Many suburbanites take free parking for granted, whether it’s in the lot of a big-box store or at home in the driveway. Yet the presence of so many parking spaces is an artifact of regulation and serves as a powerful subsidy to cars and car trips. Legally mandated parking lowers the market price of parking spaces, often to zero. Zoning and development restrictions often require a large number of parking spaces attached to a store or a smaller number of spaces attached to a house or apartment block.

If developers were allowed to face directly the high land costs of providing so much parking, the number of spaces would be a result of a careful economic calculation rather than a matter of satisfying a legal requirement. Parking would be scarcer, and more likely to have a price — or a higher one than it does now — and people would be more careful about when and where they drove.

The subsidies are largely invisible to drivers who park their cars — and thus free or cheap parking spaces feel like natural outcomes of the market, or perhaps even an entitlement….

if we’re going to wean ourselves away from excess use of fossil fuels, we need to remove current subsidies to energy-unfriendly ways of life.

The Economist’s Ryan Avent comments on the entertaining response to the piece by US libertarians, who like most Americans believe free/cheap parking is a God-given Right:

One of the results of the piece was a barrage of perplexing responses from people who normally agree with Tyler…

One thing that surprises me is that libertarian economists wouldn’t immediately adopt the default assumption that mandated parking minimums are bad. What does it mean to be a libertarian if that’s not your default position? Ditto for below-market pricing of scarce resources. You’d expect progressive writers to make a strong case that goods a, b, and c should be affordable to everyone and government subsidized as a matter of basic decency. It’s bizarre that libertarians leap to this position when driving-oriented policies are up for discussion.

The best part of the dustup is where libertarians try to argue that inexpensive parking is one of those rare places where the government needs to step in to provide a “public good.” There’s only one tiny problem:

You’d think that libertarians making the public good argument would have no problem defending government provision of and subsidy for [mass] transit, but of course they don’t. They get around this by arguing that people want to drive and they don’t want to ride transit. This is strange in that in few other cases would a libertarian claim to know what markets want.

In DC, I have friends here who bike to work every day. They tell me that so long as you’re aggressive enough with car drivers, you’re usually okay. That and watch out for folks in cars who open up the door right in front of you so you can avoid the delightful experience known as getting “doored .” Anybody surprised more of us don’t follow their path?

If we want more folks to “pony up” like Mykleby says they should, we’ve got to make it easier so those of us without a Mad Max approach to biking will do it. One interesting example of how is a pilot project San Francisco is trying out in Golden Gate Park.

The $250,000 project will move parking spots away from the curb so bicyclists and cars no longer have to mingle on the roadway. The lanes are expected to protect bicyclists and encourage more cycling in The City.

“A painted buffer area between the parked cars and bikeway will provide space for passengers to enter and exit vehicles,” the SFMTA said. “In areas without parking, the bikeway will be separated from the travel lane by a painted buffer area only.”…

The lanes have been a success in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and New York City, said Andy Thornley, the Bicycle Coalition’s program manager.

But even less complicated or expensive changes can make a real difference. Cities have discovered that creating what are known as Bike Boulevards, or a network of streets where signs and lines painted on the road make it clear that on these roads, bikes have priority, can significantly increase bicyclist safety without making car drivers crazy. No matter what cities do, individuals still have to make the decision to bike. But we can make that decision a much more appealing — and sane — one.

This isn’t BP’s or Transocean’s fault. It’s not the government’s fault. It’s my fault. I’m the one to blame and I’m sorry.

It’s my fault because I haven’t digested the world’s in-your-face hints that maybe I ought to think about the future and change the unsustainable way I live my life. If the geopolitical, economic, and technological shifts of the 1990s didn’t do it; if the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 didn’t do it; if the current economic crisis didn’t do it; perhaps this oil spill will be the catalyst for me, as a citizen, to wean myself off of my petroleum-based lifestyle.

‘Citizen’ is the key word. It’s what we do as individuals that count.

For those on the left, government regulation will not solve this problem. Government’s role should be to create an environment of opportunity that taps into the innovation and entrepreneurialism that define us as Americans….

Here’s the bottom line: If we want to end our oil addiction, we, as citizens, need to pony up: bike to work, plant a garden, do something. So again, the oil spill is my fault. I’m sorry. I haven’t done my part. Now I have to convince my wife to give up her S.U.V.

I’ve got a question for Mykleby. Does he think folks who live in New York City are more patriotic or better citizens than the folks in South Carolina?

After all, almost nobody who lives in New York City owns a car let alone an SUV. They don’t live in oil-guzzling McMansions. And they have a much smaller carbon footprint.

Actually, it’s worse than that. If Mykleby thinks the “terrorist attacks of September 11″ is one of “the world’s in-your-face hints” to “change the unsustainable way I live my life,” then isn’t he coming scarily close to saying that New Yorkers sacrificed blood because of South Carolinians oil addiction? And what does it say about South Carolinians that nine years after New Yorkers’ terrible sacrifice, South Carolinians are still guzzling oil?

If you asked Mykleby these questions, he’d probably say, give me a break (or something more colorful). New Yorkers didn’t pony up, it’s just really easy in New York City to get around without a car.

And that’s the point that a lot of very sincere, patriotic folks like Mykleby — and many touchy-feely environmentalists — aren’t willing to face. If most folks live in communities where it’s hard to get around without a car, telling them it’s their fault and they need to pony up is pretty much guaranteed to get us nowhere. That’s the reason nine years after 9/11 we are still hopelessly dependent on oil.

What we do as individuals does count. But it’s as citizens deciding to fight together for a common future — e.g., creating 20-minute neighborhoods — not as individuals deciding whether or not to bike to work, that will determine whether we continue to be addicted to oil.

1. Create more sustainable and resilient communities
2. Green the local economy
3. Engage the community in the climate change planning process
4. Approach climate change planning on a regional level
5. Address transportation through transit-oriented development and complete streets
6. Promote density through infill development and brownfield redevelopment
7. Adopt green building policies
8. Preserve and create green space
9. Plan for climate adaptation

One of the more interesting case studies was of Sarasota County, Florida, which has adopted the Architecture 2030 Challenge,

which is built around the goal of achieving carbon neutrality for county operations by 2030…

As staff members began examining what it would take to succeed on that challenge, they quickly realized that land use and community design were every bit as critical to carbon neutrality as energy use in public buildings. In just one example of how that realization translated into a different way of thinking about policy, county staff members looked at the amount of driving that residents were doing and saw that it was largely predetermined by the pattern of development. The task of reducing VMT became not just an issue of housing demand but also a matter of housing need: where does the county need to locate housing and what form does the housing need to take?

That insight, and the fact that folks in Sarasota care about “protecting the area’s natural systems, the county developed a 2050 plan that

proposes the development of “2050 Villages”–compact developments designed to preserve open space and reduce driving–as well as an initiative emphasizing strong transit connections and TOD.

to get a sense of what kind of carbon emission savings Smart Growth can offer, a few steps from the report:

Transportation accounts for one-third of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, more than any other single end-use sector. Between 1990 and 2006, GHG emissions from the transportation sector accounted for 47 percent of the increase in overall U.S. GHG emissions…

SMARTRAQ [Strategies for the Metro Atlanta Region’s Transportation and Air Quality] found that people living in neighborhoods that were rated as the least walkable drove about 30 percent more—and produced about 20 percent more GHG emissions—than those living in the areas rated most walkable….

The greater location efficiency offered by redeveloped brownfields can reduce VMT by 33 to 58 percent over greenfield developments….

Residential buildings account for 21 percent of all CO2 emissions. A detached single-family home uses 54 percent more energy for heating and 26 percent more for cooling than a multifamily home. Homes in compact developments use, on average, 20 percent less energy than homes in sprawling development.

Will all of this stop the climate crisis? No, because right now the efforts are too scattered and diffuse. But what if the environment movement and folks like Obama were doing everything they could to encourage and provide resources for these local experiments? We could make a hell of a lot more progress much more quickly than we can with all the energy being spent on a probably doomed effort to pass cap and trade.

Come to think of it, if Obama, the enviros, and Obama’s amazing social network of folks who organize to get him elected were focused on these kinds of climate crisis fights at the local level, it might create serious increase the odds of getting something serious done at the national level — corporations might decide he was worth cutting a serious national deal if only to slow down local efforts. These are the kinds of options we lose when we follow Krugman and other economists’ market-based framework.

1. Strives for full democratic participation.

2. Builds capacity for a truly sustainable infrastructure and green economy.

3. Creates and share “green” wealth.

The rest of the report shows how groups around the country are fighting for this vision.

Take Harlan County, Kentucky. You probably know about the environmental devastation caused by strip top mining. At the same time, most folks in Harlan County are in a no-win situation.

There are few employment alternatives to coal-related jobs, even as coal employment in Kentucky is a third of what it was 30 years ago, largely due to the increased mechanization of the industry. Large absentee landlords and local land-owners are unaccountable to new forms of economic development. The local elite maintain tight control over politics, commerce, and public life in this region.

But folks are fighting back, in part through a statewide organization called Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC).

In Benham, a coalition made up of KFTC and the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED) is exploring a range of “green,” renewable energy sources. In addition to wind power, potential exists for micro-hydro power, utilizing the creeks that run through the towns, and small-scale solar energy. The coalition’s efforts are informed by two reports from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: one on models for developing locally owned wind power and a second on viable strategies for local renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements. As the mines “write people off,” with job elimination that trigger growing desperation and anxiety, Harlan County KFTC leader, Carl Shoupe, a retired, disabled third generation miner, realizes that this moment is a “critical time” to take action.

In San Diego, the Environmental Health Coalition is also fighting to create a just, green economy for all. Last year, it

successfully blocked the expansion of a fossil fuel power plant in Chula Vista, California, where over 80% of residents are people of color and 16% of all residents fall below the poverty line. This proposed plant expansion would have more than doubled the size of the existing plant…. It would have been sited 1,300 feet from a local elementary school and only 350 feet from the nearest home in that community.

In fighting against the plant expansion, which blatantly violated the town’s general plan that EHC spent two years working to pass, EHC didn’t just argue against the plant. They won in part because they proposed an alternative vision of the future.

They drafted a detailed energy plan that described the rationale and benefits for alternatives such as solar arrays on rooftops and parking lots, repair of transmission lines, and improvement of residential energy efficiency. EHC also provided expert testimony and analysis showing that these options were not only feasible and cost effective, but could provide three to four times the energy that the proposed plant would provide.

Similarly, in New York City, WE ACT has been fighting for years to take on pollution in their neighborhood.

Five out of six public transit bus depots on Manhattan are located in the brown and black, low-income communities of Northern Manhattan. For the most part, these bus depots are situated close to apartments, schools, playgrounds, and senior centers. Inundated by toxic diesel pollution, residents suffer some of the highest rates of childhood asthma hospitalizations in the nation, and disproportionately high levels of other respiratory illnesses and heart disease. Northern Manhattan’s cancer and child-asthma rates exceed area, state, and national averages….

Years of advocacy by WE ACT for Environmental Justice (WE ACT)2 and other partners have certainly helped lessen the toxic burden of these transit depots. Their coalition work has resulted, for example, in the conversions of 400 diesel buses into compressed natural gas buses, and another 900 into hybrid electric buses. But WE ACT’s environmental justice efforts go well beyond these near term mitigations.

For example, after many years of community pressure, NYC’s MTA decided they would rebuild a Lower Manhattan bus depot that handles 120 buses a day. WE ACT trained folks in the community “in the principles of green building and the science of sustainability,” and now they are working with the MTA to create a truly green depot, including features such as “a green roof, air pollution controls, energy efficiency, and gray water reclamation.”

The report also highlights how some groups who began by fighting for economic justice have broadened their vision to for a just, sustainable economy. In Miami, in 2001 “the Miami Workers Center (MWC) sought to prevent the demolition of low-income housing developments in Liberty City,” eventually forcing developers to build units that were affordable for everyone who lived in the development. As part of their experience in that fight, now one of their main goals is “to deepen community involvement in the redevelopment and green design process.”

In early 2008, MWC collaborated with US Green Builders to host a community design competition, called a charette, of the Scott-Carver site. These charettes have served as a popular education piece for residents, and MWC members and have helped the wider community understand the connection between environmental and racial justice….

Poinciana Industrial Park, a mostly vacant industrial site that for three decades was supposed to have brought economic development and opportunities to the black community. MWC is helping policy makers and developers understand the value of turning that Park into a “green enterprise zone” that will host small to medium scale green businesses. In its attempt to reframe conventional “green” discourse, MWC uses the term “Community Driven Green Industry” to describe the public, non-profit, and private sector ventures that create environmentally friendly products and services that also generate long-term living-wage jobs at all skill levels. As Benford explained, MWC “really need[s] to drive consciousness of what kind of development we need to be focused on,” given Miami’s track record of pursuing “shallow” development versus wealth-generating development.

And in LA, home of the highway car chase, last year the Labor/Community Strategy Center helped create Transit Riders for Public Transportation, a network of 11 groups across the country fighting to “bring environmental justice and civil rights priorities to the upcoming federal surface ransportation act—whose budget is estimated to be at least $500 billion.” Eric Mann, the Labor/Community Strategy Center’s Director, argues that

a strong investment in public transportation can create real green jobs (defined as jobs that reduce fuel emissions, and provide sustainable, long term employment with promotions potential for minority populations).

The Labor/Community Strategy Center estimates, for instance, that 7,000 green jobs could be created for every 1,000 buses built. For every 100 buses, they estimate that 300 drivers could be hired to enable buses to run round the clock. Jobs in clerical work, cleaning and maintenance, bus mechanics, and bus construction would also be created…

“a mass transit system that prioritizes the needs of the most transit-dependent communities can serve the needs of all. The process of getting people out of their cars can begin now, not after manufacturing 200 million electric cars or after constructing a multi-billion or trillion dollar new rail project, or after transitioning to a clean electricity grid 20 years from now.”

You can read more about these organization’s struggles and their vision of a better future for all in the Environmental Justice and the Green Economy report. If you or your organization wants to endorse their Vision Statement, check out http://ejstimulus.wordpress.com/selected-list-of-endorsers/

Playing on the local board sounds interesting. But can we win big enough here to make our efforts worthwhile?

To get a sense of what’s possible on this board, let’s take a quick tour of what US cities and states are doing right now without having a mass movement behind them.

You may have heard of PlanNYC, New York City’s very ambitious plans to reduce CO2 emissions 30% by 2030. Or California’s plans to reduce CO2 emissions to below 80% of 1990 levels by 2050. But there are plenty of other states and cities that are gearing up. Just to cite a few states, Florida and Minnesota is going for 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, and Illinois wants to hit 60% below 1990 levels by 2050. Even some states you wouldn’t expect are setting some targets — Arizona’s shooting for 50% below 2000 by 2040, and New Mexico is going for 75% below 2000 by 2050.

How do they plan to hit these targets? Here are a few examples courtesy of ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability’s report.

Buildings: In 2007 Boston passed a law requiring any private project over 50,000 square feet to earn a basic LEED certification. It estimates that 48 new building projects, covering over 22 million square feet are expected to save 15,000 metric tons of CO2 and $4 million of energy savings a year. And there are plenty of cities that are revamping public buildings. For example, in 2008 DC began upgrading its 120 public school facilities to at least LEED Silver standards; estimates say that by the project’s completion in 2015, each year it’ll save 26,000 metric tons of CO2 and $5.7 million in energy costs.

Public Transit: Seattle’s proposed expansion of public transit, from new streetcars which carry 450,000 riders to adding 36 miles to the transit system, are estimated to save 100,000-180,000 metric tons of CO2 a year; transit-oriented development will save even more. Just encouraging people to bike or walk can make a real difference — Chicago’s plans to add a 500 mile bike way network and 5000 new bike racks, would save 10,000 metric tons of CO2 a year by 2020.

Renewable Energy from Landfill: Columbia, Missouri set a renewable energy standard back in 2004, and to meet their goal the Columbia Biogas Energy Plant came online in June 2008. By converting landfill gas into energy, it can generate 2.1 megawatts of renewable power, enough to power 1,500 city homes. Now with new “bioreactor” technology, it’s estimated that in 2009 the landfill alone will generate “1.5 percent of the city’s energy from biogas, saving $1,194,248 and offsetting 15,929 tons of CO2.”

Promoting Solar Power Investments: for most homeowners, solar power doesn’t pay off. It can cost around $48,000 to install it, and if the homeowner moves, they have to keep paying the loan. So, states such as Colorado, Arizona, Texas, Virginia, and Washington have or are passing plans that let municipalities loan homeowners the upfront cost and then repay the loan through utility bills or property taxes.

Recycling: San Francisco’s comprehensive recycling program, which recycles food scraps as well as the regular stuff, and encourages recycling of construction & demo debris, has diverted 72% of waste from landfill, saving 302,000 tons of CO2 a year — that’s 4% of the city’s overall goals just from recycling.

Solar Powered This & That : Houston, Texas has run a pilot test of “20 floating solar-powered reservoir circulators (SolarBees), which improve public drinking water quality and reduce water treatment costs by replacing energy-intensive treatment methods.” After three years of experience, the pilot is now saving saving 2,190,000 kWh of energy, $769,000 in costs, and 1,436 tons CO2e per year.

In total, according to ICLEI: 200 US jurisdictions have created a baseline of their CO2 emissions, and 155 have set targets that will reduce CO2 emissions by1,360,000,000 metric tons by 2020 – “the equivalent of taking 25,000,000 passenger vehicles off the road for the next ten years” — and 6,800,000,000 metric tons by 2050.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Even if we can’t pass cap and trade in DC, we can still play out some of it at the local level. In 2008, ten Northeastern and middle Atlantic states created the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, designed to “reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector 10% by 2018.” Although not perfect, it’s not a bad start — as the Progressive States Network notes,

revenues from the auctions will be dedicated to promoting energy efficiency in each state…. the RGGI system improves on an existing European “cap and trade” system by auctioning off all allowances, rather than giving incumbents free allowances and a windfall profit. And it much more severely restricts use of “carbon offsets,” such as planting trees or other alternatives, other than restricting pollution emissions by other companies through the trading system.

As I said at the beginning, I’m focused just on US politics, because I’m woefully ignorant of international municipal politics. But just to give you a sense of what’s going on around the globe, here’s a few tidbits. On December 14, Copenhagen’s mayor presented a document at the Copenhagen convention with CO2 emission targets for over 3000 cities. For example, according to C40 Cities, “a group of the world’s largest cities committed to tackling climate change,” London has set a target of 60% below 1990 baseline levels by 2025, Rotterdam is shooting for 50% by 2025, and Paris is shooting for 75% below 2004 baseline levels by 2050. Tokyo is shooting for a reduction of 20% by 2020, and Yokohama is going for 30% below 2004 levels by 2025 & 60% below 2004 levels by 2050. Australia’s capital cities recently committed to cutting their emissions by 41% by 2020. Madrid plans to get to 20% below 2004 baseline by 2020 and 50% below by 2050. Mexico plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12% by 2012. In October, 20 mayors of Indonesian cities signed an agreement to reduce CO2 emissions 60% from 1990 levels worldwide by 2050 through the World Mayors and Local Governments Climate Protection Agreement. And Seoul plans to reduce CO2 emissions by 40 percent by 2030 — and create 1 million Green jobs in doing so (more on their ambitious plans tomorrow).

All of this activity is happening without a massive grassroots movement behind it. In fact, it’s happening while most national Enviro groups are still focusing their efforts on national and international standards.

As you can see, there’s plenty of room to play here — if we decide to stop putting so many of our chits on the DC board.

Up next: an example of a move we might try on the local board

1) Use Base Formula Funds to Maintain the System

Base formula funds should be the primary funding source for system maintenance and preservation. Accounting for approximately 75 percent of total federal transportation funding, the base formula funds should be distributed to states, metropolitan regions, and localities on a mode-neutral basis (that is, all eligible projects should receive the same federal match)…. The formula used to distribute the funds should be shifted away from the current metrics used in the federal funding formulas, which are based on population and vehicle miles traveled. Instead, they should be modified to reward reduced driving per capita, promote the effective use of transit, and achieve other economic and environmental goals.

2) Provide a Bonus Pool to Create Incentives for Sustainable Investment

A new bonus funds program should be created to turn policy goals into workable projects on the ground. Accounting for a significant portion of total funding for new transportation—25 percent—the program should distribute grant funds on a competitive basis. Major new capacity additions for road and transit should flow through this program. The bonus pool should also support planning, regulatory, and land development innovations that advance federal goals.

3) Create an Independent American Infrastructure Bank to Invest in Infrastructure

A new American Infrastructure Bank (AIB) should be created as an independent public institution to fund infrastructure projects—for transport, water, energy, and more—in pursuit of the nation’s economic, environmental, and social goals. Structured as a public, independent nonprofit financial institution, the AIB’s broad goals and lending criteria should be established by its mandate and board of governors, with lending decisions made by professional bank staff using sound financial underwriting standards. By defining project criteria and creati into report ng loan packages with a variety of length and interest rate terms, the bank will help foster an investmentoriented approach to U.S. infrastructure.

Lending to public or private entities for investments in U.S. infrastructure, the bank will be an important source of long-term capital for projects whose returns are realized over many years, such as airports, ports, high-speed rail, major bridges, and new roads and highways. The AIB could be funded and capitalized with a stream of revenue from fuel taxes, general revenue funds, bonds, or some combination of these and other sources. The AIB should prioritize projects that have substantial commitments from other parties, including the private sector, and are leveraged by user revenues.

The bank will also be a vehicle for leveraging the investment of private capital into our nation’s public infrastructure—a potentially significant source of capital for infrastructure that currently has few good channels.

This is exactly the kind of approach to shaping the economy we ought to be using more often. It’s a nice mix of nudging folks in the right direction, priming the pump, and nudging/reshaping Finance in a more sane direction.