Interesting op-ed about gas, guzzlers and suburban sprawl

[SpendyMcSpend]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/opinion/19krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman

[sol]

That was posted in May 2008, in the depths of the crisis, at a time when virtually every article about American society was preaching of changes to come.  Subdivisions of McMansions were supposed to become ghost towns or crack hubs, we were all going to ride public transit, and the greed is good mentality was being pilloried.

Fast forward a few years and McMansions are selling again, SUVs are more popular than ever, and society is headed right back down the same path that led to the crash in the first place.  If there are really changes in our future, I think they are farther out than people realize. 

[Midwest]

Paul Krugman and the like would like to emulate Europe.  If you want to live in a smaller house or apartment, more power to you.

I'd prefer to use alternative energy, natural gas, and improved efficiency to maintain or improve the lifestyle we have. 

From an environmental perspective, what would be the cost of abandoning all of the infrastructure and housing stock we have?  Seems like we would be better served to use and retrofit existing housing stock than revinventing the wheel.

[shedinator]

Paul Krugman and the like would like to emulate Europe.  If you want to live in a smaller house or apartment, more power to you.

I'd prefer to use alternative energy, natural gas, and improved efficiency to maintain or improve the lifestyle we have. 

From an environmental perspective, what would be the cost of abandoning all of the infrastructure and housing stock we have?  Seems like we would be better served to use and retrofit existing housing stock than revinventing the wheel.

I don't know Krugman's overall Ethos, but this article doesn't seem to Jive with the conclusions/questions you're drawing.

For instance, from the article:

Notice that I said that cars should be fuel-efficient — not that people should do without cars altogether.

He also repeatedly states that this is something that needs to start soon, but emphasizes that the changes will be difficult to make, because things like infrastructure and houses last a long time. I think there are definitely ways we can move in that direction without abandoning things wholesale. When we build new subdivisions, make them more "European." Instead of the SFHs with sprawling layouts and massive lawns, build 3-4 unit structures that are efficient (not necessarily giving up usuable space, but packing more usable space into less overall square footage). Instead of widening roads and adding lanes to make highways less congested, improve public transit, and allow metropolitan areas with public transit to levy gas taxes to subsidize the costs (oh, and probably drive people to use it more, since gas is expensive and the highways are congested). Create zoning that allows for neighborhood stores, rather than hiding the affordable things in warehouse stores on the outskirts of town, and cramming expensive boutiques into "downtown."

My current home is located smack dab in the middle of everything, yet I can't really get to anything I need. There's a public transit stop 2 blocks from my home. There's a Starbucks 4 blocks away. Within a quarter mile radius, there are at least 20 restaurants, and at the 3/4 mile mark I can hit 2 malls and a Whole Foods. But to get to a Lowe's, a Home Depot, a Costco or a regular Grocery store, I either have to make a 2 hour round trip on mass transit (and not be able to bring much back with me), or journey 5 miles in my car. Zoning won't allow them. It also won't allow fast food restaurantes, drive-thrus, or anything else that might make the neighborhood appear cheap. Yet somehow this is a desirable place to live. People are paying millions of dollars for 2-3 bedrooms in my neighborhood, parking their luxury SUVs in their heated garages, and flooding my place of work with demands for 4 dollar lattes (we had 56 customers in 30 minutes this morning). The fact is that Suburban America has been made intentionally inefficient, and even by changing the zoning restrictions, we could probably encourage future builders to reverse that trend. It wouldn't change overnight, but I'll bet it would change nonetheless.

[Midwest]

To quote Krugman "Americans will face increasingly strong incentives to start living like Europeans.

Paul Krugman's article and your post indicate that Americans need to embrace public transit and higher population densities.    I disagree with the notion that is necessary or even desirable.

Public transportation is economically unsustainable throughout most of the country without taxpayer support.  There simply isn't enough demand.  I'd prefer not to manufacture demand through higher gas taxes.

We have the 3-4 unit structures you describe already.  Condo's don't sell as well as single family residences.  Personally, I'd like more room around my residence, not less.

I love bikeable and walkable communities.  They are more livable and something we should strive for.  Sidewalks, bike paths, bike lanes should be included in the overall transportation plan of a city/region.  On the other hand, I abhor, higher taxes on gas and being pushed to ride public transportation.  I have no urge to ride the bus or the train or payer higher taxes so others can.  Given the background, here's why I don't think it's necessary to move that direction.

Vehicles are becoming increasingly efficient and new technologies are being developed due to the higher energy prices (such as electric vehicles and hybrids).  In addition, North America has a huge supply of Natural gas that could fairly easily supply our vehicles with fuel if we set up the refueling infrastructure (which I believe is going to happen due to private market forces).  Finally, technology is allowing many white collar workers to telecommute, rendering transporation costs as a significantly smaller portion of their budget.

On the housing front, we can and should be encouraging higher energy standards on new homes and retrofit of existing. 

In closing, if someone wants to ride their bike to work, take public transporation, or live in a high population density area, that's fine with me.  I don't, however, support tax and spending policies that force the country as a whole in that direction.

I don't think people need to be pushed into living into condo's and riding public transporation in order to avoid financial crisis.  They simply need to live within their means (or below like those of us on this site).

Midwest

[sol]

I don't think people need to be pushed into living into condo's and riding public transporation in order to avoid financial crisis.  They simply need to live within their means (or below like those of us on this site).

I hear this perspective frequently from Americans, but surprisingly not from anyone else on the planet.

I think there is an argument for reducing the consumption of the most affluent portions of society that supersedes the motivation of personal fiscal responsibility.

[Midwest]

I think there is an argument for reducing the consumption of the most affluent portions of society that supersedes the motivation of personal fiscal responsibility.
[/quote]

You are welcome to your opinion on that and I agree with you at some level, but I suspect my we disagree on how and at what level those changes in consumption should be implemented.

At least you are intellectually honest in your opinion on that society needs to move towards reduced transportation and higher population densities for the greater good and not necessarily for fiscal reasons.

Krugman, on the other hand, is indicating that trend is a financial necessity.  I don't believe that to be true.

[shedinator]

Paul Krugman's article and your post indicate that Americans need to embrace public transit and higher population densities.    I disagree with the notion that is necessary or even desirable.

Public transportation is economically unsustainable throughout most of the country without taxpayer support.  There simply isn't enough demand.  I'd prefer not to manufacture demand through higher gas taxes.

Private transportation is ecologically unsustainable throughout most of the country, period. Unless the demand for fuel efficiency skyrockets, which it only seems to do during times of higher gas prices, we are going to be screwed when the oil runs out. While I can't say when that will be, we can't deny that oil is a non-renewable resource, and right now we're not planning accordingly. 

We have the 3-4 unit structures you describe already.  Condo's don't sell as well as single family residences.  Personally, I'd like more room around my residence, not less.

I'm sure most people would. But there's what we would like, and then there's what's sustainable. If you'd like a SFH with room around it, buy an existing SFH. But continuing to build new subdivisions full of partially secluded mcmansions is going to come back to bite us in the rear.

In closing, if someone wants to ride their bike to work, take public transporation, or live in a high population density area, that's fine with me.  I don't, however, support tax and spending policies that force the country as a whole in that direction.

I didn't say the country as a whole. I wrote about subdivisions, which are very much unique to suburbia. I don't want to force people living in rural areas to relocate to more urban ones, or even push suburbanites into the inner city. But something needs to happen with the way suburbia is structured. Right now, it's a land of high consumption and high pollution. Even the most fuel efficient vehicles don't stop the pollution that comes from hundreds of thousands of people spending an average of 2 hours commuting to and from work every day (as is the case in the Greater Boston Area).

I don't think people need to be pushed into living into condo's and riding public transporation in order to avoid financial crisis.  They simply need to live within their means (or below like those of us on this site).

I'm not worrying about Financial crisis here. I'm concerned for the planet, and the world we're passing on to our children.

[shdrdr]

Public transportation is economically unsustainable throughout most of the country without taxpayer support.  There simply isn't enough demand.  I'd prefer not to manufacture demand through higher gas taxes.

Right, public transportation requires taxpayer support. So does private transport. Just buying a car and putting gas in the tank is not the whole cost of personal transport. You still need a road and traffic management in urban areas, and that's all paid by taxpayers.

Busses are heavier than passenger cars, and wear out a road quicker, however there is a lot less of them than cars. So if you eliminate all cars, and everybody rode a bus, the total cost of transportation would be less. Less gas used, less roads needed. Less taxes collected.

I realize eliminating cars is not practical, and I'm not saying we should. Just pointing out that subsidizing a society where everybody drives their own cars costs more than subsidizing public transport.

[Landor n Stella]

Public transportation is economically unsustainable throughout most of the country without taxpayer support.  There simply isn't enough demand.  I'd prefer not to manufacture demand through higher gas taxes.

There is not enough demand because gas prices are still low enough that people feel they can still "afford" to drive single-occupancy vehicles all the time. I don't think others in this thread are referencing higher gas prices due to taxes, I believe it will be just higher prices. Gasoline getting scarcer will increase the price, naturally. I've heard estimates for Indiana to have gas prices above $5.00 by the end of summer 2012. And as others have pointed out, driving already involves taxpayer involvement.

  In addition, North America has a huge supply of Natural gas that could fairly easily supply our vehicles with fuel if we set up the refueling infrastructure (which I believe is going to happen due to private market forces). 

I am skeptical of this argument, for several reasons.
1) Natural gas exists in North America, but much of it is locked in shale layers. The only technology that currently exists to extract it involves fracking. I'm very much opposed to any extraction process that damages the aquifers of this country. Water is a precious commodity that is more important than fuel. Fracking, in my mind, is just as damaging as mountain top coal removal. (Where do we get the idea that we can mess with God's creation/the environment in a way that is damaging to humans today, and also damaging to humans in the future?)
2) Natural gas is still a temporary solution. It's still non-renewable, and will only delay finding a sustainable resource further into the future. And eventually we will be in the same place we are today, only instead of talking about gasoline we will be talking about natural gas prices. It's kicking the can further down the road, so to speak, so my generation and my children's generation will be burdened with finding a solution. Why can't we find a solution that will last longer than one or two generations?
3) Natural gas still produces pollution. Another issue that my generation and my children's generation will have to deal with, one way or another.

~Stella

[shedinator]

Public transportation is economically unsustainable throughout most of the country without taxpayer support.  There simply isn't enough demand.  I'd prefer not to manufacture demand through higher gas taxes.

There is not enough demand because gas prices are still low enough that people feel they can still "afford" to drive single-occupancy vehicles all the time. I don't think others in this thread are referencing higher gas prices due to taxes, I believe it will be just higher prices.

I did suggest an added gas tax. I think states and municipalities should be permitted to place local taxes on gas in order to pay for upkeep of infrastructure and public transportation, respectively. It's my opinion that taxes should be related to usage- gas taxes for transportation, property taxes for public services (schools, police, etc), and so on. I do think an added gas tax, in addition to subsidizing the cost of public transportation, could influence people's behavior- gas prices going up while public transport costs go down would, theoretically, increase the demand for public transport and decrease single occupant vehicle usage. But that would not be the main goal of such a tax, just a (positive) side effect.

[sol]

Don't forget that in addition to subsidizing private cars by paying for roads and such, we also subsidize oil production with tax breaks.  It astounds me that in a time of record budget deficits and so much focus on cost savings in Washington DC we cannot agree to end tax breaks to the oil industry.  It's only the most profitable industry in the history of humanity, why are we giving them tax breaks?

[unitsinc]

I am skeptical of this argument, for several reasons.
1) Natural gas exists in North America, but much of it is locked in shale layers. The only technology that currently exists to extract it involves fracking. I'm very much opposed to any extraction process that damages the aquifers of this country. Water is a precious commodity that is more important than fuel. Fracking, in my mind, is just as damaging as mountain top coal removal. (Where do we get the idea that we can mess with God's creation/the environment in a way that is damaging to humans today, and also damaging to humans in the future?)
2) Natural gas is still a temporary solution. It's still non-renewable, and will only delay finding a sustainable resource further into the future. And eventually we will be in the same place we are today, only instead of talking about gasoline we will be talking about natural gas prices. It's kicking the can further down the road, so to speak, so my generation and my children's generation will be burdened with finding a solution. Why can't we find a solution that will last longer than one or two generations?
3) Natural gas still produces pollution. Another issue that my generation and my children's generation will have to deal with, one way or another.

~Stella

As someone who works for one of the supermajor's, fracing is done well below the water table. he only time you have issues with water contamination is typically by one of the smaller, local, "mom and pop" types of companies. Your super majors tend to have much better safety records as well as following proper safety protocol which has in turn, caused zero water contamination in one of the US's older gas producing areas.

And as for passing the buck to future generations, I would have to say that is how society works. In essence, humans come up with the best workable solution and go with that until hard-pressed to find a new means when the old one ceases to be as effective as necessary.

Essentially, humans take steps as forced to do so, and those are baby steps. Giant leaps forward have never been our strong suit. Replacing one vastly dirty thing, with a much less dirty thing is better than doing nothing.

[sol]

zero water contamination in one of the US's older gas producing areas.

To be fair, saying that causing hydraulic fracking has never caused contamination of drinking water is kind of like saying open heart surgery has never killed anybody.  Maybe technically true when performed flawlessly, but disingenuous when you consider how many people have died on operating tables. 

There have been a whole host of documented cases of contamination caused by surface spills, leaking pump systems, and intraborehole flow.  Just because fracking doesn't impact drinking water when done correctly doesn't mean it has never impacted drinking water.

And that's just considering contamination by drilling fluids.  If you consider the impact to private wells rendered unusable from methane released by fracking, the number of incidents grows into the thousands.

[unitsinc]

zero water contamination in one of the US's older gas producing areas.

To be fair, saying that causing hydraulic fracking has never caused contamination of drinking water is kind of like saying open heart surgery has never killed anybody.  Maybe technically true when performed flawlessly, but disingenuous when you consider how many people have died on operating tables. 

There have been a whole host of documented cases of contamination caused by surface spills, leaking pump systems, and intraborehole flow.  Just because fracking doesn't impact drinking water when done correctly doesn't mean it has never impacted drinking water.

And that's just considering contamination by drilling fluids.  If you consider the impact to private wells rendered unusable from methane released by fracking, the number of incidents grows into the thousands.

Oh, there have definitely been spills and the like, but I guess when I read "damage to aquifers" I immediately went to actually fracing into them, which when done properly, is very very low. We've never had an incident of that nature in a decade of operation.

And at least in the area I work in, the gas zone is so far below the water table, there have been no reports of methane in anyone's water wells.

I will give you that it is not intrinsically safe, but it is also far from the devil that many sources make it out to be.

[liquidbanana]

I don't have faith that technology will save us completely...and so very much a fanatical proponent of new urbanism and mostly carfree cities. The only implication I don't like, but forsee, is way higher real estate prices. I also want a yard to grow me some food, yo.

[Gerard]

I also want a yard to grow me some food, yo.

Community gardens! They kick ass!