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.


By locating in less carbon intensive places, governments can also be strategic in bringing about the critical amenities and infrastructure to support that growth i.e. public transit. Public transit, which has been non-existent in Houston suburban developments like Woodlands, can go a long way in a future when gas prices will be high enough to do some serious economic and environmental damage.

Local environmentalism, as Glaeser puts it, is no doubt an important value that every city should have. I am a local environmentalist myself, but I do recognize that from a climate change and urban planning perspective,  fighting housing development in the nation's most desirable and environmentally friendly places can be initially thought of as good environmentalism through protecting the coast or wildlife, but when this is based on incomplete environmental impact statements along with strong NIMBYism, then those actions become bad environmentalism leading to development in the least environmentally friendly places in the U.S., such as Houston.

This is just one of many topics discussed in Glaeser's book; there are countless others about how we must re-think our approach to housing, public policy and the planning of our cities to lead our urbanizing world into a more sustainable future.