A common refrain among environmentally-minded planners is: policy X will reduce global warming. So why would anyone be dumb enough to oppose policy X? But often, global warming will be the weakest, not the strongest, argument for policy X.
A common refrain among environmentally-minded planners is: policy X will reduce global warming. So why would anyone be dumb enough to oppose policy X?
But often, global warming will be the weakest, not the strongest, argument for policy X. Here's why: to get people to change their minds about policy X based on concerns about global warming, you have to persuade them that:
1. Global warming is real- a claim that are still controversial in some circles, and
2. Global warming is induced by carbon dioxide emissions (ditto) and
3. Global warming is so dangerous that it should affect your jurisdiction's policies (ditto), and
4. Policy X will reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and finally that
5. Even though global warming is a really serious crisis, policy X can reduce pollution enough to limit global warming.
All of these claims will be hard to prove, for the simple reason that all of them involve the kind of scientific issues that most ordinary citizens know little about. For example, you may want to argue that more walkable communities reduce pollution by reducing driving- but even if your opponents are willing to admit the seriousness of global warming (points 1-3 above), they may argue that faster, smoother traffic flow also reduces pollution by reducing congestion. How can the average scientifically illiterate citizen (or city councilperson) know who is right?
And even in a relatively pro-environmentalist state or city, point 5 may be a hard sell. For example, suppose you want your city to rezone land for higher density. You argue that more compact development means more walking, which mean less driving, which means less pollution, which means less global warming.
Opponents of your proposal may respond: if global warming is such a huge global problem, how is making our city slightly more walkable likely to matter? Won't your proposal give us the worst of both worlds, by giving us all the negative side effects of density without reducing pollution enough to affect a worldwide problem?
Of course, this doesn't mean you should never raise global warming as an argument for policies you favor; such an argument will resonate with the most environmentally-minded voters and policymakers. But global warming should never be your only argument.

Planetizen Federal Action Tracker
A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.

Chicago’s Ghost Rails
Just beneath the surface of the modern city lie the remnants of its expansive early 20th-century streetcar system.

Amtrak Cutting Jobs, Funding to High-Speed Rail
The agency plans to cut 10 percent of its workforce and has confirmed it will not fund new high-speed rail projects.

Ohio Forces Data Centers to Prepay for Power
Utilities are calling on states to hold data center operators responsible for new energy demands to prevent leaving consumers on the hook for their bills.

MARTA CEO Steps Down Amid Citizenship Concerns
MARTA’s board announced Thursday that its chief, who is from Canada, is resigning due to questions about his immigration status.

Silicon Valley ‘Bike Superhighway’ Awarded $14M State Grant
A Caltrans grant brings the 10-mile Central Bikeway project connecting Santa Clara and East San Jose closer to fruition.
Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools
This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.
Planning for Universal Design
Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.
Caltrans
City of Fort Worth
Mpact (founded as Rail~Volution)
City of Camden Redevelopment Agency
City of Astoria
City of Portland
City of Laramie
