Touching the 3rd rail of American environmentalism

Many schemes and schemers purport to help solve our growing concerns about climate change and, particularly, global warming. The major, although not exclusive, culprit of projected rising global temperatures and, therefore, perturbations to the geophysical and geochemical systems of the planet, is CO2 – a major byproduct of our carbon fueled economy. Clearly, any plan to lower carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, and our concomitant dependence on foreign oil, should be of interest – and many new, untried technologies are lining up for attention and public funding.

However, one proven approach not being vetted by even the most daring environmentalist is that of the Europeans. According to The Economist’s 2008 “Pocket World in Figures”, the average American emits 19.9 tons of carbon per year, in contrast to 10.3 for each Russian, 9.8 for each German, and 6.2 for each Frenchman. If you’re a Swede, Swiss, or eastern European, your carbon footprint is even less. How is it that Europeans, some with qualities of life that rival our own, have per capita carbon emissions half to a third of ours?

The European approach is the “third rail” – one so threatening to our cherished American values that no one here would propose it: conservation and compact, energy-efficient urban systems.

We love our sprawl, our rambling suburban houses, our SUVs, our shopping malls. Woe to he who might suggest that this energy luxuriant lifestyle should be amended to reduce its CO2 emissions. Indeed, we’re heavily invested in vast, low-density metropolitan areas with expansive green spaces, low-rise buildings, and high-speed highways. This publicly-subsidized outward thrust of Americana propels our construction and auto industries, retail and consumer markets, financial institutions, property ownership and tax policies. In one way or another, all but those of old cities are invested in this approach. But take away the prop of cheap, subsidized energy and the whole system collapses.

While Americans recoil at the idea of adopting heavy handed, European-style, land use controls that invest city centers with good government, efficient public transit, strict building codes, cultural amenities and policing, much of the energy inefficient patterns of American urbanization would changed if we simply phased out those public policies that privilege urban sprawl.

What are those policies? There are many: tax right offs for new building construction and debt (residential and commercial), under-funding of actual highway and road costs, unsustainable municipal subsidies to attract new businesses, and public services that subsidize big energy and inequitably allocated resources.

Without adopting stringent, top-down European land use controls, America could reduce its egregious carbon footprint by allowing markets to more efficiently allocate energy within our urban systems. For example, we could reduce subsidies to utility companies, outlaw below-cost highway and land taxes, and promote uniform region-wide urban development policies. We could phase out subsidies for new construction and provide incentives to maintain and upgrade existing structures. Sadly no politician or environmentalist would risk touching this, the 3^rd rail of American environmentalism.