- Change for America on Science and Tech Policy: Part 1
- Taking a Short Break
- Transition Team Deploys Its First Public Web 2.0 Tools
- Victory for Stem Cells in Michigan
- White Open Spaces
- Historical Election Maps and Open Mapping Research
- Scary Regulatory Maneuvers in Bush’s Last Days
- FDA Did Not Finish Its Homework On BPA
- Digital Freedom of Expression and Human Rights
- Traumatic Brain Injury and Helmet Design
- Gates Foundation Funds Research, Venture Capital Style
- A Brief History of Lead Regulation
Brookings Report: Metropolitan Areas Have Less Carbon Emissions
Metropolitan areas are more energy-efficient than areas of less-dense development, according to a new analysis from the Brookings Institution; they also have smaller per-capita carbon emissions. The report indicates that “the average metro resident in 2005 had a smaller carbon footprint (2.24 metric tons) than the average American (2.60 metric tons). The difference stems primarily from less car travel and electricity use.”
The study analyzes emissions data for the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the country, which hold two-thirds of the national population and drive three-quarters of the economy, while accounting for only 56 percent of carbon emissions. Different areas of the country demonstrate substantial variation in emissions, based on population density, availability of public transportation, regional electricity prices, and methods of power generation. The analysis makes it clear (if it wasn’t already obvious) that development patterns are a major factor in emissions . Smart growth and public transportation policies are crucial to cutting national carbon output—and neither require breakthrough technologies to start cutting emissions in the near-term.
Many of the cities with the highest per-capita emissions are clustered in the east and mid-west. Wired Science mashed up the data to make finding your city’s numbers easy. But the report also provides detailed numbers on transportation emissions. Comparing the auto, truck, and highway transportation emissions for various metro areas drives home the point that dense growth can keep emissions down:
Per-Capita Transportation Emissions for Top 100 U.S. Metro Areas—2005
The study arrives just as the Senate will debate the Lieberman-Warner America’s Climate Security Act this week. The legislation is the first comprehensive piece of climate legislation with the potential to make it through the Senate. One crucial element of the bill would generate revenue by auctioning emissions credits. The money would be used to offset increases in the price of energy and to fund research in renewables. The Center for American Progress recommends that the final version of any such climate legislation auction 100 percent of the emissions credits; this could generate $50 billion up to $300 billion per year in revenue. The Center has also calculated how that money could be apportioned to each of the 50 states, where it can help boost the economies of metro and non-metro areas alike, while supporting polices that cut carbon emissions.
Comments on this article
The Brookings study seems to have started with a conclusion and only investigated the factors that support the conclusion. Some of the factors left out:
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm1)Carbon dioxide generated by transporting food and other commodities by refrigerated trucks into traffic congested cities. The higher the concentration of people, the further the food must be transported.
2) A lot of the energy consumed in rural areas is for producing food for metropolitan areas.
zgorgon: You make two very good points. It would be useful to both investigate the assumptions of the study and examine the data in the context of the food production and transport emissions you mention. All too often, policymakers and consumers overlook the emissions that are an external cost of what we eat.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:14 pm