its own children: as one suburb springs up out of the countryside, another declines. If you are happy in your low-density suburb, the last thing you should want is newer low-density suburbs competing with your own.
3. Right now, my neighborhood seems like an insoluble problem. But ten or twenty years ago, most cities seemed like insoluble problems. So sometimes, we do find ways of making lemonade out of our lemons- but it takes years of discussion and of trial and error.
Sprawl and Global Warming
wow, this thread has been a train wreck in slow motion and you could just see it coming. Michael, I thought you had a very interesting question posed near the bottom of this in regards to global warming. It is one I sort of posed a while back and didn't get much response.
If global warming is the "biggest threat ever to humanity" (which I doubt, but let's give it to Charles for the sake of argument), how much can converting sprawl to NU-like patterns over a 30-40 year period make a difference?
You posed this question differently, but asking pretty much the same thing. There may be other reasons to do it, but let's just focus on this one since it comes up a lot.
It's a catch-22 in my mind: if you really think these rather modest changes in the US alone could stop the human impact of global warming, you must not really think the human impact is that great. But, if you really think the human impact is that large, than you must be really advocating for much larger changes than simply reducing some VMT and having slightly smaller houses.
It doesn't reconcile in my mind - I see it as a contradiction or catch 22. I'm keeping an open mind which is why I'm asking for comments, but it just doesn't make sense to me right now.
What I think is this: sprawl will be reduced, but not eliminated over the long period in the US, but that alone will have a trivial impact on global greenhouse emissions. Technology will evolve but greenhouse emissions will have much to do with energy technology, building technology, auto technology, sequestration methods, the urbanization in developing countries and the threats to rainforests worldwide. Climate will change, human induced or not, and their will be some impacts. However, while some very bad and some good, for that matter, they won't be catastrophic for humanity as a whole and humans will adapt.
I know that is irrelevant to some degree for your initial blog, but so is most everything else in this thread. I welcome your thoughts and comments.
We can certainly make a difference.
There has been a lot of science on this topic, and the evidence suggests that reducing VMT could be a significant piece of a broader strategy to reduce carbon emissions. It's actually not that hard. The science is solid and the changes demanded aren't even really that painful, except for those who want to cash in on keeping our heads in the sand (or in other dark places). The solutions are there.
Frankly, I don't think we need the climate change argument to support good planning. We ought to be able to make the case simply on the grounds of the sustainability of a high quality of life in our communities. The climate change arguments add some urgency, and do suggest that changes in the land use patterns of sprawl need to be accomplished as part of a comprehensive effort.
I'm starting to be surprised by those who are skeptical of the need to respond intelligently to the problem of our impact on climate change. I've been impressed by the extent to which big corporations (which tend to plan on a longer time frame than our usual comp plan cycles) have generally been developing climate change strategies. The State of Florida is certainly developing strategies, given the vulnerability of this little sand bar of a state if there is any significant rise in sea level.
We can make a difference in carbon emissions, and we can make enough of a difference to at least halt the current trends. Whether or not one buys the analyses of climate change, however, there are a ton of immediate benefits to be gained in moving toward a more sensible and responsible way to inhabit the planet.
scientists are skeptical
David, some very bright scientists do not agree that global warming predicted by computer models is a dire threat.
"All the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. ... I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. ... They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."
Freeman Dyson, Professor of Physics, Princeton University, 8-Aug-2007
"Other recent research shows that when the world warms, there are more low-level clouds. Low-level clouds cause cooling. The IPCC’s computer models assume that warming will increase high-level clouds that cause warming. If the models were corrected, they, too, would show that greenhouse gases have only a small effect on climate."
Chris de Freitas, climate scientist at the University of Auckland, 19-Apr-2008
"My concern is that climate alarmists, like Al Gore, are diverting the attention of society away from the real issues with their constant talk about CO2, which is not driving climate change."
Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, 3-Jun-2008
I anticipate that someone will brand these fine scholars as "oil company shills". A consistent tactic of global warming zealots has been to impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with their religion.
So what?
Yes, there are some people with perfectly legitimate scientific credentials who are skeptical about various aspects of the climate-change related predictions. However, there is a very solid core of a majority opinion. That is the way science works. There are always skeptics. Why do you want to place your bets with the minority opinion?
Also, these quotations are out of context. What, for example, are the "real issues," other than CO2? Each of these expressions of skepticism with respect to the models questions particular predictions regarding climate change. It was nice of somebody to collect skeptical quotations for you this way, but each of these arguments deserves to be considered in context. Many of the skeptics are questioning specific predictions or measures, but not the fundamental problem.
Given what is at stake, why take a chance siding with the minority of skeptics? Especially given that there are a lot of more immediate reasons to respond now (and urgently) to the very same environmental problems?
Why would we want to take these questions about the climate change modelling as an excuse to ignore the all of the pressing problems associated with the profound unsustainability of the way we build and live? If I were being asked to commit some dire and desperate act on the gamble that it might reverse predicted climate change, it would be one thing. But the climate change argument is really just icing on the cake when it comes to doing the sensible thing. Maybe you can't see the problems from your house, so it's ok?
Personally, I can see the effects of global environmental degradation where I live. Have you visited any glaciers lately? Flown over Greenland? Watched coral reefs die? Watched inner city neighborhoods spiral into decline? Watched citizens become angrier and American democracy put increasingly at risk by reactionary foolishness in response to suburban quality of life slipping away? I'd just as soon do the prudent and responsible thing, as opposed to accepting the reassurance of a few skeptical scientists as license to keep my head in the sand (or whatever dark place might be metaphorically appropriate).
Our lifestyle is fantastic and sustainable
DavidBrain: "ignore the all of the pressing problems associated with the profound unsustainability of the way we build and live"
Sorry, but I believe the way we live in geographically dispersed metro areas, dependent on personal vehicles for transport, is sustainable. 200 years from now we may be using solar energy or nuclear energy or some other source to power our personal vehicles. Our personal vehicles may be smaller, yet safer. Our homes may be much more energy efficient, if that's what is required. We may be recycling even more of our goods.
Life in 200 years, assuming we don't enact laws to halt our economic progress, will be much better than today. Few of us will be forced to walk to work and to grocery stores. Our standards of living will be remarkably higher. We'll be living longer. Our air will be cleaner. Our food will be more nutritious and less expensive. Those changes have occurred over my 57 years on this planet. I see no reason for the improvements to stop, other than the "solutions" which would slow economic progress.
How nice for you. The rest of the world isn't so sure.
You can believe what you want, I suppose, but nobody who looks at the evidence in places where we have reached the sustainable limit of the lifestyle you admire would agree with you. Where I live, we disagree about the solutions, but nobody thinks the current pattern is sustainable or even desirable in the short run.
Please wake up and notice that nobody here is arguing against single-family detached housing, nobody wants to do away with low-density neighborhoods, but everybody sees that traffic is a problem, everybody recognizes the need for affordable housing at higher densities, everybody recognizes that the geographic distribution of jobs, retail, and services creates serious social and economic problems for the community. Everybody here recognizes the urgent need to do something. We argue about what to do, but there is no doubt in anybody's mind that the current situation can't be sustained (and we wouldn't want to sustain it if we could, even if oil were cheap and plentiful).
It is not only not helpful, it is simply ill-informed to suggest that everything is just fine with the suburban pattern.
The thing that you don't seem to understand is that the technological solutions that you imagine will render your current lifestyle sustainable (or even available) will require precisely the kind of innovations in social practice and public policy that people are discussing. Technology doesn't just show up one day. Solutions require first that we recognize the real challenges.
You've apparently reached a point in your life where you feel that you've resolved all of the questions you want to consider regarding your lifestyle. Now you just want to defend it. An understandable point of view. I would encourage you to consider that not every community has the luxury of that level of complacency. If they all did, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I didn't get into this stuff because of some ideologically driven urge to meddle in other people's chosen lifestyles. I got into it because of the challenges that my community plainly faces, and because I noticed (when I looked around) that other communities are facing similar challenges.
Solutions will not work; science is not solid
David, i think you are rolling up way too many issues in your response to my comment.
In this last comment I was responding to these statements:
"The science is solid ... I'm starting to be surprised by those who are skeptical of the need to respond intelligently to the problem of our impact on climate change."
Many scientists do not agree that the science is solid. I linked to three who do not agree. I could have linked to dozens, but quite frankly, I have better uses of my time.
Given that many scientists do not agree with the dire predictions being made by some climatologists, there is a very good reason to defer responding to the "problem of our impact on climate change."
"Why take a chance siding with the minority of skeptics? Especially given that there are a lot of more immediate reasons to respond now (and urgently) to the very same environmental problems?
Because the solutions which have been proposed - capping CO2 emissions, subsidizing alternative energy, investing billions in rail transit, localizing food production, and more - have extremely high costs. IMO, the costs of those solutions will reduce standards of living far, far more than will any minuscule rise in global temperatures. Furthermore, I am convinced that none of the solutions I have read will have any significant impact on global temperatures.
The grounding of this debate.
One of the things that I find interesting about this debate concerning the science of climate change is that most people who take up positions on either side really don't know anything about the science, but somehow find reasons to take one group of scientists or another at their word.
You say that the solutions proposed will have "high costs." For whom? Who loses, exactly, if we pursue a strategy of economic development that localizes food production? (Notice that this is not about climate change, but about energy costs and oil dependency.) Who loses if we encourage a strong local economy that spreads the economic benefit locally rather than channelling it off to some collection of multinational stockholders? Who loses, exactly, if we create policies that support the development of alternative energy solutions, particularly distributed generation systems that are less vulnerable to a wide variety of disasters? Aren't there good reasons to do this that have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change?
The primary debate over rail and transit has nothing to do with climate change, and I doubt that any political jurisdiction could muster the political backbone for this kind of public investment on the basis of any number of scientists' predictions.
The unfortunate thing about policy debates that hinge on scientific analyses is that science is a very poor handmaiden to the process of public policy formation. By definition, there is no science in the world that can't be questioned, no scientific conclusions that are ever final. That is the way science is supposed to work. That means that every scientific analysis can be questioned at the level of assumptions, methodology, interpretation of findings, and so on. The public has no way to adjudicate the intramural debates among scientists. The result is that there is endless ability for the ideologically motivated to cloud the debates with questions, with doubts (some reasonable, some not so much).
If you actually go through the scientific evidence regarding climate change and carbon emissions, the overwhelming body of evidence supports the idea that we would be prudent to act and act with a sense of urgency. Science can't tell us what actions to take, however. That policy discussion has to hang on other kinds of considerations. One could never justify any specific policy by relating it to climate change, since no single thing will have an impact on global conditions. So this is a huge red herring. It is the weak link in the chain of argument because it involves the longest chain of connections. The evidence is strong, but even at its strongest, there is room to get distracted by debates over this or that link in the chain of reasoning, and ultimately miss the point. This is what I see happening every time the climate change argument is introduced.
People who are convinced by the evidence should not expect it to work as a trump card. The longer the chain of reasoning to connect immediate action to long term consequences, the more opportunities for ideologically motivated doubt, obfuscation, and flat denial. People who are not convinced by the evidence should understand that it is, in many cases, beside the point.
I prefer to ground planning decisions in more local and immediately measurable conditions. Will it make the local and regional economy healthier? Will it not only improve the quality of life of the current generation, but help to set in motion a process of continuous improvement for future generations as well? In other words, can we argue that our actions produce sustainably good outcomes, in measurable ways within the relevant field of action?
If you don't think building transit will affect climate, then why bring up climate change at all? The climate change argument is only the last and latest in the chain of reasons for transit-- starting with all the immediate and measurable consequences of automobile dependency.
I have some questions
As long as we are on about GW, I have a few questions. Thus far, I have never received an adequate answer to any of them, but I thought I’d give this site a shot.
1. We know that the planet has gone through innumerable cycles of heating and cooling through the eons. It has been far hotter in the past than it is now, or is even “projected” by the AGW enthusiasts. It has been getting warmer, for instance, for the last 15,000 years or so, since the end of the last ice age. How is it that now we are responsible for it? What caused the warming to start in the first place?
2. We are told that the entire human race and/or planet is at risk of extinction, because sea level will rise by perhaps 30 over the next century. We know that sea level has risen by over 300 feet in the last 15,000 years, yet mankind continued to thrive, and there was no wholesale loss of species during that time. Why is a small increase such a threat now?
3. What is the goal of the AGW enthusiasts? Do you actually believe you can “stabilize” the climate? Given that climate is a part of an incredibly complex system, the intricacies of which we know very little about, why do you think you can do this? Even the continents are moving around. What is your prescription for stopping that?
4. Given the catastrophe resulting from the headlong rush into ethanol without adequate analysis of the probable effects, why should we engage in a similar exercise regarding AGW?
5. Economic growth remains positive, yet the planet has not warmed during the last ten years. Why?
Needless to say, I’m more than a little skeptical of the whole AGW issue. I think we would be much better off spending the time and money adapting to whatever the planet throws at us, rather than the fool’s errand of trying to control it. A warmer planet is easier to live in than a cold one, after all. But then, that wouldn’t fit in with the neo-fascist goals of our AGW friends, would it?
The Planet Has Warmed
"Economic growth remains positive, yet the planet has not warmed during the last ten years. Why?"
Do you read the newspapers? There have been lots of stories about the fact that the world has broken temperature records year after year, that spring is beginning earlier, that species are moving to higher elevations to escape the heat, that arctic ice has diminished dramatically, etc.
Charles Siegel
Good questions about "AGW": confusions worth clarifying.
1. I am definitely not an expert on global cycles, but the presentations of the data that I've seen (most recently by a scientist from the National Laboratory in Oak Ridge) show a strong correlation between the accelaration of climate change in the last century and human contributions to a variety of stuff in the atmosphere. If I'm wrong on this, somebody please correct me, but I think the supposed problem is the exacerbation of effects that might be associated with underlying tendencies. The models, as I understand it, hold those underlying cycles constant when they try to isolate the impact of particular factors.
My first question when people start asking about this kind of thing is whether they have actually looked at any of the science, much of which has been around since the 1950s. My next question would be: have you looked at the exact issues about which there is debate among scientists with regard to the science, and where there has been steady agreement? I mean prior to the flap caused by "The Inconvenient Truth" and the general politicizing of the issue.
2. As I understand it, there is a lot of debate with respect to how much sea level rise to expect and how fast. The most modest predictions, however, would have pretty dire consequences for coastal development. I don't know about predictions of possible extinction, but even modest sea level rise in a short period of time would be an economic and social disaster of serious magnitude for many parts of the world. Not to mention the impact on the patterns of disease in the world. Can we respond and survive? I'd like to think so, but that means that it would behoove us to look seriously at what is happening.
3. I don't know what you mean by "AGW enthusiasts," but that seems a rather dismissive stereotyping of a rather broad spectrum of people and opinions. I doubt there is any particular goal that unites people who think there is a case worth considering with regard to climate change. I've never heard anybody suggest that humans could stabilize the climate systems (and personally I'd hate to see us try). The only arguments that I've seen have had to do with reducing the emission of greenhouse gases at a level that would arguably reduce and/or reverse unfortunate human impacts. Why does that seem an unreasonable thing to consider? I'm especially puzzled by the reaction to such arguments when they are in the context of considering any responses as opportunities for expanding the economy.
4. I completely agree with respect to the ethanol mess. Dumb idea. However, I don't see a whole lot of "headlong rushing" into much of anything but loose talk. Besides, the ethanol thing has more to do with the problem of finding an alternative to oil than it has to do with global warming stuff. (Whose idea was it, anyway, to rush into ethanol? I certainly don't know anybody who thought it was a good idea, even among the crunchiest of my environmental friends.)
As a numuber of us have said, it seems likely that any response to the our global environmental impact will likely need to be justifiable on a number of grounds, not just on the basis of the climate change science. At any rate, what's wrong with planning for the eventuality that the science is right about sea level rise? Especially when there are a bunch of other good reasons to think about reducing waste and increasing energy efficiency, avoiding building in flood plains and coastal areas subject to storms, and so on?
5. I don't know this to be true, so I'm not sure how to answer that question. Maybe somebody else can say. My understanding is that the temperature rise is slow and I don't know that there is any reason to believe that it has slowed or stopped in the past decade. Given the complexity of the processes, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that it doesn't produce a simple curve. I do know that there has been an increase in sea water temperatures over the last ten years, an acceleration in the decay of the glaciers and portions of the polar ice cap. These are not controversial measures, as far as I know. If there is a possibility that we can even slow the process by removing our contribution to its acceleration, this could be really significant in buying us the time we need to adapt comfortably rather than in response to escalating coastal disasters.
I'm not sure why you think a warmer planet would be easier to live on than a cold one. Either way, humans have a pretty narrow comfort range. Have you ever lived in a tropical climate? I also don't know what you mean by "neo-fascist" goals. Perhaps you could be more specific-- or was that intended to be some kind of back-handed insult? Given the definition of fascism, I don't see how it applies to anything I've seen.
Here's a hint, if you really want to be taken seriously...
Referring to those you disagree with as "neo-fascist" right off the bat does not lend credibility to your argument.
And oh yeah, nice set of strawmen you've built there.
How would you describe them?
First, I use the term “enthusiast,” because it was the nicest way of describing people who seem almost giddy at the prospect of being able to tell everyone else how to live due to AGW. I have a preferred term, but it wouldn’t pass muster on this site.
Second, if the questions I posted are indeed “straw men,” feel free to knock them down. I noticed you didn’t make even a feeble attempt to do so initially. I certainly don’t intend for them to be such; they are questions I have.
Finally, I use the term, “neo-fascist” because the language from a number of AGW, uh, “enthusiasts” can only be described as fascist. Just today, we have a NASA scientist calling for trials of oil company execs for having the gall to exercise their freedom of speech. We have had a fair number of people call for trials or jailing of those who express skepticism of the AGW theory (and it is, after all, only a theory at this point). How else to describe those who would silence the opposition?
Straw Men
" if the questions I posted are indeed “straw men,” feel free to knock them down."
I knocked down one in my post above, "The Planet Has Warmed." Let me knock down a few more.
"We are told that the entire human race and/or planet is at risk of extinction, because sea level will rise by perhaps 30 over the next century."
No one has ever said that the human race is at risk of extinction because of rising sea level. Rising sea level can cause significant economic damage, because so much development is near the coast (eg, think about those 20 million Bangladeshis fleeing as their country is inundated, or think about Manhattan under water), but the greatest threat to human life is desertification and reduced food production. Even this won't cause extinction - just widespread misery.
"Do you actually believe you can “stabilize” the climate? Given that climate is a part of an incredibly complex system, the intricacies of which we know very little about, why do you think you can do this?"
We can reduce climate change by reducing the human activity that is causing climate change. Given that climate is a part of an incredibly complex system, the intricacies of which we know very little about, it is obviously extremely reckless to act in ways that will change climate massively.
"Just today, we have a NASA scientist calling for trials of oil company execs for having the gall to exercise their freedom of speech. We have had a fair number of people call for trials or jailing of those who express skepticism of the AGW theory"
I follow the issue closely, and I haven't heard about this. Since you claim that "a fair number of people" have called for trials or jailing of those who exercise free speech about global warming, it should be easy for you to provide links to web pages where three different people have said that.
Charles Siegel
Fascism has no relevance here.
Aside from anything else, the problem with calling somebody a "neo-fascist" is that nothing you've mentioned has anything to do with fascism, neo or otherwise. You might want to look up the word. There are, in fact, neo-fascists in the world, but I haven't heard of any of them being involved with the debate over global warming.
I have to wonder what you would call people who are not willing even to consider the evidence on the other side once they have formed their opinions around sweeping and inaccurate stereotypes, or who are not willing to explore the possibility of careful and prudent options, but who would rather disrupt on-line discussions by engaging in dismissive, insulting and overstated rhetoric aimed at only the most overstated versions of the other side.
Why not recognize that there is a wide range of opinions on all the questions related to climate change and what might be done, rather than dismiss the whole discussion out of hand with such irrelevant questions?
There is no problem
I have no problem with discussion and debate, such has been the case with much of this thread. However, the threats and attempted marginalization from SOME proponents of AGW theories is both undeniqable and unacceptable. Some examples:
James Hansen, NASA, wants trails and jail for oil co. execs
David Suzuki, called for political leaders to be thrown in jail ofr ignoring the science behind climate change
Ellen Goodman, compares AGW skeptics with Nazis
George Monbiot, finds the drowning of airline “climate criminals" strangely attractive
David Roberts, journalist for Grist magazine, wants “war crimes trials”
And, of course, we have recent statements from some posters here, who would use governmental power to force us to live “appropriate” lifestyles.
By all accounts, the costs of "stopping" climate change (as if that were even possible) range from unacceptably high to impossible. Adaptation is a far more reasonable tactic. Plants seem to like the increase in carbon (it's what they live on, by the way), and can stand heat, as long as they have water. Cold, on the other hand, simply can't be accommodated. In any case, by all means, we should continue to study climate, as well as everything else about the earth. But stop trying to railroad illiberal changes based on an unproven theory.
It is not true that the costs need to be high.
"By all accounts, the costs of "stopping" climate change (as if that were even possible) range from unacceptably high to impossible. Adaptation is a far more reasonable tactic."
There has been plenty of overblown rhetoric on both sides. For everyone of your AGW enthusiasts who has said rash and silly things, we could find a dozen even sillier comments by the self-styled pundits and those fearful of the possibility that we might have to take responsibility for our impacts on the world.
"By all accounts"? That's just nonsense. Whose accounts? I recommend reading some of the actual proposals for more sustainable economies and societies, at different levels of scale. It is quite possible-- without any "illiberal" policies at all, through the mechanisms of the free market and democratic political institutions as we supposedly understand them in this country (at least pre-Bush)-- to work through a market economy to reduce carbon emissions sufficiently to reduce our possible impact on climate change.
As it happens, this also means that we reduce waste, increase efficiency, and improve the quality of life in a number of ways. I can't imagine why those would seem like such bad goals in their own right.
However, if I even suggested that the science of climate change might indicate that the need to adapt and innovate might be somewhat urgent, it seems that I would get dismissed as a "neo-fascist" who wants to infringe your rights.
If you are genuinely concerned with protecting individual rights, with avoiding "illiberal" policies, then engage that discussion. There are two separate issues there: the debates regarding the science of climate change, and the debates regarding the kinds of solutions to any environmental problem that we can effect without giving up too much of what we value.
I don't see them as separate
If the science is wrong, then the whole discussion of how to stop/reduce/avoid AGW is moot. That's why I think it's highly irresponsible to be demanding, at on the part of some folks, massive changes in our economy and lifstyles, until the scince can solidify. For instance, the models apparently failed to predict the last ten years' worth of "non-warming," and now we're being told that, "Well, it might not begin warming again for another ten years." Sorry, but if you want billions of dollars to combat something, you better be able to show me that there is, in fact, something to combat. I haven't seen it yet.
Costs Are Low
According to the studies on the cap-and-trade bill that was just stopped in Congress, the cost would be low: that bill would have reduced GDP by .9 to 3.8 percent by 2050, meaning that it would have taken until 2051 to reach the GDP that we would reach in 2050 without the bill.
That is cost is tiny compared with the huge costs of allowing climate change to proceed and trying to adapt to it.
Charles Siegel
C&T doesn't work
The European C&T scheme has been a failure. European emissions have increased, and the corruption involved is unacceptable, if predictable. U.S. emissions, on the other hand, have dropped the past two years, without any scheme.
depends
a) 0.9 percent of total 2050 GNP or 0.9 of GNP per year?
b) And would the effects of the "cap and trade" bill on climate change be significant enough to justify the cost?
Costs Of Cap-And-Trade
a) Of total GNP. In other words, we would have the total GNP in 2051 that we would otherwise have in 2050.
b) As I remember, this bill was meant to cut emissions 80% by 2050, which would limit temperature increases to 3.8 degrees F and avoid the worst effects of global warming, according to the current science.
If the science changes, we might find it necessary to spend more in order to cut more.
Charles Siegel
Ironic that you left out the
Ironic that you left out the following quote from Fred Michel:
"I certainly believe we should be doing all that we can to promote rapid public transit and not continue to build more roads; and development of the Alberta tar sands with current technology is wasteful and an environmental disaster in the making."
His concern is that the focus on CO2 emissions is dominating the environmental debate, not that global warming is not happening. Furthermore he doesn't endorse doing nothing, as you do so. My guess would be that he has a holistic understanding of the problem, that transportation, land use and energy/water use are all intertwined and that endlessly spreading out across the landscape, consuming everything in our path like locusts, is not in the best interest of humanity.
Fred Michel says forget CO2
Not ironic to me at all, Matt. It reveals quite a lot that even scientists who support changes in urban design can argue that “CO2 … is not driving climate change”. In other words, there is not a consensus that the science is settled. So calls for massive intrusions in free market functioning – to reduce CO2 emissions – are premature.
By the way, I never said I "endorse doing nothing". I just do not endorse what most of you guys seem to be endorsing. I have been a backer of environmental causes - with my wallet - for about four decades. I just do not believe that geographic dispersal of workplaces and residences must increase either energy use or pollution.
I am also skeptical that CO2 emissions are a serious threat to the planet. Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, ozone, and paticulate matter? Yes, and the U.S. has done a remarkable job of reducing those pollutants during my adult lifetime, at the same time our urban landscape has sprawled. CO2? I'm not going to believe a few computer models which have not predicted very much correctly so far. I've been creating computer models for 30 years, and I am well aware of how easily such models can be completely wrong. When trying to model something as complex as climate, a few tweaks can produce astoundingly different results - which is exactly what Freeman Dyson, one of our era's great minds, is pointing out.
What do you think people are endorsing?
What is it that you imagine has been endorsed in this discussion? I haven't noticed that anyone has suggested any interventions in the so-called "free market" in this thread. You are seeing a spectre haunting your subdivision, and you jump to the conclusion that we're it.
Michael proposed no planning solutions whatsoever to the problems of his suburban neighborhood.
I suspect that some of us are interested in actually freeing the market to meet the real demand for a variety of lifestyles. Given that real estate markets depend on regulation, the question isn't whether the state should regulate those markets, but how.
You obviously don't think the free market is the answer to every question, since you are so proud of the fact that you and your neighbors have mobilized the power of the state in order to constrain the real estate market in your neighborhood.
Some communities have found that they are healthier socially, economically, and even physically as a result of allowing higher density residential in mixed-use centers. The local economy flourishes, there is a sense of community pride that is inclusive across race and class, there is a flourishing of retail, services and cultural amenities, there are dignified transportation options for those who can't drive, and, on top of it all, there is a reduction in VMT and an improvement in air and water quality, a reduction in energy use and greenhouse gases. Real estate values go up so people make money in a free market, and yet there is a better supply of housing attainable at every income range. Exactly where is the downside here?
It's hard to understand why you are afraid of people talking about planning strategies for solving real and immediate community problems.
Actual data on commute times
I got sick of arguing about what Prof. Kahn thinks, and so I decided to dig up actual data on who has the longest commute.
Here's some data from Minneapolis, indicating that on the average, city dwellers still have shorter commutes, and that the residents of the outer suburbs (outside Hennepin and Ramsey Counties) have the longest:
http://www.deed.state.mn.us/lmi/publications/review/1002rs.htm
And here's some data from DC that I found more interesting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR200608...
In metro DC, the Lowest Commute prize goes to a transit-friendly inner suburb; the central city is in second, and then the other suburbs are left in the dust. As I suspected, the most job-rich northwestern suburbs (Fairfax, Loudon and Montgomery) have lower commute times than the southern and eastern suburbs, reinforcing my suspicion that the latter suburbs are big losers from the suburbanization of jobs.
You can dig up facts for other cities and counties at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html
I took a short look at some Atlanta suburbs. Alpharetta (one of the most job rich suburbs) had shorter commute times than Atlanta- but less prosperous suburbs like Marietta and East Point didn't.
In Jacksonville, Duval County (the core city and inner suburbs) had shorter commute times than St. John's (the most prosperous suburban county)- but just barely (both around 26 minutes). However, Clay County (a less prosperous suburban county) had 33 minute commute times, much worse than either.
It seems to me that if there is a pattern it's this: cities and well-off job-rich suburbs have the best commutes though there's some variation among metro areas as to whose commute is shortest; downscale suburbs are worse off than either.
Jacksonville suburbs = green commutes?
Michael,
I believe that both your residence and your workplace are suburban locations, right? As Matthew Kahn pointed out a year or so ago:
"Controlling for city size and distance to work, commute times are shorter for people who live further from the CBD. ... Big city commutes decline sharply from seven miles to the CBD out to 20 miles to the CBD."
Does Sprawl Enhance our Day to Day Urban Quality of Life?
It should be obvious that commuters who live and work in suburbs have shorter commutes than do the total population of urban workers. Does the sprawled suburban locations of Florida Coastal School of Law and the University of North Florida enable shorter, more green commutes for employees than would downtown Jacksonville locations?
My commute
My commute is shorter than it would be if I worked downtown.
But this would not be true if I worked at University of North Florida, which is very far east of my home.
This illustrates a broader problem with the "sprawl means shorter commutes" claim: the fallacy of unidirectional suburbia. That is, IF suburbs all sprawled in the same direction [say, if an entire metro area was a narrow peninsula like Miami Beach, with a downtown at the southern edge and suburban areas going north from there], suburbanites with suburban jobs might have shorter commutes than suburbanites with urban jobs.
But in a region where suburbia sprawls in all directions, suburbanites might have longer commutes if their job is in the "wrong" suburb. For example, I have a relatively short commute (5 miles from downtown) because my job, like my home, is in the southeastern sector of the city. But if my job was in a northern or western suburb, my commute would be longer than if I worked downtown.
Moreover, there's a broader problem with a Jacksonville-type level of sprawl: when the entire region sprawls, distances to work [and everywhere else] become greater for EVERYONE. My 5 mile commute is shorter than it would be if I worked downtown. But my commute would be much shorter if Jacksonville was a different kind of city- say, if the areas where I live and work were still farmland. In that kind of city, my law school would be downtown. And the amenities I moved to Mandarin for (my religious community) would also be downtown, as it was in the first half of the 20th century.
And in fact, my commute has been shorter in the majority of other cities I have lived in.
Jobs in the "wrong" suburbs?
when the entire region sprawls, distances to work [and everywhere else] become greater for EVERYONE
I don't believe that is true over the long run, Michael. Burlington Northern Santa Fe recently moved its corporate headquarters from downtown Fort Worth to suburban Keller, 16 miles to the north. Some employees who now live in southern and western Fort Worth will certainly see longer commutes initially. But with new inexpensive housing being constructed in close proximity to the new HDQ, all employees will have the OPPORTUNITY to live close to work (less than 2 miles) in the type housing they prefer. Because BNSF "sprawled" - relocated the workplaces - away from the central business district, employees can enjoy large yards and very short commutes.
Suburban workers have chosen to live further away from workplaces than they needed to because commute costs were so low. With higher energy prices, workers will begin to relocate close to jobs. That would not be possible if all jobs were concentrated in CBD's and edge cities. That is, it would not be possible if they were ALLOWED to live in the type housing they prefer.
I get the sense that urban planners believe suburban families are going to someday give up their single family housing and relatively crime-free dispersed environments. Before that happens, I am confident that suburban workers will:
1. buy fuel-efficient vehicles;
2. move closer to work;
3. telecommute;
4. change to 4 day schedules;
5. carpool.
IMO, high-density housing and mass transit will be the last responses to high energy costs.
The Real Response to High Energy Costs
"IMO, high-density housing and mass transit will be the last responses to high energy costs."
Check out the article in today's news:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080618/ap_on_bi_ge/gas_prices_home_buyers;_...
Home Buying Practices Adjust To High Gas Prices
In his hunt for a new home, Demetrius Stroud crunched the numbers to find out that, with gas prices climbing, moving near an Amtrak station is the best thing for his wallet.
Stroud was looking in Elk Grove., Calif. — about 85 miles away from his job in the San Francisco Bay Area — because homes there are more affordable. But with gas at $4.50 and a car that gets about 22 miles per gallon, Stroud would be pumping $560 a month into his tank.
So instead he made an offer on a home near the train station in Davis, which will shave $160 off his commuting costs.
"I wouldn't even be able to consider doing it without that Amtrak possibility," said Stroud, 45, who also telecommutes one day a week to his job in software quality assurance.
Stroud's choice represents a fundamental shift in the way more Americans are approaching home buying in this era of ballooning gas prices. Real estate agents, transportation officials and industry surveys indicate that home buyers are placing more importance on cutting their gas bills and commute times than they have since the oil shocks of the 1970s.
Charles Siegel