Comments on: Planning for Global Warming: In the News

By: randall crane

randall crane — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 01:51:00 +0000

Reid Ewing, the primary author, is one of the smartest, hardest working, and useful people I know. I agree with his goals. But my take on “Growing Cooler” — mainly a literature survey, not a new study of how land use influences travel (though the derived CO2 calculations are new) — is that it is selective in its reading of the empirical literature, and so overstates its case quite a bit.

A concern is that even though the scholarly literature is much more, and perhaps increasingly, skeptical on the magnitude of VMT reductions from compact development, the new draft APA advisory guide on climate change for planners relies entirely on “growing cooler” for its recommendations. I guess it’s just too attractive an argument to pass up. I hope they are right; I just don’t see the evidence.

On the other hand, there is an argument for overstating one’s case; I do it myself all the time.

By: Rob Goodspeed

Rob Goodspeed — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:44:00 +0000

You claim that “how discretionary land use decisions can best address global warming is virtually unknown” is directly and strongly contradicted by the new book by ULI “Growing Cooler.” I would be interested in your views on that book.

By: Cliff Guy

Cliff Guy — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:07:00 +0000

I agree with much of Randall's commentary. Here in the UK many planners (including Government
advisors) think that land-use planning can improve people's wasteful use of resources, but I am
sceptical. See my new
href="http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/cplan/resources/guy-finewords.pdf">article article in the journal
Town and Country Planning.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 05:59:00 +0000

As a practicing public sector planner thinking about climate change, smart growth, transportation, I appreciate your blog. If you haven’t seen it, this discussion on the rockridge nation post regarding energy and subsequently, auto use, might be of interest: http://www.rockridgenation.org/blog/archive/2007/06/19/debating-energy-as-if-communities-mattered. Thank you

By: randall crane

randall crane — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:20:00 +0000

Jim's question (which wasn't answered in the post very well, since it was covered better here and there) is more than fair. Start with the work of the past 5 years or so by Cao, with Handy, and Mokhtarian, Cervero, Krizek, Chatman (on TOD and self selection), Brueckner (on social capital in the suburbs), and a number of others show how complex land use/transportation interactions are, and how the evidence is more often mixed than not. Then there are the literature and methodology reviews a few years earlier in Crane, Boarnet and Crane, and the monograph Boarnet and Crane. I apologize to those left off this list in the interest of brevity but please do feel free to amend or disagree.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:57:00 +0000

Thanks for a very thought-provoking post, Randall. Can you give some examples from the literature you mention as suggesting that “more compact, mixed development can plausibly increase VMT, congestion, and pollution, and reduce physical activity and social capital in the bargain”?

By: Mazlin

Mazlin — Fri, 31 Aug 2007 03:14:00 +0000

China is urbanizing, and more and more people chose to move to the growing densely populated urban centers. In doing this, they are following the same trajectory as that of most developed countries.

As they become richer, they have shown more concern for the 'quality of life' issues.

As for coal, yes it is dirty and dangerous, as the recent flooding of mines show. Perhaps China should be encouraged to use the nuclear technology that it already has to replace the coal mines.

By: randall crane

randall crane — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:55:00 +0000

1. From new USC professor Lisa Schweitzer, speedy green car fanatic:

Speed Freaks: The 10 Fastest Green Cars on the Planet, Wired magazine, August 2007.

2. From the NYTimes china blog, an ongoing roundtable dialogue on China and Global Warming. The discussion seems to be mostly concerned with coal, with only one mention of land use planning -- even though much if not most of the world's urbanization (300 million more city residents) and motorization (a gazillion more cars) is expected to occur there over the next 30 years or so.

Put another way, if you want to talk about land use and global warming where it will count most, that would be with respect to China. Anyone care to jump in?