Energy Use = Land Use
Photos
Last Wednesday, several hundred people gathered at ArtsQuest in Bethlehem to discuss the future of the Lehigh Valley. When we broke into small groups, some of us brainstormed ways to make the Valley more energy efficient. Several different ideas were suggested including a comprehensive energy plan, the use of LED lights, and cooperative energy designs. However, one suggestion stood out as the obvious starting place for any energy policy: efficient use of land.
The energy problem in this country is inherently tied up with the way that we utilize land. If you stop to think about your major energy expenditures, it becomes obvious that the main culprits are heating and cooling costs for homes, the cost of running appliances, and gasoline for cars (largely commuting from suburban homes to jobs). By government estimates, these uses consume some eighty percent of all energy used in America.
The easiest way to curb this energy waste is to make our land policy more efficient. That means encouraging people to live and work in the same location and increasing housing density. If the Valley is projected to add some 140,000 more people over the next few decades, then we must try to add these people to the urban cores rather than cornfields if we want to significantly reduce energy waste. Incidentally, many of the newcomers will be a younger demographic who want a denser urban lifestyle anyway.
Energy use and land use go hand in hand and we must be conscious of the fact that the way we develop land dramatically influences how much energy we consume. Technological solutions like LEDs and solar panels are nice band-aids, but the energy savings of one family choosing to live in an efficient downtown apartment compared to the average suburban home is the equivalent of several hundred telephone-pole mounted solar panels. As with most things in life, the easiest solution to the energy problem is probably the best, because increased middle-class density in core cities has spill-over benefits like an increased city tax base, better inner city schools, reduced farmland development, less strain on transportation systems, and increased commercial vitality.
In short, I would encourage all of us to consider the energy problem as a problem of low housing density and develop policy from that perspective. The benefits could be immense.
Dr. T.
6:11 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
a bit hypocritical synopsis from a guy living in the 'burbs
problem is implementation, have a couple of meetings outlining what you suggest and you'll get a crowd on NIMBYs and nothing gets accomplished, sort of like that home you live in Mr Bench, "green hills" that used to be a cornfield / apple orchard
when was the last time you took LANTA?.
Andrew Bench
6:37 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
Actually I no longer live in Upper Macungie, I live in downtown Bethlehem in a very energy efficient apartment, I should update my profile. But thank you for your comment. Doctor Thode, I presume?
Andrew Bench
6:38 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
And, i take LANTA nearly every day when I don't ride my bike to work or the market.
Jon Geeting
9:07 pm on Sunday, July 15, 2012
At any point, politicians can choose to ignore the NIMBYs and do what is best for everyone. Just because a small group of people decides to speak out against something, doesn't mean politicians have to do what they say. That's why we have representative government.
Jimmy H.
9:43 am on Monday, July 16, 2012
lol @ green hills, a community with no sidewalks in 70 percent of the development and no mass transit options, a case study of what is the wrong "land use"
Ron Beitler
11:39 am on Monday, July 16, 2012
I'm very happy that LMT is about to complete a smart growth implementation study. It's unfortunate it's about 2 decades too late. Hopefully we will take the results and incorporate them into new mixed use ordinances that can be applied to infill and reuse applications rather then continued greenfield growth further and further from our core. Our development patterns of the last 2 decades are about as inefficient as you can get. The reason? It's cheaper to build on greenfields then to build in the core. Our financing mechanisms subsidize greenfield growth. Still do today. Our greenfield developments have been built in such a fiscally irresponsible way..These developments don't pay for themselves. (new infrastructure, services such as police, schools) LMT has a 0% property tax. 0%. Hows that possible? Greenfield growth as tax policy....
It's a ponzi scheme. If we don't course adjust then when their are no more greenfields to develop, our schools are overpopulated, our taxes go up and the piper comes calling....( and the transient population begins to move on to the next "greener" pasture bedroom community.... with the trinity of great tax situation, convenient location and good schools)... then whats left?
Liberalism is a mental disorder
12:18 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
Ya... let's all live in crime ridden rat holes like Allentown, so we can save a little energy.
HOW ABOUT THIS... let's go after the CENTURIES of energy reserves we have right in this country.
This was probably a bunch of liberal democrats, wasting their time, but feeling really good about themselves.
"Great" ideas that will NEVER be implemented. What a waste of time.
Peter
12:47 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
give me a break. you can't force people to buy a home in a specific location. people are going to make decisions for themselves...if they want to spend less on commuting, then they will buy a home close to their work. if they value privacy, quiet, and scenery more, then they will get a place in the country. what the hell do i care about what some intelligentsia types who "brainstorm solutions for the energy problem" think. do you have nothing better to do?
Ron Beitler
1:01 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
@peter the author said nothing about forcing people to live anywhere. He said change policies to encourage other outcomes. Cause guess what? Right now we encourage people to live in the suburbs through policy. Thats a fact. Taxpayers subsidize greenfield growth. I live in the suburbs and love it. I live in an old village house and love it. Right now my tax situation is artificially low because of growth. I know however though that there is no sustainable way to keep it so low. When we run out of fields to cheaply develop my situation will change. Look at the new target proposed in LMT and research how many millions in state grants are they seeking in addition to a TIF.
Please try to understand issues and see big picture instead of spouting fox news talking points. (I'm a republican) nobody wants to force anybody to do anything. But at the minimum let's remove the taxpayer funded subsidies to promote sprawl.
Peter
1:16 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
i'm with you on your points about sprawl. my problem with the article is i bristle any time i hear talk about encouraging people to live in more dense residential areas for the purpose of energy conservation. believe me, i don't want people moving into my area (especially people with NJ license plates - drawn here by low housing prices and low taxes). Take away the subsidies. Take policy out of the picture and let the market decide. By the way, explain to me where you see "fox new talking points" in my response. i don't watch the channel, nor any of the other cable news networks, and i find it funny whenever that is brought into a discussion with the intent of discrediting someone.
Ron Beitler
1:25 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
I apologize Peter. I just see so many people who regurgitate certain things so often as a "one size fits all argument" that as a republican it gets frustrating...I have my core beliefs but not everything fits into a tidy package.
Peter
1:34 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
no biggie, it's just a common theme on the patch comments. i appreciate the message on the sign in your icon.
Ron Beitler
1:54 pm on Monday, July 16, 2012
I actually meant the comment above yours thats calling out 50% of the country as being mentally disabled. You can disagree with people but name calling does nothing. Is that touchy feely? Maybe.. But I prefer solutions to rhetoric!
Jim Siverly
10:15 am on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Ron, maybe a wider apology is in order. “Liberalism is a Mental Disease” is a book title and the book’s author has no connection to FNC. I found that poster’s opinion heartfelt and not so much rhetorical. Personally, I consider the phrase “Fox News talking points” oxymoronic. Can you provide an example of a Fox News talking point?
Ron Beitler
12:12 pm on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
I'm very familiar with Michael Savage and his special brand of over the top sensationalism for ratings.
"This was probably a bunch of liberal democrats, wasting their time, but feeling really good about themselves." - exhibit A
There are many Republicans like myself who find some (not all) FNC rhetoric (particularly the partisan opinion) insulting. Mainly the blanket fiercely partisan, anti-regulatory views of the extreme element of the party that commandeers the message.. (this sort of blind partisanship is equally dangerous on the far right and the far left)
Jim Siverly
1:53 pm on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Ron, exhibit A is not an FNC talking point. It may be rhetoric, but a fair question is why liberals, democrats or anybody wastes/spends time “encouraging” (is a penalty or a tax?) other people’s behavior?
What do you mean by FNC rhetoric? Somebody who appeared on the network said something that offended you? Oh my.
Without fiercely partisan rhetoric, would our republic have survived this long? I’m glad you are expressing your views, so that I can present opposing views: The regulatory actions of the EPA are stifling energy production crucial to our economic recovery. I wish the anti-regulatory elements of the GOP were commandeering that message.
Jim Siverly
10:17 am on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
I don’t consider heating and cooling my home a waste of energy. The waste is that we buy foreign oil instead of harvesting that within our territorial boundaries. The waste is government subsidizing costly alternative energies. The waste is government etc.
The American Dream isn’t to live in a crowded city. For some maybe, but I prefer a landscape with deer running through my backyard.
Ron Beitler
12:14 pm on Tuesday, July 17, 2012
As someone whose home sits on a stream and frequently has deer running across the back field I agree 100%. My issue is the government subsidizing the 'burbs' to the detriment of the core. The Government can use policy to encourage, but it shouldnt pick the winners and losers.