In light of my recent presentation on water markets and trading, I would encourage you to read a Freakonomics guest post by Charles Fishman titled "Why Water Will Never Be the Next Oil". In this post, Fishman argues that we've hardly seen any innovation or progress in the water sector over the past 30 years including water markets, technology and infrastructure. The chief reason? We still do not understand the true value of water. Oil, by contrast, is the world's most liquid commodity market with a clear market price; while this resource has severe social, economic and environmental ramifications, it has a transparent price that markets and governments can respond to.
Water still has a long way to go in establishing a price -- not least for its scarcity value -- but also so people do not use the resource profligately. Fishman makes insightful comments in his post and also comments on water markets. I agree with him for the most part, but I think he is wrong to say that we have hardly seen any innovation in the water world.
On the supply side of water, desalination has been taking off in parts of the world. By no means is desalination the solution to our global water challenges; it's very energy intensive and can disrupt aquatic ecosystems. But, it is helping countries like Australia and Israel with their water shortages. I am a firm believer in the demand side solutions to water and there have been many of them. The case study project I did on Andhra Pradesh has proven that education, capacity building and leadership can lead to innovation in the conservation and management of water resources.
Water markets and pricing are other forms of demand side solutions that can help jurisdictions around the world conserve their water resources and distribute it more equitably. This, alas, is not always the case, as rapacity, corruption and water profitability can erode a government's goal of reaching better water management.
Either way, I fervently believe that we'll see lots of water innovation in the coming future. At the heart of this innovation we should ask ourselves how our "efficiency" improvements can also lead to "equity" improvements so that we can get one step closer in alleviating the dismal statistic of poor water access, that is, "one out of 6 people lack access to clean drinking water". This will be challenging but I hope we'll see change in my lifetime.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
The unintended consequences of environmentalism
This post is about the unintended consequences of environmentalism, something well articulated by Edward Glaeser, author of a recent book called Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier.
To begin, Ed Glaeser is one of my favourite urban scholars. He teaches economics at Harvard and has written about cities for a long time. His new book is a great read intended for anyone who loves cities and is curious about how they can/will change in the future as they become even more populated. For anyone wishing to grasp a historical and contemporary overview of how cities have shaped this world, his book is worth a read. The book features a number of cities from the booming IT sector in Bangalore to the ostensible greenery that Manhattan residents practice on a daily basis. The thesis of the book is that cities, if governed well by sensible public policies and institutions, are the world's greatest centres for allowing human beings to interact, innovate, create and live healthy and environmentally friendly lifestyles.
The greenness of cities is one part of Glaeser's book where he writes about how much more green and sustainable cities are than suburbs because urbanites use less electricity. For those statistical geeks out there, the book is full of numbers and impressive facts that illustrate how much more "green" cities are and can be over the much beloved suburban lifestyle that has been pervasive across the U.S. since 1945.
Some facts: the average single family detached home consumes 88 percent more electricity than the average apartment in a five or more unit building. The average suburban household consumes 27 percent more electricity than the average urban household. Electricity consumption is not only higher in suburban environments, but also in humid climates that require copious amounts of air conditioning. When gasoline consumption enters the discussion, things get even more dismal.
So, what about the unintended consequences of environmentalism? The idea here is that certain places in the United States like Houston, have local governments that are much more friendly to developers and pro-growth than other places in Coastal California or the Northeast. California has a more hospitable climate that does not require as much cooling in the summer or heat in the winter. Home heating and air conditioning are energy intensive and can be expensive household items overtime. By contrast, Houston or Atlanta, much more humid by comparison, require more energy for habitability.
Local environmentalists, many times fueled by NIMBYism, are eager to block housing development in the climate friendly areas. Most often, the arguments are for the protection of wildlife and ecosystems that are sensitive to development. These are valid reasons, however, they are often made based on incomplete environmental impact assessments.
"By using ecological arguments to oppose growth, California environmentalists are ensuring that America's carbon footprint will rise, by pushing new housing to less temperate climates".
Given California's more natural climate that minimizes the need for air conditioning and home heating, it is, from a carbon emissions point of view, a much more environmentally friendly place to develop housing than the aforementioned cities. Sadly, growth in places like Santa Clara County (California) has been slow; between 1990 and 2008, the county grew by 17.8 percent, significantly less than the national average. Prices have also remained high in these more climate friendly areas due to limited growth (constrained housing supply, land use restrictions and NIMBYism.
This problem is a fascinating one that should intrigue urban planners. While Glaeser is quick to criticize some aspects of the planning profession, he recognizes that this particular problem is one that warrants more attention and the involvement of planners given our current discussions about cities, suburbs and climate change.
My quick assessment of the conundrum raised by Glaeser is that planners should actually utilize a framework that illustrates the effect of housing on climate change. It's not just a matter of locating housing in more temperate environments, such as coastal California, but also thinking about increasing residential density in places that will have the least impact on carbon emission output. Whether this is Manhattan or San Francisco, both of which are very expensive places, we must consider the full costs of housing including the environmental impact.
To begin, Ed Glaeser is one of my favourite urban scholars. He teaches economics at Harvard and has written about cities for a long time. His new book is a great read intended for anyone who loves cities and is curious about how they can/will change in the future as they become even more populated. For anyone wishing to grasp a historical and contemporary overview of how cities have shaped this world, his book is worth a read. The book features a number of cities from the booming IT sector in Bangalore to the ostensible greenery that Manhattan residents practice on a daily basis. The thesis of the book is that cities, if governed well by sensible public policies and institutions, are the world's greatest centres for allowing human beings to interact, innovate, create and live healthy and environmentally friendly lifestyles.
The greenness of cities is one part of Glaeser's book where he writes about how much more green and sustainable cities are than suburbs because urbanites use less electricity. For those statistical geeks out there, the book is full of numbers and impressive facts that illustrate how much more "green" cities are and can be over the much beloved suburban lifestyle that has been pervasive across the U.S. since 1945.
Some facts: the average single family detached home consumes 88 percent more electricity than the average apartment in a five or more unit building. The average suburban household consumes 27 percent more electricity than the average urban household. Electricity consumption is not only higher in suburban environments, but also in humid climates that require copious amounts of air conditioning. When gasoline consumption enters the discussion, things get even more dismal.
So, what about the unintended consequences of environmentalism? The idea here is that certain places in the United States like Houston, have local governments that are much more friendly to developers and pro-growth than other places in Coastal California or the Northeast. California has a more hospitable climate that does not require as much cooling in the summer or heat in the winter. Home heating and air conditioning are energy intensive and can be expensive household items overtime. By contrast, Houston or Atlanta, much more humid by comparison, require more energy for habitability.
Local environmentalists, many times fueled by NIMBYism, are eager to block housing development in the climate friendly areas. Most often, the arguments are for the protection of wildlife and ecosystems that are sensitive to development. These are valid reasons, however, they are often made based on incomplete environmental impact assessments.
"By using ecological arguments to oppose growth, California environmentalists are ensuring that America's carbon footprint will rise, by pushing new housing to less temperate climates".
Given California's more natural climate that minimizes the need for air conditioning and home heating, it is, from a carbon emissions point of view, a much more environmentally friendly place to develop housing than the aforementioned cities. Sadly, growth in places like Santa Clara County (California) has been slow; between 1990 and 2008, the county grew by 17.8 percent, significantly less than the national average. Prices have also remained high in these more climate friendly areas due to limited growth (constrained housing supply, land use restrictions and NIMBYism.
This problem is a fascinating one that should intrigue urban planners. While Glaeser is quick to criticize some aspects of the planning profession, he recognizes that this particular problem is one that warrants more attention and the involvement of planners given our current discussions about cities, suburbs and climate change.
My quick assessment of the conundrum raised by Glaeser is that planners should actually utilize a framework that illustrates the effect of housing on climate change. It's not just a matter of locating housing in more temperate environments, such as coastal California, but also thinking about increasing residential density in places that will have the least impact on carbon emission output. Whether this is Manhattan or San Francisco, both of which are very expensive places, we must consider the full costs of housing including the environmental impact.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Water Markets and Trading
I recently delivered a presentation on water markets and trading in my class "planning for water resource management". Students in my class presented on a number of different topics from wastewater treatment in Vancouver and Singapore to water challenges in the Yucatan Peninsula.
My topic focused on the proposal of water markets as an economic efficiency tool in British Columbia's soon to be revised water act. I discussed how water markets work and how they might function in certain places in the province such as the Okanagan. You can view my presentation slide show here, and my summary here.
Below is a word cloud I created using this really neat and free tool called "wordle". The cloud below is an illustration of the words that represent my presentation on water markets and trading.
My topic focused on the proposal of water markets as an economic efficiency tool in British Columbia's soon to be revised water act. I discussed how water markets work and how they might function in certain places in the province such as the Okanagan. You can view my presentation slide show here, and my summary here.
Below is a word cloud I created using this really neat and free tool called "wordle". The cloud below is an illustration of the words that represent my presentation on water markets and trading.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Thom Mayne's floatable house
A couple of months ago I wrote a review of Matt Kahn's newest book, Climatopolis. Among many of the stories and arguments Kahn presents on the need to adapt to climate change, he mentioned a UCLA architect named Thom Mayne who designed a floatable house.
"Known as the FLOAT House, the structure is a new model for flood-safe, affordable and sustainable housing and is designed to securely float with rising water levels. The innovative house was built for actor Brad Pitt's Make It Right Foundation, which is helping with the rebuilding of New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward, one of the neighborhoods hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina."
NPR picked up on this story about a year and half ago. Listen to this 4 minute interview with Thom Mayne to hear about why he designed the floatable house and what he thinks it will be able to do. For anyone interested in climate change adaptation, floatable houses are a very promising design solution. They are expensive and it would be unrealistic to expect flood prone cities like New Orleans to invest in thousands of them, but the potential for reduced damage from flooding can be greatly minimized along with millions of dollars saved from this pro-active and adaptive technology.
"Known as the FLOAT House, the structure is a new model for flood-safe, affordable and sustainable housing and is designed to securely float with rising water levels. The innovative house was built for actor Brad Pitt's Make It Right Foundation, which is helping with the rebuilding of New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward, one of the neighborhoods hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina."
NPR picked up on this story about a year and half ago. Listen to this 4 minute interview with Thom Mayne to hear about why he designed the floatable house and what he thinks it will be able to do. For anyone interested in climate change adaptation, floatable houses are a very promising design solution. They are expensive and it would be unrealistic to expect flood prone cities like New Orleans to invest in thousands of them, but the potential for reduced damage from flooding can be greatly minimized along with millions of dollars saved from this pro-active and adaptive technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)