Matthew Yglesias (June 02, 2008) - Technology (Domestic Policy)

Maybe we could shrink the country so that the population density is the same as Denmark?

Posted by Dave | June 2, 2008 2:47 PM

If every American lived in a somewhat smaller house

If every American would stop reading blogs on their computers...

Posted by Al | June 2, 2008 2:51 PM

Way to stick it to the man, Matt!

Posted by right | June 2, 2008 2:53 PM

yes, but... the only way to achieve that in a country this size is if you already have a massive public-railway system. One of those should have been built in the 50s, rather than, or at least in addition to, the Interstate Highway System.

Posted by along | June 2, 2008 2:53 PM

If every American would just live the way I want them to live, instead of living the way they like to live ...

Also, what are the Finns doing, keeping the thermostat at 85? Do they leave their saunas on overnight?

Posted by Alan Vanneman | June 2, 2008 2:55 PM

Not only do you need to take population density into account, but you need to adjust it for per capita GDP*. Making stuff takes a lot of energy. In this sense, Germany is probably the most relevant comparison, but even Germany's per capita GDP is 25% less than ours.

* To be nitpicky, you should probably weigh GDP by intensity of energy use.

Posted by Mo | June 2, 2008 2:55 PM

Belgium is around three times denser than France, so I'm not sure density calculated on a countrywide basis is the issue. As we have discussed here before, more relevant would probably be some sort of weighted density measure.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 2:57 PM

Also (this doesn't explain the bizarre exception of Finland) you should take climate into account -- probably in interaction with GDP. It's hard to be productive when you are overheated ... so if you want to be productive in much of America, you really need some serious air conditioning.

But air conditioning is much more expensive, energy-wise, than heating (due to simple thermodynamics) -- so of course, the US will use more energy on AC than some cold place uses on heating.

Posted by DAS | June 2, 2008 2:59 PM

But air conditioning is much more expensive, energy-wise, than heating

Maybe Matthew will next propose banning air conditioning.

Posted by Al | June 2, 2008 3:02 PM

Mr. Yglesias favorite economic columnist has a column in todays Washington Post bad mouthing the formers' favorite approach, cap and trade, particularly the bill currently being debated in the Senate, which Dumbya bad mouthed this morning.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/01/AR2008060101913.html

Posted by SLC | June 2, 2008 3:03 PM

Aren't you the one who flies around on jets promoting a book that is printed on dead trees?

If every American would simply give up ego-induced promotional book tours, our collective per capita oil consumption and carbon footprint would be reduced. Your jet-setting has no redeeming social good.

Therefore, I discourage your consumption.

Posted by Pot, Thy Name Is African American | June 2, 2008 3:12 PM

Re DAS

"But air conditioning is much more expensive, energy-wise, than heating (due to simple thermodynamics) -- so of course, the US will use more energy on AC than some cold place uses on heating."

Not true if one is using a heat pump. I spend more on electricity heating in the winter then cooling in the summer.

Posted by SLC | June 2, 2008 3:15 PM

DAS,

It's less energy to cool by a degree than heat by one and you generally have to make for a larger degree differential in heating than in cooling. At least according to the current issue of Wired.

Posted by Anonymous | June 2, 2008 3:24 PM

Yeah Matt, we're already morons, living like tomorrow is the 2nd coming, so why should we even discuss alternatives?

Posted by cmholm | June 2, 2008 3:46 PM

Cooling gets a bad energy rap in part because we have been using a lot of brute force approaches to cooling thanks to cheap energy. But with things like heat pumps, proper ventilation, and even just more use of shade (awnings, porches, trees, etc.), cooling can be a lot more energy efficient than people often assume.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 3:46 PM

It's less energy to cool by a degree than heat by one and you generally have to make for a larger degree differential in heating than in cooling. At least according to the current issue of Wired. - Anonymous

How is that? Assuming that the heat capacity of your living space is constant with respect to temperature (which I think is reasonable) the amount of energy which must be transferred to raise the temperature by one degree is the same as the amount of energy required to lower the temperature by one degree, is it not?

And then to raise the temperature inside by one degree, all you need to do is to burn something to give off the heat, whereas to lower the temperature inside by one degree you need to introduce the same amount of thermal energy to the outside and then a little bit extra as you can never work at 100% efficiency.

Of course, if you are trying to maintain your living space at 50 degrees (F) warmer than the outside (and your insulation ain't perfect), you have to work a lot harder than to maintain your living space at 20 degrees cooler than the outside, simply because, as you point out, the temperature gradient is more. But for a given temperature gradient, I fail to see how it would be (theoretically) harder to heat than to cool.

In practice, of course, specific methods of heating/cooling might have different efficiencies as SLC points out. Maybe a heat pump can heat with only 50% efficiency (even though 100% efficiency is possible here) but can cool with nearly the theoretical efficiency given by the laws of thermo.

I know I spend more on cooling than heating (maybe that's just living in FL) -- it does seem easier to heat my appartment to 65 oF when it's 50 oF outside than it is to cool my appartment to 80 oF when it's 95 oF outside.

Posted by DAS | June 2, 2008 3:48 PM

Climate is important -- it takes a lot less energy to have a first-world existance in some places than others.

As to whether it's cheaper, energy wise, to heat or cool -- that ALSO depends. Cooling in Houston is considerably more expensive than cooling in Arizona, despite Arizona often being hotter. Humidity makes a difference too.

And Houston isn't liveable several months of the year without AC. I'm not sure if it's technically "bikeable" between mid-may and late October.

The most fit could probably manage to bike a fair distance in 95+ heat and high humidity, but it'd kill everyone else. :)

Posted by Morat20 | June 2, 2008 3:49 PM

Also, if you heat directly with fossil fuel vs. running A/C with electricity produced by burning fossil fuel, you have the loss in that conversion.

Posted by Jeff | June 2, 2008 3:58 PM

I actually like the idea of buying less stuff (which I will only have to store and clean) and more services. Live entertainment and spa time are the services I'm most interested in this week.

Here's a question for those with kids: do kids actually require a big house in outer suburbia? How often is everyone actually in it, and what do people do with the space? I recall living in a gigantic house for one year as a child (we had more modest quarters at other times), and there were spaces we never actually used. We certainly never used all the land, although it was nice to look at and a good buffer from the neighbors. Nothing that judicious lanscaping on a smaller lot couldn't handle, though.

The main trouble with being out so far was that it was impossible to go anywhere without a car, and I didn't have a license yet. All that unused space didn't make up for it... there was nothing I wanted to DO in the (over-decorated) living room.

Posted by M.C. | June 2, 2008 4:01 PM

you have the loss in that conversion. - Jeff

Which is a loss people often-times forget to factor in when they talk about electric things in general. OT, OTOH and IIRC, electric engines and dynamos are both relatively efficient compared to most internal combustion engines so, e.g. in the case of comparing electric to petrol power cars, it may be that even with the inefficiencies of multiple energy transfers, electric comes out ahead.

Posted by DAS | June 2, 2008 4:07 PM

I imagine most posters here are too young to realize that air conditioning didn't used to be so all pervasive. I got my first taste of sleeping comfortably in the summer around 30 years ago. Before that I did what people had done since time began: sweated and grumbled. Electric fans were wonderful.

I still remember theaters with little penguins on the door, "Come on in. It's COOL inside." And, of course, no account of summer heat should ignore churches. Churches used fans that had an effect maybe 10 inches from their blades which were usually set high above the congregation. So everyone fanned themselves with cardboard fans that advertised funeral homes and tire stores.

The point is that the country prospered without AC at every square foot of our existence. If catastrophic climate change demanded that we do without, we can do without. Even in places like Florida. (Did you ever wonder what those louvered doors were for? Did you ever see a louvered door? And get off my lawn!)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 2, 2008 4:09 PM

I wonder if any of you discussing air conditioning take into account the necessity in certain areas of air conditioning regardless of temperature due to humidity. In Florida, it's vital that humidity be controlled due to pathogenic molds. Even simply using a dehumidifier requires a system for air exchange to balance to humidity within a dwelling or place of business.

It's all well and good to suggest you sweat the heat out, but turning the ac off might kill you.

Further, heat is used in much more of the country than ac is used, at least regularly. There are few places you can get away with never using your heater and that's south of Orlando or in the islands (without mountains). But, there's a lot of the country in which homes are generally not equipped with ac or have window units instead of central ac like we enjoy here.

Also, I am always amused when people talk about changing public policy to discourage rather than encourage certain things and people throw a fit as though you're talking about criminalization. The reality is that our cities are planned by the governments; they don't just happen. And, these cities are planned around motorized transportation. If we changed our reality and instead planned our cities around walkability or even mass transit (for those of you who don't like the word public), not only would we see a massive shift in energy useage, but we'd also see an improvement in job equity because the people priced out of the personal motor transport world would then be included in the new system. Amazing.

Posted by brenna | June 2, 2008 4:13 PM

M.C.,

As a parent of a young child, I can say that having the use of big spaces is nice. But on the other hand, I don't always need to own the relevant space. Indeed, walking to the nearby public playground is probably better for our child than would be setting up a similar playground in our back yard, since there are always neighbor kids around in the playground on nice days.

So, I think the basic answer to your question is no, provided that people with kids have easy access to good public spaces for activities that take space. That said, at least a little yard is nice (e.g., so you can step outside and toss a ball around, do a little home gardening, and so forth). Of course, people do raise kids in apartment buildings, but I know the basic appeal to having at least a little outdoor land for your family's exclusive use.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 4:17 PM

The Danes have a modern rail system and a climate that is Goldie Locks even, and yes, much smaller houses in a much smaller country.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | June 2, 2008 4:18 PM

Somehow, I feel that the Thomas Jefferson discussion yesterday has some relevance here.

Anyone else see it?

Posted by Leo | June 2, 2008 4:19 PM

We should definitely make policy that discourages consumption of energy, not just remain neutral!! That's what the government is supposed to do.

Posted by JJ | June 2, 2008 4:19 PM

An oldie but goodie:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/apr/17/environment.highereducation

You can bet despite all the advances in climate science over the past 7 years, Exxon does not regard the issue as that much more than a PR problem.

Posted by JJ | June 2, 2008 4:20 PM

Oops, different JJ's posted 4:19 and 4:20 above...

Posted by Commenter formerly known as JJ | June 2, 2008 4:24 PM

Folks talk as if there will be some series of socialist edicts that will declare that everyone in the future will have to live in Soviet style concrete high-rises or something.

Sheesh, cool it down!

US public policy dollars have heavily subsidized suburbanization over urban density for at least two generations. What progressives who are schooled in markets are saying is: lets actually let the market decide -- undistorted by the myriad subsidies that now favor sprawl.

I've lived in London and Geneva (but spent 90% of my life in my native US) and visited many western European cities. A lot of Europeans have opted for less personal living space in exchange for more free time and for walkable cities that allow things like thrice weekly walking trips to buy fresh produce, eat at local bistros, etc. Other Euros opt for detached homes in suburbs.

The market has done a LOUSY job of offering the first choice in many American cities. And I for one think that US social policy dollars bear a heavy burden in that shortfall of choice.

Not that suburbs should not exits -- but they should be neither favored nor disfavored in how public funding of roads, sewers, schools etc are figured.

As we transition to paying more for carbon (or at least for the time being more for oil), US policy will either have to evem more greatly subsidize suburbanization, or more people will rationally choose urban life.

And for those who WANT to choose it, let’s not stack the deck so that that urban life is gritty, has crappy schools, etc. Most of what makes urban cores seem so unattractive to many are the direct result of disinvestment strategies tied to suburban subsidies and the more recent Republican electoral strategy of starving central city cores as some sort of partisan punishment philosophy.

Posted by Ralph W | June 2, 2008 4:27 PM

There's no such thing as being neutral. It's like some media bias discussion, your idea of 'neutral' is highly subjective.

Posted by American Citizen | June 2, 2008 4:30 PM

The point is that the country prospered without AC at every square foot of our existence. If catastrophic climate change demanded that we do without, we can do without. Even in places like Florida.

Yes, we can. It's possible. We'd survive. But in much of the nation, summer without air conditioning is miserable. I don't think it's remotely plausible that global warming scaremongering or statements to the effect that we use "too much" energy (twice as much as Denmark! Horrors!) are going to persuade many Americans to give it up. Or to give up their big houses and their comfortable, convenient and flexible cars for buses and trains.

Posted by Mixner | June 2, 2008 4:34 PM

Those arguing we could survive without AC -

What about all those who die during heat waves (like in one in Europe in 2005(I think)? Of course people lived without AC's in the past but they also lived without a lot of things back then. Ascetism isn't really the answer to climate change - at least not one most people are looking for.

Also keep in mind cities are hotter now than they used to be due to the heat island effect, cars, appliances and electronics, and, well, global warming. It's just not realistic to expect people to turn off ACs and go back to the "good ol days"

Posted by MS | June 2, 2008 4:39 PM

Hey 4.20 JJ, haha... improbable event alert:)... I'll probably change my alias to mateco.

Posted by 4.19 JJ | June 2, 2008 4:39 PM

US public policy dollars have heavily subsidized suburbanization over urban density for at least two generations. What progressives who are schooled in markets are saying is: lets actually let the market decide -- undistorted by the myriad subsidies that now favor sprawl.

Okay, let's. Of course, this also means no subsidies for mass transit, either. Which means you can kiss goodbye to virtually all remaining rail services in the U.S.

Posted by Mixner | June 2, 2008 4:41 PM

Okay, let's. Of course, this also means no subsidies for mass transit, either. Which means you can kiss goodbye to virtually all remaining rail services in the U.S.

Yeah, Mixner, and if we stopped subsidising highway repair/construction and airports & ATC, almost all people and goods except those by freight rail would over time grind to a halt too.

Don't extreemize what I'm saying...I'm talking about balancing the distribution of our tax dollars to benefit multi-modal transportation (including cars AND local transit AND airservice AND intercity rail/busses) and not to heavily bias cars, big exurban yards, sprawling new serewerage systems, Supertargets with utra-parking ("oh, give 'em a tax abatement--they'll create 50 new $9 jobs!!"), etc.

Posted by Ralph W | June 2, 2008 5:05 PM

I grew up without air conditioning. I didn't grow up in Houston or Florida, mind you, but I've spent many nights sleeping with humid, 90 degree outdoor temperatures, comforted by nothing more than a fan.

It can be done. It has been done.

Posted by Joel | June 2, 2008 5:09 PM

It can be done. It has been done.

It won't be done. People don't give up enormously productive technological improvements, especially for something as remote and tenuous as climate change, until something better comes along. That said, if Democrats want to campaign on restless, sweaty sleep, I'd love to see it.

As for the larger point, remind me again which side it is that gets indignant when anyone has the temerity to suggest that Al Gore might be slightly hypocritical for owning three massive houses and consuming the energy equivalent of a small African country?

Posted by Brad | June 2, 2008 5:24 PM

Ralph W,

Yeah, Mixner, and if we stopped subsidising highway repair/construction and airports & ATC, almost all people and goods except those by freight rail would over time grind to a halt too.

No they wouldn't. Subsidies comprise a much larger share of rail funding than road and air funding. Roads and highways are mostly funded by gasoline and vehicle taxes, which are effectively a form of user fee. Air travel infrastructure is also funded largely by the equivalent of a user fee. Costs paid directly by rail users, in contrast, usually don't even cover the operating costs of rail services, let alone total costs including construction. If we get rid of subsidies, so that users bear the full cost of the service, rail would be even more unattractive economically than it is now. And it's barely scraping by today, even with massive subsidies.

Posted by Mixner | June 2, 2008 5:24 PM

"cooling can be a lot more energy efficient than people often assume."

This is true, but it depends a lot on where you live. Here in Colorado, I only run my air conditioner for about 20 hours every summer. Unless it gets over 95, I don't need to run it at all. The secret is that it gets cold at night here even in the summer. So I can run a whole house fan all night to pre-cool the house. When I wake up, it's about 55 degrees inside and it takes until 6pm to reach 75 even when it's 95 outside (assuming I remember to turn the fan off). My guess is that if I a had a fan in the attic that circulated outside air through it during the midday hours, I wouldn't ever need to run the AC. That's my next project. This strategy doesn't work as well on the east coast. But one thing is for sure: deciduous shade trees and awnings can have a big effect pretty much everywhere. Deciduous tree are the best because they don't provide shade in winter, when you don't want it.

Posted by fostert | June 2, 2008 5:26 PM

As for the larger point, remind me again which side it is that gets indignant when anyone has the temerity to suggest that Al Gore might be slightly hypocritical for owning three massive houses and consuming the energy equivalent of a small African country?

Arianna Huffington also comes to mind. But the poster child for liberal environmental hypocrisy has to be Laurie David, who flies all over the country in a private jet to tell people they should cut their carbon emissions.

Posted by Mixner | June 2, 2008 5:35 PM

As a German who's been visiting the US pretty often, I've got to make one general observation: Energy efficiency seems virtually irrelevant in the US - it's not part of advertising, and when you talk to people, they don't even seem to grasp the concept sometimes.

Examples: Cars in Germany generally use 6-10 litres of fuel for 100 kilometers, American cars almost twice this amount (I'm not even talking about SUVs here). Heating equipment doesn't seem to come with an efficiency coefficient in the US (in Germany, this is the central selling point). Issues like isolating the house against temperature differences (be it for heating in winter or cooling in summer) don't seem to be mandatory for homeowners. But even normal household appliances like dish washers, washing machines, fridges etc. don't seem to be advertised with energy efficiency either. In Germany, stuff like that is a critical factor when you purchase it, since it directly affects the running costs (in addition to the feelgood factor).

This may sound strange, but maybe you Americans simply need to be charged more for energy, water, and other resources consumption, to encourage efforts to SAVE them. Indirectly, that's what happens to oil right now. And once you get to fix your power grid issues, maybe the same will happen to electricity...

Posted by Mentar | June 2, 2008 5:47 PM

The point is that the country prospered without AC at every square foot of our existence. If catastrophic climate change demanded that we do without, we can do without. Even in places like Florida. - Jeffrey Davis

Heck, Jeffrey. I'm only 31 and I remember a time before A/C. But I grew up in relatively dry So.Cal where you could cool off by dousing yourself in water and letting it evaporate ... so A/C caught on slower in So.Cal than in other similarly hot places in the country.

OTOH, I take issue with your statement about our country's prosperity pre-A/C. Historically, the only prosperous places in our country were the relatively cool parts of it. The Southeast historically was stuck in feudalism for the longest time.

While there were many reasons for the relatively 3rd world economy and medieval texture of Southern life, the oppressive heat in which nobody could even speak in more than a slow drawl probably had something to do with it.

Posted by DAS | June 2, 2008 5:47 PM

Laurie David and Al Gore. They breathe, fart methane, and use electricity. The nerve.

Posted by Commenter formerly known as JJ | June 2, 2008 5:49 PM

more anecdotal evidence for you: I live in the Midwest and spend more on summer air conditioning than winter heating.

Posted by freddiemac | June 2, 2008 5:55 PM

Total energy consumption per capita isn't very good metric, as large energy-intensive export industry in relatively small country screws up the numbers. For example, paper industry in Finland consumes more energy than all private citizens combined.

I guess a better metric would be residential + private transportation energy consumption per capita, or something like that.

Posted by Teemu | June 2, 2008 5:59 PM

Mentar,

Like many European critics of the U.S., you are seriously misinformed. Energy efficiency is most definitely an important selling point in the U.S. Maybe not as important as in Germany, where gasoline and electricity prices are much higher, but important nonetheless. In fact, the Energy Star energy efficiency standard for consumer products was invented by the U.S., and adopted later by the European Union.

Posted by Mixner | June 2, 2008 6:06 PM

OTOH, I take issue with your statement about our country's prosperity pre-A/C. Historically, the only prosperous places in our country were the relatively cool parts of it. The Southeast historically was stuck in feudalism for the longest time.

It's been well-understood that the economic boom the South experienced post-war was directly attributable to climate control.

One other factor to take into account when comparing countries is absolute size. Sure, American cities, especially once you get out of the East Coast, are more sprawled out than many European ones, but even if you increased population density in those cities to Manhatten levels, so they take up less area...you still have to travel between them. There's an inevitable energy cost associated with that fact. You need to spend more energy to move people, cargo, food, power, whatever over the vastly larger area of the US (and Canada, which falls into the same sort of situation).

Denmark is 43,100 square kilometres. That's smaller than each of the Canadian provinces and territories except for Prince Edward Island. It's smaller than 41 of the 50 US states.

Posted by Keith | June 2, 2008 6:13 PM

Keith,

But to what extent do Americans actually move stuff (including people) to other far-flung parts of America more than, say, Europeans move stuff to other far-flung parts of Europe? To be clear, I am sure there is some effect on transportation patterns thanks to our greater political unity, but I am not entirely sure what relative magnitude that effect might have.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 6:26 PM

But to what extent do Americans actually move stuff (including people) to other far-flung parts of America more than, say, Europeans move stuff to other far-flung parts of Europe?

To a great extent. The population density is simply much higher in Europe than it is the U.S. The distances between major population centers are simply much shorter in Europe than in the U.S.

Posted by Mixner | June 2, 2008 6:53 PM

> So, I think the basic answer to your question
> is no, provided that people with kids have easy
> access to good public spaces for activities that
> take space. That said, at least a little yard is
> nice (e.g., so you can step outside and toss a
> ball around, do a little home gardening, and so
> forth).

Again, go walk or ride you bike around a 1920s railroad suburb (in Chicago these are now the middle and outer neighborhoods of the City; probably the same in Boston, NYC, etc). 3- and 4-bedroom detached houses AND decent sized yards as you describe AND walkable schools/amenities AND generous public parks (also walkable). AND 1-car garages with extra street space.

How did they manage that in the 1920s and we can't do so today? Oh yeah: they didn't have the "real man NEEDS 3/4 acre of useless grass" ethos.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 2, 2008 7:36 PM

There are few places you can get away with never using your heater and that's south of Orlando or in the islands (without mountains).

Not true. I live in Southern California (Monterey Park, in the San Gabriel Valley), and in the apartment my wife and I have had for three years, we've used the main heater exactly zero times and just occasionally turned on the space heater in the bathroom for a few minutes. The air conditioner, on the other hand, sees a lot of use during summer heat waves.

I received the long form of the 2000 Census, and one question they asked was how I heat my home. I had been living in my then-apartment in Long Beach for a full year at the time (including a winter), and when I read the question it struck me that I really didn't know how I heated my home. So I searched around and concluded that there was, in fact, no way to heat my apartment. And not only that, of course, but I had gone through an entire winter without even considering the question.

When I was living in Pasadena, though, that was certainly not the case. It got pretty cold there during winter mornings, sometimes down into the 30s.

But even normal household appliances like dish washers, washing machines, fridges etc. don't seem to be advertised with energy efficiency either.
Maybe the ads in the paper don't emphasize it, but if you go to an appliance store, they all have a big energy efficiency rating stuck to their front. Plus the power companies are always encouraging you to turn in your old refrigerator for a more energy-efficient one, to not use an old fridge in the garage for drinks, etc.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 2, 2008 7:46 PM

Again, go walk or ride you bike around a 1920s railroad suburb (in Chicago these are now the middle and outer neighborhoods of the City; probably the same in Boston, NYC, etc). 3- and 4-bedroom detached houses AND decent sized yards as you describe AND walkable schools/amenities AND generous public parks (also walkable). AND 1-car garages with extra street space. How did they manage that in the 1920s and we can't do so today?

They didn't. Even as recently as 1950, the average house size in the U.S. was only about 900 square feet. With one bathroom (if that). And a tiny kitchen. And closet-sized bedrooms. Good luck persuading American families today to go back to living like that.

Posted by Mixner | June 2, 2008 7:59 PM

Or to give up their big houses and their comfortable, convenient and flexible cars for buses and trains.

Was it ever possible that they should renounce
their lovely way of life; the variety of their
daily amusement; their magnificent theatre [...]

"Julian and the People of Antioch"
C.P. Cavafy

The fleshpots of the Levant vs. a Hummer and a 3.5 ton A/C?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 2, 2008 9:03 PM

Some observations:

1. All the debate above ignores the elephant in the room. With continued mass immigration, the US Census Bureau says we will have 366 million people in America in 2030, 480 million in 2050. All the Euro comparisons ignore their population growth is flat. The energy industry estimates we will need 45% more energy globally in 2050.

2. Cap and trade bills already are showing what Samuelson warned - farm bill-like special interest exceptions. Already whole lists of people and organizations are being drawn up and introduced into legislation as "removed" from such caps and trades - with others left to make up the difference.
Farmers, depressed cities, minority-owned businesses, carbon burned by all the Federal and State government "heroes" doing the "vital business of the people". All exempt.
And there of course will be more powerful groups seeking exemptions as lobbied favors. You can be sure that carbon from celebrity's private jets will be exempt as soon as they write the words for "charity-related, free speech promoting, contractually obligated promotion air flights". And use unlimited, Al Gore levels of residential electricity. Gore because he gets "green renewable power" from a 70-year old dam built with taxpayer funds and has a windfarm 75% subsidized by taxpayers..other rich and powerful will have similar dodges from the future Agency of Carbon Limit Compliance and Law Enforcement.

We all know how this ends - the connected and privileged will ride and live carbon-capless - the ordinary schmoes of America picking up the slack.

Better we just tax and penalize all the same.

3. The critical vulnerability of exempting China, India, and most of the 3rd World from carbon cap and trades remains.

4. Americans are still spectacularly uneducated about how much energy (precious little) will come from solar and wind and geothermal and all the other 70-30 year old technologies professional environmentalists armed with a Romance Lit or teaching degree are so "excited about". They are spectacularly uneducated about the fact that carbon generation and energy shortages are driven mainly by exploding population growth, not by per capita "carbon use". America was once the world's largest petroleum exporter yet used half of the energy it does now while being a technologically advanced nation with a high standard of living and no congestion. It was as recent as the early 60s.
Overseas, the noble 3rd worlders may use less carbon per capita, but their NET CO2 emissions have exploded as their populations have quadrupled, even gone up 12-fold in certain Muslim, African countries in the last 100 years.

Posted by chris ford | June 2, 2008 9:26 PM

Re: They didn't. Even as recently as 1950, the average house size in the U.S. was only about 900 square feet. With one bathroom (if that). And a tiny kitchen. And closet-

I've seen the house where my father and five siblings grew up in in Toledo in the 1920s. Apart from the one bathroom part, it's nothing like you describe. The yard was quite small, but the house is larger than the one I grew up in (I had one sibling; we didn't need as large a house). My father's house was built up (three storeys) not out, so it could enclose a lot of space without needing a lot of ground area. On the ground floor it had a kitchen, a dining room, a foyer, a sitting room, and a formal parlor. Three bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor. Two more under the peak of the roof on the third floor. And a full but unfinished cellar underneath. There was a small carriage house converted to a garage in back (no architectural monstrosity of a garage eating up the whole facade of the house like so many modern McMansions boast)
My father's family was not rich, so don't try suggesting it. They were solidly middle class, my grandfather a railroad engineer.
I've described this in detail to show that Mixner has no clue what he is talking about. Sure, the poor and the working class lived in smaller residences-- they do today too. But the middle class lived in decent sized houses, large enough for the larger families of that era. Give it up. There are plnety of 1920s era houses still surviving in cities of that age. Anyone can see that you're talking BS.

Posted by JonF | June 2, 2008 9:49 PM

As it turns out, I in fact live in a former "streetcar suburb" built up in the late-19th and early-20th century. It is an increasingly popular neighborhood too, with some of the highest appreciation rates in my metropolitan area--although still with a mix of housing, so the area is still attracting households in a reasonably wide range of incomes despite the recent appreciation.

And how has our neighborhood managed to solve the one-bath, small closets problem? Well, it turns out that back in the day, people were raising families with four, five, six, or more kids, and the houses as a result often have four, five, six, or more bedrooms. So, some of these rooms get converted to walk-in closets, additional bathrooms, and so on, and the resulting loss of a bedroom or two isn't a problem for contemporary families with fewer children.

But of course in Mixner's world, neighborhoods like mine (former streetcar suburbs that have become very popular in recent years) actually don't exist, because of course no one would want to live in such a neighborhood. Nor do the several other popular neighborhoods like it in just my one city exist, nor all the other similar neighborhoods in other cities like it, and so on.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 9:57 PM

JonF,

What you are describing sounds like a lot of the houses in my neighborhood as well, the ones that I would call an American Foursquare. Which is not surprising ... back in the mail-order catalog days, a LOT of Foursquares (and similar styles) were built around the country.

Anyway, here is a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Foursquare

And again, it isn't hard to update houses like this with additional bathrooms and walk-in closets if you are willing to give up a bedroom or two.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 10:07 PM

I managed to live without AC for several years, but that was in the north (Michigan and Ohio). In the south I couldn't imagine doing so. For one thing my asthma does not tolerate extreme heat/humidity well. And as others have pointed out in most parts of the country you are going to be heating a lot more and a lot longer than you are going to be cooling. Plus, heating usually involves direct emissions of CO2; AC does not (emissions from a centralized point like a power plant are easier to control than from multiple distributed sources). And there are ways to handle cooler temps-- for one thing, most household activities and appliances generate heat. Plus you can wear more clothing, though American fashion preferrences tend to dislike heavier winter things in favor of the perpetual summer look, even though most people look better well-clad than scantily clad. There's not however much you can can do to handle excess heat. Only so much clothing can be shed after all.

Re: But even normal household appliances like dish washers, washing machines, fridges etc. don't seem to be advertised with energy efficiency either.

Mentar,
I'm not sure what you mean here. Most appliances on sale do include energy efficiency info in their sale brochures and often on large signs showing their prices and other features. If you mean too many people do not pay attention, you may have a point, but the information is certainly not lacking. As for insulating houses, where do you get the idea that there is not the practice here? Any house built in the last 40 years (and many older than that) will be insulated. There's a whole aisle at Home Depot devoted to insulation materials and fibers.

Re: But to what extent do Americans actually move stuff (including people) to other far-flung parts of America more than, say, Europeans move stuff to other far-flung parts of Europe?

A drive on I-80 or I-94 around Chicago would be instructive in this regard. Last time I was up there I felt as if I would be swallowed whole by immense lines of semis. We Americans move stuff and ourselves around a lot. Even with the EU's dropping of trade barriers and border controls I suspect a lot of European production is still localized.

Posted by JonF | June 2, 2008 10:08 PM

JonF,

I've seen the house where my father and five siblings grew up in in Toledo in the 1920s.

Ah, yes. Who needs actual data, when we've got JonF's assertions about his dad's house to go on. Obviously, all we need to establish the general pattern is one uncorroborated example.....

But the middle class lived in decent sized houses, large enough for the larger families of that era. Give it up.

No, you give it up. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, as usual. Try educating yourself. You might start with this.

In 1950, the average size of a new single-family home was 983 sq ft. 62% of homes were less than 1,000 sq ft. Less than 2% of homes had more than 2,000 sq ft.

By 2004, the average home size had increased to 2,349 sq ft. Only 4% of homes were less than 1,000 sq ft. 57% of homes had more than 2,000 sq ft.

In 1950, 66% of homes had two bedrooms or less. Only 1% had four bedrooms or more.

By 2004, only 11% of homes had two bedrooms or less. 37% had four bedrooms or more.

In 1950, 96% of homes had 1.5 bathrooms or less. Only 1% had 2.5 bathrooms or more.

By 2004, only 5% of homes had 1.5 bathrooms or less. 57% of homes had 2.5 bathrooms or more, and 24% had three bathrooms or more.

In 1950, 53% of homes had no garage or carport. Less than 1% had a 2-car or larger garage.

By 2004, only 9% of homes had no garage or carport. 83% of homes had a 2-car or larger garage.

Americans are not going to go back to living in the small, cramped, poorly-appointed homes that were typical in the 1950s, let alone the even smaller ones of the 1920s or 1930s.

Posted by Mixner | June 2, 2008 10:30 PM

DTM,

But of course in Mixner's world, neighborhoods like mine (former streetcar suburbs that have become very popular in recent years) actually don't exist,

I don't know whether the neighborhood you claim to live in actually exists. I'm certainly not going to take your word for it. I do know that homes with "four, five, six, or more bedrooms" were extremely rare even as late as the middle of the 20th century, so if you really do live in a neighborhood of homes built in the early 20th century in which houses with "four, five, six, or more bedrooms" are common, then your neighborhood is very, very, very unusual, and not remotely representative of American housing of that period.

Posted by Mixner | June 2, 2008 10:40 PM

Nope, no one is buying updated pre-WWII houses in my neighborhood. For that matter, they also didn't just put in a large new development near my neighborhood modeled on this style, and it hasn't sold out. Because absolutely no Americans would want to live in this sort of neighborhood.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 10:52 PM

Mixner,

I have no idea if your data from 1950 applies to the era in which my neighborhood was built, but more importantly it just doesn't matter. Whether this style of neighborhood was average or not in its time (and to be sure it was a middle class neighborhood in an era when a lot of people were working class), today it is a popular neighborhood which serves a mix of households by income. And as I implied, neighborhoods like it are serving as a model for new developments in my city. So I know for a fact there is a market for such neighborhoods, regardless of what you might think.

And speaking of what you think, I really don't care if you refuse to believe me. In fact, I kinda enjoy it every time you go on a rant about how neighborhoods like the one in which I live don't actually exist.

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 11:05 PM

DTM,

I have no idea if your data from 1950 applies to the era in which my neighborhood was built, but more importantly it just doesn't matter. Whether this style of neighborhood was average or not in its time

If it is as you described, it obviously was not remotely "average" for its time. Even by 1950, only 1% of houses were being built with four bedrooms or more, and only a third of homes had more than 1,000 square feet (about the size of a typical 2-bedroom apartment today). The idea that houses built in the early 20th century "often" had "four, five, six, or more bedrooms" is preposterous. The "average" American family of the early 20th century lived in a small, cramped house or apartment. They would have been lucky to have even just one bathroom for the entire household. And that household would have consisted of more people than the "average" household today, making their home even more crowded.

You need to face reality. Americans like big homes, with lots of bathrooms, a separate bedroom for each of their children, a large den or family room, a big kitchen (to hold that 25 cu ft refrigerator, double sink, dishwasher, full-size range and oven, island, breakfast nook, etc.), a yard, and a garage that can hold at least two cars. That is the norm today. The idea that they will be satisfied with the cramped hovels their grandparents lived in is a fantasy.

Posted by Mixner | June 2, 2008 11:39 PM

Cranky asks:"How did they manage that in the 1920s and we can't do so today?

And Mixner growls: "They didn't. Even as recently as 1950, the average house size in the U.S. was only about 900 square feet. With one bathroom (if that). And a tiny kitchen. And closet-sized bedrooms. Good luck persuading American families today to go back to living like that.

This doesn't make sense, though. I live in the Mt. Airy neighborhood of Philly, which (while certainly preexisting, and part of the city from 1854) was to some extent developed as a railroad/streetcar quasi-suburb in the late 19th-early 20th C. Our house is a 3 story twin (duplex/semi-detatched houses) (thick wall - I mostly forget there's anyone on the other side). We have an frankly obscene number of rooms, including six bedrooms, most of which are currently serving as offices/storerooms/guest br. Also a rather decent back yard. Within a block there's a commuter rail station, bus stop (a few minutes to any one of three libraries), a small grocery store, a family dollar, a pizza place, a child care center, coffeehouse, etc.; walk a few more and there's a co-op, bookstore, 'nother coffeehouse, public school, etc.

Now, it wasn't exactly free, but that wasn't Mixner's point, I assume - generally, cheaper will generally get you smaller and denser, with more - well, at least more something - not mcmansions or giant lawns; those folks are paying a lot more; they could very easily pay less - well, given a whole lot of policy and development and etc. changes, sure - but it's not like the only possible option is mcmansion or teenytiny (by modern upscale US) houses - that makes no sense.

And chris ford, why are you such an unpleasant person? Do you need a hug?

Looks at later comments upon previewing -

Ok - I'd be quite surprised if this specific sort of community was the majority in 1911 (when our house was built) or into the '20s - presumably you'd have a good chunk being rural (often small and kinda squalid by our standards); in cities, tenements and such - again small, often squalid, etc., etc. But I'm not sure that's the point Cranky's making. Such communities were constructed to serve the middle class - esp towards the middle and upper end - of the time, and are often in high demand today. Certainly many many folks couldn't afford to live in one today, but they're often living in more urban areas. And of course, a lot of new construction is (ok, was, lately) is larger, less space-efficient, less walkable and less amenity-rich stuff. I'm not seeing why - at least theoretically - we couldn't make a lot more of this sort of community; of course, I know there are numerous economic, demographic, policy, and demand issues that I'm totally missing. (And on the other end, there's also the trend of making urban lower-income housing much more new-urbany, within (significant) constraints.

It's not - why can't we give every slum dweller a lovely trendy six-bedroom home, but why can't we have people moving into neo-streetcar ~suburbs or rehaburbs (inurbs?) instead of sprawling, inefficient unwalkable suburbs, etc. (and as - previewing again - DTM points out, to an increasing extent we are.)

Arguing at utter cross purposes, completely past each other, etc.

And, of course, pulling out figures for average new single family homes in 1950 is going to be a bit unrepresentative . . .

But anyway, I think there's a far more pressing issue here, which is whether density measures for Finland include trolls?

Posted by Dan Solomon | June 2, 2008 11:40 PM

And Mixner growls...

Dan Solomon vomits...

This doesn't make sense, though. I live in the Mt. Airy neighborhood of Philly, ....

Someone else who thinks he can generalize from the single example of his own house to a nation of hundreds of millions of people...

We have an frankly obscene number of rooms, including six bedrooms...

Then your house is very, very, very unusual. Even as recently as 1950, 99% of homes were being built with two bedrooms or less. In 1940, 20% of homes were crowded (defined by the Census Bureau as more than one person per room), and 9% were severely crowded (defined as more than 1.5 persons per room). The corresponding figures for 2000 are 5.7% and 2.7%.

Posted by Mixner | June 3, 2008 12:02 AM

It's not - why can't we give every slum dweller a lovely trendy six-bedroom home, but why can't we have people moving into neo-streetcar ~suburbs or rehaburbs (inurbs?) instead of sprawling, inefficient unwalkable suburbs, etc. (and as - previewing again - DTM points out, to an increasing extent we are.)

DTM has produced no evidence of a general trend away from what you call "sprawling, inefficient unwalkable suburbs." As I seem to have to constantly remind him, unsubstantiated assertions are not evidence. The mere fact that some new "walkable communities" are being built obviously does not mean that "walkable communities" are growing as a share of the total housing stock. The average lot size has declined slightly even as the average house size has increased, as people have favored smaller yards and two-story houses. But I've seen no evidence that "walkable communities" are replacing the standard suburban layout in general. "Walkable communities" seem to be mostly a niche product catering to a small subset of the housing market--mostly childless yuppies and some older empty-nesters. Most new housing developments in the booming areas of the south and west (Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, the Inland Empire, etc.) are not "walkable communities" but conventional suburbs and exurbs.

Posted by Mixner | June 3, 2008 12:28 AM

"The idea that they will be satisfied with the cramped hovels their grandparents lived in is a fantasy."

Certainly things change, and it's possible that Americans may end up having to be satisfied with cramped hovels (or not), but I honestly don't understand who you think is arguing this. Me, I'm looking around the house and wondering why a lot of (middle class) folks wouldn't be pretty satisfied with a rather non-cramped non-hovel that somebody's grandparents lived in (mine lived, by the time they were married with kids, in a Bronx apartment and a Brooklyn rowhome), but which isn't a giant monstrosity, whether on a mini-estate or absurdly filling up a (still. larger) lot, in an completely unwalkable, car-dependent area.

"Dan Solomon vomits..."

Well, whose fault is that?

"Then your house is very, very, very unusual. Even as recently as 1950, 99% of homes were being built with two bedrooms or less."

I'm sure you're right. But what relevance does this have? I don't think anyone is claiming that America in the 20s (or 50s) was a paradise of lovely six-bedroom homes on relatively modest but quite pleasant lots stretching from coast to coast. Obviously it wasn't. Nor is anyone disagreeing that many Americans at least aspire to what by world & historical standards are really, really big houses. What we're kinda saying is that it was (and is) obviously possible to make rather comfortable multi-bedroom, large-yard homes that are embedded in walkable, amenity-rich communities, - rather than really, really excessively big houses/lots in barren, unwalkable ones - and that there was significant demand to live in such places then and, it would seem, now.

Ok, so - your move. What's the problem that you're seeing? Why can't this kind of community become more frequent?

Posted by Dan Solomon | June 3, 2008 12:37 AM

"DTM has produced no evidence of a general trend away from what you call "sprawling, inefficient unwalkable suburbs." "

And that's true. But I don't think anyone's claiming that it's a gigantic mass movement. (At least yet . . .) Cranky and JonF are mostly just saying that such houses and neighborhoods existed (and are therefore possible), while DTM is mostly just saying that there is a market for such neighborhoods in their city - not that it's poised to take over the entire housing sector. (Frankly, I think the new big thing is selling foreclosed houses at bargain rates to displaced polar bears, though this doesn't really help the AC issue at all . . .)

What's popping into my mind (with questionable relevance) is - well, think, anyone old enough to remember, of your average supermarket in the early 80s. Wandering through the aisles in memory, it's rather impressive how much has changed (at least, let me stress, in my geographically limited experience, but still). Veggie burgers! Bok choi! 200 kinds of whole wheat bread! Organic produce! Etc., etc., etc. Which certainly isn't to prove, much less predict anything at all, only to say that fairly marginal cultural/consumer trends can sometimes get pretty mainstream. (Jeez, that's a remarkably weak point. Time to go to bed.)

But ok, we're getting somewhere! What (if anything) do you see as getting in the way of such communities becoming more common - if not all pervasive, at least more so than a niche trend serving a small subset? Remember, we're certainly not talking about how everyone secretly wants to cram themselves into tiny overcrowded hovels.

Posted by Dan S. | June 3, 2008 1:04 AM

Just to be clear (although I doubt anyone but Mixner is confused), I am not claiming that all Americans want to live in my sort of neighborhood. Unlike Mixner, I am happy to note that different Americans like different things, and expect that will continue for the indefinite future.

Incidentally, there actually is a little evidence in my region that some overall residential patterns may be changing. The latest estimates are that my city proper has gained some population in recent years, even while the surrounding county, and the MSA as a whole, has lost some population. That is indeed a reversal of the relative population patterns that started after WWII, and continued until recently. Meanwhile, also recently the highest appreciation rates in the region have been in city neighborhoods, which of course goes along with the population estimates.

But of course my neighborhood and city don't actually exist, because no Americans would ever want to live in such places.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 1:21 AM

In fact, I had been going to say something about how 'now, obviously, there are going to be lots of folks who'll want to live in (for example) giant ugly houses where anybody to young/old/poor/disabled/etc. to drive is utterly stranded, etc (in part because that means that those people can't come in, but that's another part of the story), or ritzy apartment buildings, or faux-rustic cabins out in the woods - not to mention lots of folks who might well want these things, but aren't gonna get them - but I figured it was obvious.

And having stumbled onto it via alicublog, I now have to link to this:

" have nothing against cleanliness. I like to see my elderly, immigrant neighbors sweep their stoops in the morning. This is Old World tidiness, not the same as New New York sterility. A little dirt is good for you--keeps the immune system strong. Today we're besieged by germaphobes. Their fearful suburban parents taught them to slather themselves and everything around them with antibacterial agents. Vongerichtification is their way of cleaning up the city.

The children of suburban Boomers have come back to reclaim the cities their grandparents fled years ago. They bring with them fear and hatred of anything urban. They bring suburban values that don't mesh with the city--and this is different from other, non-yunnie transplants to the city, who yearned to leave suburbia behind. The yunnies refuse to be city people. Dirt, rats, ugly signage? Clean it up, clean it up, clean it up! they say. Or else.

Which actually does get us into some genuinely interesting territory . . .

Posted by Dan S. | June 3, 2008 1:43 AM

Like many European critics of the U.S., you are seriously misinformed. Energy efficiency is most definitely an important selling point in the U.S.

I don't think I'm seriously misinformed. Look at advertising - here, in American flyers usually the power/output of appliances are flaunted, the features along with other stuff. The efficiency and resource consumption is very much secondary (if mentioned at all), at least compared to German advertising.

If it wasn't clear before: I'm not saying that efficiency/resource consumption awareness doesn't exist at all in the US, but it doesn't remotely play the same role like it does over here.

JonF: It's a mixture of both, at least if you compare it to the German advertising. In the US, the relevancy seems to be Price-->Power-->Features-->Efficiency. Over here, it seems to be Price-->Efficiency-->Power-->Features. And the items on sale generally HAVE a much lower efficiency. Just look at cars for example. Also, of course insulation isn't unheard of, but it's much less _important_, it seems.

My point stands that at least the awareness is much lower, and this will probably only change significantly once the financial impact becomes more relevant. Until then, the US _will_ use almost twice the amount of energy per capita than many western european nations.

Posted by Mentar | June 3, 2008 2:45 AM

I'd just like to point out that while Dan Solomon's 3-story 5-bedroom house wasn't median housing from 1911, Mixner's data from 1950 was for new homes in 1950, which was pretty much the heart of the postwar G.I. Bill house-building boom as people first moved to the suburbs en masse. It wasn't very representative of other time periods.

Yes, I know suburbs existed before WWII, but this was the beginning of what we think of as the massive car-oriented suburbs that we're familiar with today.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 3, 2008 3:46 AM

> But I'm not sure that's the point Cranky's making.
> Such communities were constructed to serve the
> middle class - esp towards the middle and upper
> end - of the time, and are often in high demand
> today. Certainly many many folks couldn't afford
> to live in one today, but they're often living in
> more urban areas.

Agree on the first part: my intention was to point out that building such communities is possible because it has been done. After Mixmaster admitted he has never walked around in any such neighborhoods (there are at least 30 such in Chicago with a population of 1 million or so) I don't see much reason to continue replying to him, but the overall point is that it was and is quite possible to build a comfortable walkable community with yards AND garages AND parks AND local resources. Saying "it can't be done" is patently false.

On the second part though, such communities are not necessarily more expensive to build than 3-car exurbs. And when gas hits $8/gal in about 2 years I think we will learn some new things about what Americans will and won't "tolerate".

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 3, 2008 7:09 AM

Re: Also, of course insulation isn't unheard of, but it's much less _important_, it seems.

Can you quantify this? What strength insulation (R rating) is generally used in Germany and what thickness, in new construction? Given that large areas of the US experience colder winters than Germany (except the Alpine region) I suspect that new construction in the US is at least as well insulated as that in Germany. By the way, I agree about cars: obviously the US is behind Europe there. IOn the other hand I'm not sure what you mean about "power" in regards to appliances. Most people donlt brag about their washing machines' power. I think it's minor selling point. Generally capacity and versalitility are what people look for there.

Re: The "average" American family of the early 20th century lived in a small, cramped house or apartment.

The average American back then included a lot of rural people still living in small cabins and farm houses without electricity or running water, as well as the urban poor living in squalid tenements. Of course even nowadays there are a lot of people living in small apartments. However if you look at the housing favored by middle class people with children (like my father's family) you will find that the houses were generally large with multiple bedrooms. These houses still exist and can be seen in just about any city that was prospering back in those days. They are evidence that you can have walkable neighborhoods, or neighborhoods served by public transportation, and still have decent housing. Heck, even my childhood home (a surburban tri-level, 3BR 2 BT) was in a walkable neighborhood as I noted.

Posted by JonF | June 3, 2008 7:12 AM

"I'd just like to point out that while Dan Solomon's 3-story 5-bedroom house wasn't median housing from 1911 . . .

No, I insist it was! And I demand that all Americans must live in tiny one bedroom dwellings only slightly larger than a closet with detatched outhouse (preferably a humanure composing one), and like it! And . . . hey, wait a sec., what's this dry crinkly grassy stuff coming out of my shirt? [Starts prodding self] What the . . . ?!! Oh my god, I'm stuffed with straw!! What's going on?! When did this happen?!!

: )

Ok, sorry, sorry - that's a bit unfair, as Mixner's moved on to more substantive points (and Adam certainly isn't making any such claim). I thought it was funny, though - arguably I didn't get quite enough sleep . . .

I'm often struck (and who can blame 'em?) - no, seriously, I'm often struck by how much the immediate postwar period was a 'two roads in a yellow wood' situation for all sorts of (often interconnected issues) - housing, transportation, energy use (there had been some interesting work with esp. passive solar, iirc, etc. that got almost utterly swept away), race relations . . . . granted, most of that seems extremely historically dependent, unlikely to turn out much different no matter how many times you rerun the tape without starting a good bit earlier (except, presumably, the parallel Americas where the ancestors of today's GOP got their great big containment is for wusses and traitors!! anti-communist war on . . .). But still.

And at the same time, levittown and its immediate descendants - though I think pretty much always reviled by most cultural critics - were a really great thing for lots of (white) families, and a brilliant response to massive demand.

Mixner, so are you basically saying just cultural preferences? Interestingly, I just stumbled across this bit of GM-derived newsaganda:

"Nearly 9 in 10 women (88 percent) say they'd rather chat up someone who owns the latest fuel-efficient car versus the latest sports car.
Eighty percent of American car buyers would find someone with the latest fuel-efficient car more interesting to talk to at a party than someone with the latest sports car.
More than 4 out of 10 (45 percent) 18- to 43-year-olds say it's a fashion faux pas nowadays to have a car that's not green or environmentally friendly."

Hmm.

Posted by Dan S. | June 3, 2008 7:22 AM

There is indeed nothing particularly expensive about building modern equivalents of the streetcar suburbs. In fact, as I noted above, the Foursquares (and also Bungalows and other Craftsman styles) in many of these neighborhoods were originally designed to be easy to put together, since they were part of the mail order era in home building.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 10:00 AM

Dan S,

Me, I'm looking around the house and wondering why a lot of (middle class) folks wouldn't be pretty satisfied with a rather non-cramped non-hovel that somebody's grandparents lived in

If your house has six bedrooms, a yard, a garage, and the amount of living space and privacy that middle-class Americans today generally expect, it's not a suitable model for "walkable communities." If you want a "walkable community" you need higher-density housing that most Americans reject.

What we're kinda saying is that it was (and is) obviously possible to make rather comfortable multi-bedroom, large-yard homes that are embedded in walkable, amenity-rich communities,

Only if such homes are the exception in that community. Only if most of the housing in the community is smaller and more cramped. You cannot build a "walkable community" in which the average home is 2,400 square feet, with a 2-car garage and a decent-sized yard. If you want a "walkable community" you have to sacrifice a lot of living space, and Americans in general obviously don't think that's a desirable tradeoff. That's the point.

Posted by Mixner | June 3, 2008 1:12 PM

As soon as I read Matt's mention of fancy shoes and organic produce I knew it would create just enough opening for the likes of Mixner and Brad to trot out the old red herring about jetsetting liberal elites. Funny how conservatives have a problem with flaunted wealth when the people doing the flaunting are liberal.

To his credit Mixner decided to get serious and point out that rail is more heavily subsidized than car or air transport, implying that its less economical. I'd be willing to bet this has to do with the high operating leverage of the rail industry - fixed costs are very high so the only way to get average cost down is to increase volume. Seeing that volume is low due to land use patterns and until now cheap oil, is doesn't suprise me that rail as it exists today requires more subsidy. But that doesn't mean we can't get to a point where the opposite is true. I could be right, I could be wrong. Until someone presents convincing evidence one way or the other I won't buy the argument that rail isn't viable solely because it currently requires more subsidy. Anyone familiar with how the Europeans or Japanese finance their rail systems?

Posted by baradir | June 3, 2008 1:16 PM

mentar,

If it wasn't clear before: I'm not saying that efficiency/resource consumption awareness doesn't exist at all in the US, but it doesn't remotely play the same role like it does over here.

Now you're backpedalling. You wrote "Energy efficiency seems virtually irrelevant in the US - it's not part of advertising, and when you talk to people, they don't even seem to grasp the concept sometimes."

As I said, the Energy Star standard for consumer product energy efficiency was invented by the U.S., and only later adopted by the EU. Energy consumption information is featured in sales and advertising information for everything from televisions to computers. All large electrical appliances are sold with a tag describing expected annual energy costs, and a comparison with the energy costs of other models for the product line. Energy efficiency is an especially prominent selling point for high-energy-use products such as heating and cooling systems. The minimum legally-permitted energy efficiency level for new central air conditioning systems sold in the United States was raised by 30% in 2006, from 10 SEER to 13 SEER. Compact fluoresecent light bulbs are other energy-efficient lighting products are heavily promoted by retailers and consumer groups. Your statements to the effect that energy efficiency is "virtually irrelevant" in the U.S. marketplace and the consciousness of American consumers is just nonsense.

Posted by Mixner | June 3, 2008 1:34 PM

As soon as I read Matt's mention of fancy shoes and organic produce I knew it would create just enough opening for the likes of Mixner and Brad to trot out the old red herring about jetsetting liberal elites. Funny how conservatives have a problem with flaunted wealth when the people doing the flaunting are liberal.

Try reading the post again. The objection is not to "flaunting lifestyles" but to hypocrisy.

To his credit Mixner decided to get serious and point out that rail is more heavily subsidized than car or air transport, implying that its less economical. I'd be willing to bet this has to do with the high operating leverage of the rail industry - fixed costs are very high so the only way to get average cost down is to increase volume.

No, it's due to the inherent nature of rail transportation. Road transportation is simply much more flexible and comprehensive. Roads support both private vehicles and public transit, and can provide door-to-door links between most destinations. Bus services are much cheaper to start than rail services, provide much greater coverage, and are much more scalable and flexible in response to variations in demand. Rail makes economic and practical sense only in a very limited number of transport markets. Advances in motor vehicle propulsion and automation technologies promise to increase the advantage of road over rail even further.

Posted by Mixner | June 3, 2008 2:01 PM

And once again Mixner simply denies that my neighborhood, and all the ones like it, even exist. For example, in my neighborhood homes in the 2000-2500 sqft range with garages and yards are on about 4000 sqft lots (thanks to 2.5 story houses, you don't need a big footprint to get over 2000 sqft). That is about 10 houses per acre, which was pretty standard for streetcar suburbs.

Overall household density is probably a bit higher, however, because there are also a few small apartment buildings scattered around (some now condos), and also apartments over our local "main street" shops, a few sets of rowhouses, and so on. On the other hand, there are also a few considerably larger homes (as in 4000 to 6000 sqft) sprinkled around, usually on double lots. But I'd still guess the overall household density is around 11 or 12 per acre, which is fine for public transit purposes. And as I noted, this is indeed a walkable neighborhood well served by public transit, just as it was originally designed to be.

Now I could once again mock Mixner for denying the very possibility of these communities existing, as well as denying there is a market for them. But I want to emphasize a slightly different point: I have no idea what the average home size in my neighborhood might be, given this mix of everything from apartments up to near mansions. However, taking an average in an attempt to characterize the neighborhood is somewhat beside the point, since by design it is a very eclectic neighborhood in terms of the available housing.

And as a result of this mix of housing, we also have a mix of residents by income, and also residents at all different stages of life (e.g., very young singles just getting started, "DINCs", younger families, older families, "empty-nesters", and so on). Indeed, people in my neighborhood not infrequently move residences within this same neighborhood as they pass through different stages of life (something we have done ourselves).

Now as I describe this, I am sure I am horrifying Mixner--people in different life circumstances living together in the same neighborhoods undoubtedly strikes him as just as unAmerican as walking to a local restaurant, shop, or park. Indeed, to compound the horrifying unAmericaness of it all, you might actually see some of your neighbors at those local public places! And they won't all be just like you! Eek!

But fortunately for Mixner, none of this is actually possible, and no one would actually want to live in these neighborhoods even if it was possible. So, he can rest easy knowing that none of his fellow Americans are actually living like this.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 2:01 PM

Of course railroad technology is also constantly improving. That said, it is true that while trains are much more efficient than automobiles with respect to operating costs per passenger-mile, they are also a lot less flexible and comprehensive, which is why it is true that trains and automobiles both have applications. Indeed, it can make sense for the same household to use a train for commuting (where the regular routes and volumes are high enough to justify the high sunk costs), but still own or at least use cars for shopping and entertainment trips.

But if the reward to efficiency increases (e.g., as a result of rising energy prices), then obviously more transportation applications will move from the less efficient columns to the more efficient columns. In that sense, it is quite obvious that high energy prices would lead to more applications for trains.

Incidentally, I also agree there is a wide middleground between rail and automobiles where bus service makes sense. To tie in the discussion of my neighborhood, it is served by a variation of Bus Rapid Transit (e.g., there is a bus route which circles the neighborhood, then hops on a dedicated busway for service to the local employment centers). And personally, I suspect that even with rising energy prices, Bus Rapid Transit will remain competitive with light rail in neighborhoods like this, precisely because the densities in question make the local-to-express sort of bus route notably more convenient than a train.

And finally, despite a lot of people using the local bus service for commuting, there are also a lot of garages and car owners in the neighborhood. Again, that makes sense since both modes of transport can be appropriate for different trips by the same household respectively.

Posted by DTM | June 3, 2008 2:21 PM

DTM,

For example, in my neighborhood homes in the 2000-2500 sqft range with garages and yards are on about 4000 sqft lots

A 2,500 sq ft house with a garage, even if 2-story, on a 4,000 sq ft lot would require small yards and close proximity to streets and adjacent housing. This would mean not only less living space, but a substantial loss of privacy and increased exposure to noise. The substantial decline in average household size since the early 20th century also means that many more such houses would be required today to support a given population. Average lot size has declined somewhat in recent years, but there's no indication that the density you're proposing is desirable to the vast majority of Americans. And I'm not sure how a "streetcar suburb" is supposed to differ exactly from a "walkable community," but a community with a residential density of around 1,600 sq ft per person (average household size around 2.5 and average lot size around 4,000 sq ft.) would not be remotely "walkable."

Posted by Mixner | June 3, 2008 3:36 PM

'Try reading the post again. The objection is not to "flaunting lifestyles" but to hypocrisy.'

That's what makes the argument a red herring. You can score cheap points in a blog thread by stirring up some phony populism, claiming to take issue with the hypocrisy of Al Gore & The Elite Environmentalists. At the same time you're using that line to avoid addressing whether or not Al Gore & the Elite Environmentalists are actually right, and whether their ideas deserve serious attention.

Posted by baradir | June 3, 2008 3:42 PM

DTM,

Of course railroad technology is also constantly improving.

The scope for efficiency improvements in rail from new technology is much smaller than the scope for improvements in motor vehicle and highway efficiency. Rail is already uncompetitive with road transport outside a few niche markets, and new technology is likely to make rail even harder to justify. Automation will allow (and already is allowing) us to make more efficient use of existing roads and highways. Ultimately, automation will allow motor vehicles to travel at high speeds with little separation between vehicles and little or no congestion (we'll eventually even be able to do away with traffic lights and stop signs at intersections). New fuel and engine technologies promise to greatly improve motor vehicle fuel efficiency and reduce pollution. Plug-in hybrids, which are expected to be widely available within ten years, are likely to allow 100 mpg vehicles. Rail systems represent huge investments that take many decades to plan, construct and recoup their capital costs. To make sense, a new rail system built today doesn't just need to be more efficient than the motorv vehicles of today, it needs to be more efficicent than the motor vehicles of 2020 or 2030, which isn't terribly likely.

Posted by Mixner | June 3, 2008 3:54 PM

Mixner, you are being deliberately obtuse. A walkable neighborhood is not necessarily one where you can walk to absolutely everything and never need a car, only to many things, and it is consistent with decent-sized housing. People have cited various examples. I gave you my garndparents' house (five bedrooms in three storeys), and my own childhood house (a four bedroom, two bathroom tri-level house in a 60s surburb). There's also the neighborhood of Highland Square where I lived in Akron OH, a place of three storey, four and five bedroom homes built in the 20s and eminently walkable.
Now, sure, if your standard is Windsor Castle or Versailles, that won't be walkable, but if it's middle class housing perfecrtky adequete for families with two or three kids then you can indeed find such places, many of them far better constructed and more picturesque than today's fugly McMansion cheapos. The trick to walkability isn't housing size, it's zoning: if you scatter schools, churches, parks and shopping in residential areas (the way it was done through almost all history) then you will be able to walk to many amenities.

Posted by JonF | June 3, 2008 6:09 PM

The trick to walkability isn't housing size, it's zoning: if you scatter schools, churches, parks and shopping in residential areas

The city of Houston famously has no zoning ordinances. So I guess you must consider Houston "walkable."

Perhaps you or someone else advocating "walkable communities" or "walkable suburbs" could give a clear and concise definition of the term, because the meaning seems to keep changing to suit the needs of the moment.

Posted by Mixner | June 3, 2008 6:25 PM

It is true the houses in my neighborhood are close together and the yards are not large. That actually brings us full circle to M.C.'s question way above--what people with kids do in our neighborhood when they need more than a modest space for an outdoor activity is walk to the local park. And it is quite a spectacular park, by the way ... about 600 acres in total, with multiple playgrounds, wilderness trails, and so on, serving several different neighborhoods all around it.

And so I will wrap up my participation in the discussion here with the following snippets: we regularly walk with our two-year-old son to the closest playground in the park, which has several large playsets and always contains many neighborhood kids on nice days. Our little guy has also become quite the baseball fan, because the local Little League games are held on the fields next to the playground.

And speaking of which, a couple of those Little League players live in the house across the street from ours. Due to the lack of "privacy", our son demands to cross over and play with them whenever we spot them out on their front porch from our front porch (fortunately, those kids love having our son over). And last time we were over there, my wife ended up talking to their mother (who she also somewhat knew from the bus they both ride in the mornings), and is now joining her book group.

Anyway, when we can finally drag our son away from the park or the neighbor's front porch, we usually walk down to a local restaurant that offers something like 1000 beers, plus the best french fries in our area (I get both, my son just the fries). Although when it is just us adults (e.g., when the girl who lives in the house across the back alley from us is watching our son--by the way, getting to know that family was yet another consequence of a lack of "privacy"), we also frequent the local French/Italian bistro and Thai restaurant.

But obviously, no true American would ever want to live like this.

Posted by DTM | June 4, 2008 12:20 AM

Oh, and here is wikipedia on "walkability":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian-friendly

Posted by DTM | June 4, 2008 12:30 AM

Mixner, have you ever read anything by Jane Jacobs? You'd be surprised about what so-called "Americans" will and won't put up with for living quarters.

I predict, that as energy and transportation costs get higher, people are going to discover the joys of living in a walkable neighborhood in smaller housing closer to the jobs accessible by public transportation.

And if trains are all that economically inefficient, how did they get started in the first place? When you're doing your comparison, please add into the calculation the cost of building and maintaining the US road system, please. It didn't appear magically out of thin air.

Posted by grumpy realist | June 4, 2008 1:15 AM

Re: Perhaps you or someone else advocating "walkable communities" or "walkable suburbs" could give a clear and concise definition of the term, because the meaning seems to keep changing to suit the needs of the moment.

I agree different people use this term in different ways. There's a hard core anti-car sect (with which our host seems to flirt) that uses "walkable" to mean "never need a car for anything". I use it more loosely: a walkable neighborhood has sidewalks that can be used to access a number of amenities (but not everything) less than a mile away. The most important such amenities are schools (grade schools at least) a park, one or more churches, and a grocery store. Banks, doctor offices, convenience stores, and a pharmacy would be somewhat lower on the list. And even if one does prefer to drive, or needs to when the weather is bad, when transporting passengers or carego, then having such things close at hand is a godsend with today's gas prices.

Posted by JonF | June 4, 2008 7:11 AM

Technology

Comments (91)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories