Climate change, consumption, and cities.

• Author: Kaswan, Alice

Introduction I. Beyond Symptoms: Addressing Consumption A. Land Use and Transportation B. Buildings and Energy Consumption II. The Limits of Existing Federal Initiatives A. Proposed Federal Legislation B. The Limited Role of the Market in Reducing VMT C. The Limited Role of the Market in Increasing Building Efficiency 1. Utility Demand-Reduction Programs 2. Direct Market Pressures III. The Local Role in Addressing Consumption A. Types of Local Initiatives to Reduce Energy Demand B. Institutional Justifications for Local Control C. The Local Commitment IV. Impediments to Local Action A. Collective Action Impediments to Local Initiatives B. Political, Economic, and Social Disincentives to Local Action C. Federal and State Obstacles to Local Action V. Vertical Integration: Local Action in a Federal, State, and Regional Context A. Federal Legislation and State Implementation Planning B. The Division of Responsibility Between the State and Local Level C. Devolution to the Regional or Local Level? D. Mandates or Discretion? VI. A Comprehensive Socioeconomic Approach to Land Use A. The Importance of Socioeconomic Factors in Achieving VMT Reductions B. Beyond Demand Management: Achieving Regional Equity C. Meaningful Participation Conclusion INTRODUCTION

As proposals for federal climate change legislation proliferate, national policymakers are focused on a cap-and-trade program for controlling greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. I argue that successfully reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions will require reductions in energy consumption, and that a trading system's market signals will be insufficient to prompt the widespread transformations in land use and building efficiency necessary to reduce energy demand.

Nor will federal action alone suffice. Familiar federalism principles suggest why cities and regional entities present distinct institutional advantages in addressing consumption given the key role of local land use and "green" building strategies in reducing demand. Notwithstanding many cities' active endorsement of ambitious climate change goals, most cities are unlikely to act solely on their own initiative. The challenge for federal lawmakers is to design a vertically integrated climate change policy that establishes and coordinates the federal, state, and local role in reducing energy consumption.

Given the interrelatedness of environmental, political, social, and economic factors that are implicated in land use decisions, federal requirements for state and local governments to engage in land use planning to reduce vehicle-miles-travelled ("VMT") must address the socioeconomic drivers of land use decisions. Focusing on socioeconomic factors is warranted not only as an instrumental mechanism for increasing the success of VMT-reducing reforms. As state and local governments open the door to new metropolitan visions, they create a unique opportunity to achieve regional equity.

Part I of this Article highlights the nation's high level of energy consumption and argues that policies directed solely at tailpipes and smokestacks will fail to reach climate change goals. High emissions are a consequence of high demand, and policies to reduce demand, like green building requirements and land use reforms that reduce VMT, will be necessary to reach emission reduction goals.

Part II of this Article observes that recently proposed federal legislation does not sufficiently address consumption. While many of the federal bills propose market mechanisms that are likely to generate price signals that could incentivize less sprawling growth and greener buildings, Part II identifies numerous obstacles to generating sufficient change through the market alone.

Part III argues that direct local land use and green building measures can and should play a critical role in reducing demand. Based on federalism principles, Part III provides an institutional justification for encouraging local and regional engagement in reducing consumption. Part III also highlights the ambitious climate change goals already established in hundreds of communities throughout the United States.

Part IV recognizes that, notwithstanding the institutional and practical arguments in favor of local initiatives, significant barriers could slow their adoption and implementation. Climate change presents classic collective action impediments. Moreover, land use measures like infill and compact development provisions are likely to encounter a thicket of political and social resistance. Some federal and state policies also impede--or create disincentives for--smart growth and green building objectives.

Part V argues that federal legislation could overcome obstacles to local action by adopting a vertically integrated approach. It proposes that the federal government assign emission reduction obligations to the states and then require the states to delegate emission reduction responsibilities to the regional or local level. This Article notes a number of difficult issues that such legislation would have to resolve, including the extent to which states should delegate responsibility to the local level, whether the responsibility should be delegated to the regional or the local level, and the extent to which the federal legislation should mandate program parameters or leave implementation to state or local discretion.

Part VI argues that land use policy reforms will not succeed unless we confront the underlying social, economic, and political causes of existing sprawl. Integrating socioeconomic considerations is critical not only to reducing VMT, but to enlightened decisionmaking. Principles of sustainable development suggest that, whenever key decisions impacting fundamental institutions are made, decisionmakers should integrate the critical environmental, economic, and social dimensions that their reforms necessarily implicate.

1. BEYOND SYMPTOMS: ADDRESSING CONSUMPTION

   The politics of climate change regulation would certainly be easier if measures to address climate change could stop with industry. (1) Given the carbon intensity of U.S. consumption, however, the United States is unlikely to be able to overcome its carbon addiction without measures that impact how and where we live, build, and consume. (2) The role of consumption in causing environmental impacts is not new, but national, state, and local approaches to air pollution historically have centered on direct emissions by regulating stationary sources and establishing automobile manufacturing requirements. (3) The politics of addressing underlying community structures and individual lifestyles were simply too precarious. (4) Now, however, the public's increasing recognition of the global peril posed by climate change could shift the political landscape and increase the political feasibility of consumption-reducing policies.

   At almost twenty metric tons per capita of carbon dioxide per year, (5) U.S. citizens have among the highest per capita GHG emissions in the world. (6) Other major industrialized nations in Western Europe and Asia have per capita emissions that hover around ten metric tons per capita of carbon dioxide per year, (7) or about half the level of U.S. per capita emissions. While country-specific factors no doubt impose constraints, these numbers suggest that it is possible to reduce per capita emissions without a drastic reduction in the standard of living.

   To reduce per capita emissions, and particularly to reduce emissions from certain sectors, climate change policy must address not only direct emissions, but also the consumer demand that drives them. (8) In other words, climate change policy must address causes as well as symptoms. (9) Although GHG emissions are impacted by virtually every facet of industrial society, this Article focuses on the land use and building sectors because of their significant GHG contributions and the critical role of local governments in addressing them. (10)

   1. Land Use and Transportation

      As of 2005, transportation-related emissions contributed one-third of the nation's carbon emissions. (11) Over half of the transportation-related emissions result from personal trips, 30% by automobiles and 27% by light trucks (including sports utility vehicles). (12) Reducing emissions per vehicle is a key strategy for reducing transportation-related emissions, (13) but reductions in individual vehicle emissions will not sufficiently reduce net transportation emissions if Americans maintain or increase their VMT. (14)

      VMT is heavily influenced by underlying land use patterns and transportation infrastructure. U.S. land use patterns are characterized by low-density sprawling development. (15) With the outward expansion of low-density suburbs and exurbs throughout the twentieth century, U.S. residents began to drive increasing distances as the circumference of metropolitan areas grew. (16) The U.S. pattern of low-density residential growth has been heavily car-dependent, resulting in sharply increasing levels of VMT and associated vehicular emissions. (17) From 1969 until 1990, VMT increased by 82% while the U.S. population increased by only 21%. (18) From 1970 until 2005, average household VMT increased from 16,400 miles to 24,300, even though average household size fell. (19)

      Although concerns about the environmental and social consequences of sprawl have launched a "smart growth" movement over the last twenty years, (20) the U.S. pattern of expanding sprawl and increasing VMT has not dramatically abated. For example, from 1990 until 1997, housing stock in low-density metropolitan counties increased at a faster rate (15%) than in high-density urban cores (5%). (21) A recent study of land use and climate notes that "[t]he U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts a 48 percent increase in driving between 2005 and 2030 ... outpacing the projected 23 percent increase in population." (22)

      As a consequence of continuing sprawl...