Emissions

Note: This column was originally titled, "A Stupid Attack on Smart Growth," intended as a pun on 'smart' and 'stupid.' However, that sounds harsh so I retitled it. - T.L.

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) has a well-financed campaign to discourage communities from considering smart growth as a possible way to conserve energy and reduce pollution emissions. They contend that compact development has little effect on travel activity and so provides minimal benefits. The NAHB states that, “The existing body of research demonstrates no clear link between residential land use and GHG emissions.” But their research actually found the opposite: it indicates that smart growth policies can have significant impacts on travel activity and emissions.

An article posted last week by the Guardian and highlighted yesterday by Treehugger.com cites recent studies as well as data from maritime industry sources that the combination of quantity and quality of low-grade bunker fuel used in the massive engines of freight vessels may result in more emissions than all the cars in the world!  I don’t mean to wax sensationalist here, this is what is stated in the article.  If the truth is anywhere near the statement, then the idea of

North American (United States and Canada) policy generally favors low energy prices, with low taxes, production subsidies and other types of energy industry support. As a result, North Americans are energy rich: an average worker can purchase more fuel per hour of labor than almost any other time or place. In response North Americans have developed energy intensive lifestyles and industrial practices, have failed to implement many energy conservation practices common in other parts of the world, and consume more energy per capita than most other times and places.

Last week I attended the NREL Energy Analysis Forum, where leading North American energy analysts discussed current thinking concerning greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies, much of which involves emission cap and trade programs (as summarized in the report by Resources for the Future, "Key Congressional Climate Change Legislation Compared"). Similarly, a recent report, "Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much At What Cost" evaluates emission reduction strategies according to their cost effectiveness.