First, we need to redesign and rebuild every town in the U.S. The rest should be no problem.
That’s about the state of our plans for dealing with global warming in this country. If this is as serious a problem as we’ve been told, and all signs indicate that it is, we’re going to have to do a lot better on solutions.
The crux of the problem is that this country, outside a few metropolitan centers, is built around the automobile. There has never been a shortage of wide open spaces for branching out, and we’ve taken full advantage. Now, we’re stuck.
For a variety of reasons, basing our lives around cars doesn’t look to be viable in the long term. Like most everything else we need, cars depend on oil — of the cheap and unlimited variety.
Not only are we liable to run out of it (which is a separate issue), but we’re realizing the long-term problems that come from burning it.
Global-warming deniers are still out there, but for the most part not taken seriously. It’s pretty commonly understood by now that continuing to rely on gasoline-powered personal vehicles to get everywhere is impractical. Carbon emissions over the decades have contributed to climate change, with rising ocean levels and weather disasters in the forecast.
The trouble is that (almost) our entire built environment is based around that car-only model.
If you live in the suburbs, think about how many places you can practically go without a car. Then think about where the closest mass transit system stops. And think about whether you have any idea where it goes or on what schedule it runs.
Changing this situation seems to top the list of most global-warming policy proposals. Adding density, encouraging mixed uses (housing, retail, entertainment all together), and rewarding brownfield development (on the site of contaminated former factories) are touted as solutions for cutting down on the necessity of driving.
They’re all good ideas. And it’s true, many people are finding city life more attractive these days, with downtown revivals across the country, from Portland, Me., to Portland, Ore.
The problem is the pace. With the amount of time and energy it takes to make even one small move — getting approval to build apartments in a former bank, for instance — the idea that we can make enough necessary changes fast enough to make a difference seems dubious, at best.
We’re looking at:
- convincing enough people that a car-free lifestyle is right for them;
- changing regulations, zoning and otherwise, in towns and cities across the country allowing for dense, rather than sprawling, developments;
- allowing for thousands of miles of mass transit lines of one form or another to be built between places currently served only by roads; and
- doing all this before we either run out of gas or pass the global-warming tipping point, whenever that is.
Also, the rising price of gas is having an impact. Across the country, ridership on mass transit is up significantly, and the prospect of $50 fill-ups for the foreseeable future means that will continue. Whether that will lead to the billions of dollars in upfront costs that new transit systems require is another story, but it’s progress that can’t be ignored.
But consider the obstacles, besides those listed above. On the Post Road through Milford and Orange, it’s not even practical to walk between neighboring shopping plazas. Dense housing developments face months or years of regulatory hurdles and neighborhood protests, while single-family standalones sail through unquestioned. The mere mention of more money for bicycle paths is enough to get free-marketers in a snit.
It’s not hopeless, but it’s past time to pick up the pace. In Connecticut, with 169 individual fiefdoms each vying for their own slice of the pie, that could be a stretch.
Or we could be like Lex Luthor and start buying up future oceanfront property in Nevada.
Hugh S. Bailey is assistant editorial page editor of the Connecticut Post. You can reach him at 203-330-6233 or by e-mail at hbailey@ctpost.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment