On the philanthropic obsession with electric vehicles and why Ben Holland and Caroline Spears think state-level housing policy is our next great climate opportunity.
Decisions makers are drivers (to your point, they think if you don't have a car you are a loser) AND they do not get the affordability problem of the younger generations. They secretly believe the younger generation is lazy and whiny. Some of the climate people in my area are the worst NIMBY's: They are NIMBY's but won't admit they are NIMBY's. This is a really bad combination for policy and even for climate action. Refreshing to see the divisiveness of the climate movement acknowledged. What can we do?
As someone who helped spir the pro-housing movement in Montana I am so grateful for this conversation! I am on progressive side of our state coalition and I am seeing on the ground in my hometown (one of the wealthiest "liberal" communities) who are resistant to the state level work. Because there are no strong voices in the environmental movement recognizing the value in anti-sprawl policy for housing, they often dismiss the argument that infill housing is good for the environment.
I think that the Abundance people really haven't understood the extent to which they lack credibility on the biodiversity side of environmental concern. In the broader "permitting reform" discourse floating around, there is close to zero interest from national figures in how to make sure that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the Abundance folks really are trumpeting that move fast and break things policy approach.
That's, at least in my view as a former biodiversity guy now energy guy, a huge sticking point between the build build build folks and a lot of the traditional environmental groups that still have one foot in biodiversity and one in climate.
It's totally a solvable problem, the Abundance folks just don't seem to be making much of an effort to solve it.
I found it both, amusing but sadly true, when you mentioned that big venture capitalists are like 12-year-olds who get dazzled by technology and don’t invest their money in traditional solutions that have great potential impact.
With regard to the comparison between Wisconsin and Norway:
Wisconsin emissions are ~19.5 tCO₂e/person/year.
Whereas Norway is ~8.5 tCO₂e/person/year.
So, Wisconsin emits roughly 2.3x more per person, that is the metric that should be feed for thought.
On one side Norway’s electrical mix is mainly hydropower, where Wisconsin relies on gas and coal.
Vehicles and buildings heating systems electrification rates are another important factor.
If the Bay Area succeeds in building all Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) for the next 20 years, and that amounts to 1% of housing stock per year, then 20% more of the housing stock will be transit oriented by 2045.
If people in TOC drive ½ as much as others then this will result in 1/2 x 20% = 10% fewer VMT in 20 years than business as usual.
But the state’s goal is to be carbon neutral by 2045. This means that the other 90% of reductions have to come from EVs. If CA can achieve 100% EV sales by 2035, per Newsom’s Executive Order, then most cars will be EVs by 2045.
EVs don’t solve the problem of urban sprawl or obesity or congestion, but they do solve air pollution and climate emissions and they have lower lifetime cost of ownership -- not bad!
Dave, you might look at the election results in Lakewood, Colorado yesterday. The city, one of the biggest in Colorado, implemented an excellent new zoning and building code plan, which was just reversed in a vote by very riled up single family home owners. Environmental groups (Green Advocacy Project among them) significantly out spent the opposition and were crushed.
Great interview and wonderful to hear urban design covered in Volts. Interesting though that the first 30 minutes covered the issue from a policy and technology lens, and only then did Caroline raise the social side of liability.
One of the failings of the climate movement, which you raise, is the emphasis on regulation and simple techno-fixes. I have always maintained that for climate solutions to be long-lasting, they have to be Easy, Affordable and Desirable.
This is especially true for housing. What people really want is a good home in a great neighborhood.
Which means we also have to think outside of the box.
Decisions makers are drivers (to your point, they think if you don't have a car you are a loser) AND they do not get the affordability problem of the younger generations. They secretly believe the younger generation is lazy and whiny. Some of the climate people in my area are the worst NIMBY's: They are NIMBY's but won't admit they are NIMBY's. This is a really bad combination for policy and even for climate action. Refreshing to see the divisiveness of the climate movement acknowledged. What can we do?
As someone who helped spir the pro-housing movement in Montana I am so grateful for this conversation! I am on progressive side of our state coalition and I am seeing on the ground in my hometown (one of the wealthiest "liberal" communities) who are resistant to the state level work. Because there are no strong voices in the environmental movement recognizing the value in anti-sprawl policy for housing, they often dismiss the argument that infill housing is good for the environment.
I think that the Abundance people really haven't understood the extent to which they lack credibility on the biodiversity side of environmental concern. In the broader "permitting reform" discourse floating around, there is close to zero interest from national figures in how to make sure that you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the Abundance folks really are trumpeting that move fast and break things policy approach.
That's, at least in my view as a former biodiversity guy now energy guy, a huge sticking point between the build build build folks and a lot of the traditional environmental groups that still have one foot in biodiversity and one in climate.
It's totally a solvable problem, the Abundance folks just don't seem to be making much of an effort to solve it.
I’m gonna miss your pod
You really have put an amazing effort in all of this and move so many people to a better place
Thank you
I found it both, amusing but sadly true, when you mentioned that big venture capitalists are like 12-year-olds who get dazzled by technology and don’t invest their money in traditional solutions that have great potential impact.
With regard to the comparison between Wisconsin and Norway:
Wisconsin emissions are ~19.5 tCO₂e/person/year.
Whereas Norway is ~8.5 tCO₂e/person/year.
So, Wisconsin emits roughly 2.3x more per person, that is the metric that should be feed for thought.
On one side Norway’s electrical mix is mainly hydropower, where Wisconsin relies on gas and coal.
Vehicles and buildings heating systems electrification rates are another important factor.
The empirical case:
If the Bay Area succeeds in building all Transit Oriented Communities (TOC) for the next 20 years, and that amounts to 1% of housing stock per year, then 20% more of the housing stock will be transit oriented by 2045.
If people in TOC drive ½ as much as others then this will result in 1/2 x 20% = 10% fewer VMT in 20 years than business as usual.
But the state’s goal is to be carbon neutral by 2045. This means that the other 90% of reductions have to come from EVs. If CA can achieve 100% EV sales by 2035, per Newsom’s Executive Order, then most cars will be EVs by 2045.
EVs don’t solve the problem of urban sprawl or obesity or congestion, but they do solve air pollution and climate emissions and they have lower lifetime cost of ownership -- not bad!
Yes, we need both EVs and TOC.
Dave, you might look at the election results in Lakewood, Colorado yesterday. The city, one of the biggest in Colorado, implemented an excellent new zoning and building code plan, which was just reversed in a vote by very riled up single family home owners. Environmental groups (Green Advocacy Project among them) significantly out spent the opposition and were crushed.
Michael Kieschnick
Great interview and wonderful to hear urban design covered in Volts. Interesting though that the first 30 minutes covered the issue from a policy and technology lens, and only then did Caroline raise the social side of liability.
One of the failings of the climate movement, which you raise, is the emphasis on regulation and simple techno-fixes. I have always maintained that for climate solutions to be long-lasting, they have to be Easy, Affordable and Desirable.
This is especially true for housing. What people really want is a good home in a great neighborhood.
Which means we also have to think outside of the box.