Daily Score Blog

While we're on the subject of overlooked academic studies, here's another goodie (pdf link): an analysis of whether cars pay their own way.  The basic question:  do taxes paid by drivers equal public spending to support driving?

The short answer: Nope! 

In fact, we'd have to raise gas taxes by somewhere between 20 to 70 cents per gallon for driving to pay for itself.

Every so often, we get criticized for being too fixated on fostering compact neighborhoods. "Density goes against what the housing market wants," say some -- ignoring the fact that most downtown housing developments around these parts get snapped up pretty quickly.  Or, "Density is driving up the cost of middle-class housing," which is simply backwards -- density is a response to high housing prices, not a cause. 

So we think there are plenty of good reasons for policymakers to be favorably disposed to fostering more housing close to downtown.  But the following chart illustrates another key reason:  Living in a dense neighborhood has less impact on the climate.

The chart was taken from this awesome 2006 article* in the Journal of Urban Planning and Development, on the total climate and energy impacts of city vs. suburban living in Toronto, Ontario.  The basic finding -- living in a dense urban neighborhood cuts your GHG emissions by about 60 percent.  Obviously, it's just one study, for one city.  But the authors took a fairly comprehensive look at energy use, and their findings are generally consistent with just about every other piece of literature I've seen on the subject.  Really, this is just another piece of evidence adding to a fairly solid academic consensus:  denser neighborhoods mean less climate warming emissions.

My head is about to explode from reading this newspaper article.

The article includes a lengthy "explanation" of climate fairness from Duke Energy. But it doesn't bother to point out to readers that the reasoning is just, you know, completely false.

...[Duke Energy Chairman James Rogers] would oppose any effort to auction off carbon allowances... That could raise rates for Duke's Indiana customers by 35 percent by 2012, Rogers said, and amounts to a tax.

"The whole point of cap-and-trade is to put a price on carbon so we can make good economic decisions in the future," he said. "It's not about punishing people for making decisions 40 years ago."

Yep, that Duke Energy sure is looking out for the little guy.

Oh wait, what's that?

Duke actually supports cap-and-trade? But they want carbon permits handed out to them for free?

And you say that handing out free carbon permits raises prices for consumers every bit as much as auctioning? But with free permits Duke would make gigantic windfall profits? And the windfall would be funded by consumers?

Say it ain't so!

Awesome news in the Milwaukee papers this morning. As of today, 49 percent of the American people have decided not to wait for China to lead the way on climate protection.

In the heartland:

Six Midwestern governors and the premier of Manitoba will sign an accord in Milwaukee today that will commit those states to working together to slash emissions linked to global warming over the coming decades.

That makes three --count 'em three -- big regions of North America that are stepping up to do something about climate change. And they're doing it now, not waiting around and hoping that China or India will show them how. The Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord (pdf) is similar to the Western Climate Initiative and the northeast's Regional Greenhous Gas Initiative.