The threat of climate change demands the efficient use of resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Inexpensive policies that do not require costly technological innovation should be the starting point for addressing environmental sustainability. Current development trends and government policies tend to favor sprawling suburban areas that use land and resources inefficiently.  Suburban developments rely on the prevalence cheap fuel and automobile usage. Suburban developments encroach on pristine areas that are essential to maintaining biodiversity and carbon sinks.  The expansion of suburban sprawl has the possibility of outshining many of the gains of other policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. High-density or smart growth developments, on the other hand, reverse the consumption of virgin land and use resources more efficiently.
 

Smart growth has the potential to minimize the reliance on carbon intensive automobile transportation.  Smarter growth can also improve energy efficiency, decrease utility costs, protect open lands and improve quality of life standards.  As population continues to grow, the demand for housing and commercial development will also rise.  As investments will have to be made to accommodate burgeoning demand, it is of little additional cost to align new developments with the principles of smart growth. If future policies encourage higher density and discourage urban sprawl, they will cheaply and permanently decrease GHG emissions.

Issue

Transportation accounts for approximately one third of CO2 emissions in the United States. Most scientific estimates, including the 2007 International Panel on Climate Change Report, suggest that a 60-80% reduction in GHG emissions is necessary to counteract the worst concerns of global warming. No solution to global warming can ignore the impacts of transportation.
Many transportation policies concentrate on fuel efficiency and alternative fuels, but do not address the challenges associated with increases in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita.  In 2007, Congress raised Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, requiring automakers to increase fuel average efficiency to 35 miles per gallon by 2020.  Subsides for ethanol and research into other biofuels have also increased in recent years.  Unfortunately under current development trends, the average distance traveled per person will increase substantially and offset many gains made under these policies.  Under current projections, suburban sprawl and development of “Greenfields” (previously unused or agricultural land) will increase VMT by 59% between 2005 and 2030. According to the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland, land use is increasing at three times the rate of population growth and twice the rate of vehicle registration. This frantic increase of land development indicates that as the American population increases, Americans will be more spread out and will live farther from their workplaces.  Increases in auto efficiency will not offset the expected inflation in VMT. Despite potential fuel efficiency gains of up to 12%, The Energy Information Administration projects CO2 emissions will grow 41% by 2030.  
 

Increased dependency on automobiles results from low-density sprawl. In the last 20 years, the abundance of cheap land with little regulation enticed developers to invest outside of urban centers.  Land consumption increased from 5 to 12 percent for every 1 percent of population growth. Suburbanization encouraged development of single-use properties and greater per-capita land use, which in turn encroached on agricultural land and natural habitats. To accommodate urban outflow, the federal government annually invests about 40 billion dollars each year in highway construction and maintenance, while only contributing about 1 billion federal dollars to public transportation initiatives.  A study conducted by Crosscut, a Seattle based news agency, estimated that even when accounting for congestion relief, “every extra one-mile stretch of lane added to a congested highway will increase CO2 emissions more than 100,000 tons over 50 years.” Current public spending, codes and transportation policies stimulate sprawl and therefore increase automobile dependency.
 

Low-density sprawl also has profound fiscal, environmental and social impacts beyond automobile dependency.  Infrastructure and public utilities become strained and more expensive to build and maintain when serving a larger suburban area.  Electricity and heating efficiency suffer in single unit, high acreage housing, contributing to larger GHG emissions per capita.  Developed open lands, Greenfields and watersheds no longer serve as natural habitats and carbon sinks.  Public health suffers as suburbanites forgo exercise when neighborhoods aren’t walkable.  Air quality declines with increased auto-use.  Those that cannot afford to drive experience social segregation and receive little access to public amenities.  Those that do drive spend more time commuting to work and relinquish economic productivity and leisure time.  
 

As our population approaches 400 million in the next 50 years, policymakers are confronted with an opportunity to address these issues of sprawl.  By 2050, an estimated 89 million replacement homes and 190 million square feet of offices, institutions, and commercial property will need be built. According to an article by the Urban Land Institute, “two thirds of the developments on the ground in 2050 will be built between now and then.” Policies can either continue to encourage the trend toward urban sprawl or encourage smarter growth.          
 

Possible Approaches
 

Divert transportation funding from highway projects and investment in public transportation.
Internalize social costs of driving by implementing a combination of a carbon tax, congestion pricing, peak period tolls, or distance based pricing on registrations and insurance premiums.
Create policies and incentives to encourage cities and suburbs to develop in higher density.
 

Recommendation
 

A bold plan to combat climate change would look to transform cities and suburbs through smart, high-density growth to reduce our reliance on automobiles, improve energy efficiency and protect open spaces.  Much of this transformation should happen at the city level but federal policy can be instrumental in directing resources properly. Smart growth areas will attract residents and achieve environmental goals by offering multiple transportation options, concentrating development on 1500ft blocks (walking distance of 10 to 15 minutes), zoning for mixed use commercial and residential buildings, accommodating walking and biking over car usage, and investing in open spaces and parks. Federal grants should be made available to supplement these goals.  
 

The litany of transportation policies, development funding and incentives that currently encourage development on the metropolitan fringe should be reevaluated to align with new development goals. The next surface transportation bill should increase investment in public transportation as well as conservation and green development. The Urban Land Institute recommends that any federal climate change legislation require transportation conformity for GHGs, which would grant the EPA authority to regulate transportation projects to account for their environmental impact.  The ULP goes on to recommend that funding to Metropolitan Planning Organizations be distributed based on population and economic activity to grant denser areas more latitude to invest in infrastructure and public amenities. Building codes should also be raised to make sure new developments operate under high energy efficiency standards.  Federal policy should allow Brownfields (vacant properties) to be developed expediently. This involves protecting current owners from penalties resulting from environmental damage of previous tenets. This also demands regulations that ensure redevelopment addresses safety standards based on the intended use of the property. Developing Brownfields takes advantage of low-price urban property and allows for urban infill and denser development.  It also eliminates blighted property from low-income areas to remove health risks and stimulate growth. Finally, public services such as public schools and community policing need to improve to accommodate the potential poulation influx.
 

Some smart growth advocates argue that there should also be punitive policies that internalize the social cost of automobile usage.  Policies like congestion pricing or distance based driving fees may indeed encourage a change in transportation habits that would reduce auto usage and translate into enlightened housing demand. These policies may risk public outcry if the proper transportation alternatives do not exist. It may be best to leave these more coercive policies to states and reduce potential opposition to federal smart growth policy. The one exception that may be considered would be a carbon tax or cap and trade program, but those are beyond the scope of this brief.
 

Basis for recommendation
 

Smart growth reduces VMT and GHG emissions, responds to current market demands and doesn’t require substantial new funding sources. Smart growth policies are not sufficient to combat climate change, but are integral to envisioning a more sustainable society.  
 

Many empirical studies have examined the relationship of vehicle usage to dense mixed-use communities.  Almost uniformly, studies have converged that these communities reduce the dependence on automobiles. A study in Atlanta compared the development of an abandoned steel mill in the heart of Atlanta to three suburban communities with equivalent commercial and residential property. The report found that the compact development generated 35% less VMT and emissions. If 60% of the new growth in America aligned with smart growth policies, it would mean annual reductions of 85 million metric tons of CO2 by 2030.  This is equal to a 28% improvement on federal fuel efficiency standards by 2020 (assuming 32mpg).  From the 60% smart growth estimate alone, GHG emissions in the United States would drop 7 to 10 percent by 2050. This doesn’t take into account any other reductions in fuel consumption, EE standards, or the opportunity cost of preserving open lands that would’ve been lost to sprawl.
 

Many consumer studies demonstrate that there is strong and increasing market demand for walkable, high-density communities.  Christopher Leinberger of the Brookings Institution suggests that 30-40% of the population desires walking communities while currently only 5% of residential areas offer these amenities. The demographics demanding new housing also appear tend to favor smaller lot, connected housing.  As the baby boom generation retires, housing without children represents 90% of new housing demand.  One-third of the share of housing will go to single people. There is currently a 40-100% premium for urban infill developments, meaning that demand currently outstrips supply. If Brownfields are more expeditiously developed, and abandoned strip malls and office parks incorporate mixed use functions, smart growth policies can be implemented on a larger and more affordable scale.
 

Smart growth represents a more efficient use of resources to accommodate climate change.  Conscientious growth will also allow other environmental policies such as fuel and energy efficiency, and conservation to be more successful.