A Land-Use Lawyer’s New Year’s Resolution
January 23, 2012
But new information is casting doubt on the theory. On Dec. 4, the New York Times reported on a new analysis showing that global emissions of carbon dioxide, one of the primary greenhouse gases, increased by the largest year-over-year amount in recorded history in 2010.
The 5.9 percent global climb was accompanied by a 4 percent increase in U.S. carbon emissions, and the United States remains the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, after China, according to the Times. The increase also accompanied the nation’s longest recession since the Second World War and the deepest since the Great Depression.
Policy makers across California have assumed for the past several years that recessions reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, those policy makers are now confronted with evidence indicating that recessions don’t necessarily reduce polluting emissions.
Since at least 2008, California law has linked land use to public-policy goals that seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The fundamental premise is that linking land-use and transportation planning will reduce automobile travel and thus air pollution. By locating people near mass transit, creating extensive bike-trail networks and neighborhoods that allow people to walk to daily needs, the theory is that people will change auto-oriented habits.
Regions across the state have engaged in formulating “sustainable communities strategies” mandated by the 2008 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, commonly referred to as SB 375.
So far, the only region in the state—the San Diego metropolitan area—that has an approved “sustainable communities strategy” was able to achieve targeted emissions cuts because it assumed, in part, that economic downturns result in fewer vehicle miles traveled and thus, less greenhouse gas emissions.
But we now know that this assumption may be flawed. If so, what does it mean for the state’s 17 other regions and their residents, who still must develop their "sustainable communities strategies" and live within their strictures? Because the San Diego area’s SCS has been approved, developers and project proponents in the region can get relief from certain requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act. What about their peers in the rest of the state? Will they ever see like relief?
Policy makers recognize that land use could be only one part of the greenhouse gas emissions puzzle, but it still seems unlikely that any other California region will achieve the state’s target emissions without significant visionary—and perhaps outlandish—changes to land-use and development patterns. The San Francisco Bay Area shares the highest targeted reduction rate in the state with San Diego. It is currently developing its strategy.
So what does all of this mean? First, it begs a question: If the data indicate that the emissions targets aren’t achievable through realistic means, what’s the point? Perhaps it’s enough to keep California in a thought-leader position. Or perhaps the old adage is true: Every little bit counts.
But whatever the reason, if the remaining 17 metropolitan planning organizations are on a path where success is impossible without a complete overhaul to conventional wisdom and upheaval in California’s land-use development patterns, maybe the target emissions figures need a reality check in 2012.
Kristina D. Lawson is a lawyer at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP. She is also a City of Walnut Creek council member and a member of TRANSPAC, the regional transportation planning committee for Contra Costa County.
