WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.455 align:middle line:90% [SQUEAKING] 00:00:02.455 --> 00:00:04.419 align:middle line:90% [RUSTLING] 00:00:04.419 --> 00:00:09.992 align:middle line:90% [CLICKING] 00:00:09.992 --> 00:00:11.325 align:middle line:90% DAVID HSU: My name is David Hsu. 00:00:11.325 --> 00:00:14.680 align:middle line:84% I'm a professor of urban studies and planning at MIT. 00:00:14.680 --> 00:00:18.630 align:middle line:84% And this is another lecture in the urban energy systems class 00:00:18.630 --> 00:00:20.590 align:middle line:90% at MIT. 00:00:20.590 --> 00:00:23.680 align:middle line:84% Today we're going to talk about the role of the built 00:00:23.680 --> 00:00:27.950 align:middle line:84% environment, and land use, and decarbonization in cities. 00:00:27.950 --> 00:00:30.790 align:middle line:84% This is our fourth lecture, hopefully convincing you 00:00:30.790 --> 00:00:35.200 align:middle line:84% about the importance of cities in achieving decarbonization, 00:00:35.200 --> 00:00:37.660 align:middle line:84% and why we should look at cities of particular scale 00:00:37.660 --> 00:00:40.350 align:middle line:90% of interest. 00:00:40.350 --> 00:00:42.390 align:middle line:84% The materials for today are on the syllabus. 00:00:42.390 --> 00:00:45.810 align:middle line:84% We're going to talk about Ontario's Greenbelt. We're 00:00:45.810 --> 00:00:48.360 align:middle line:84% going to talk about a crusader for clean power 00:00:48.360 --> 00:00:49.680 align:middle line:90% in the Tea Party. 00:00:49.680 --> 00:00:53.490 align:middle line:84% We're going to talk about local politics and their role 00:00:53.490 --> 00:00:57.668 align:middle line:84% in perhaps helping and perhaps rewarding decarbonization. 00:00:57.668 --> 00:00:59.460 align:middle line:84% We're going to talk about a particular case 00:00:59.460 --> 00:01:01.360 align:middle line:90% study in Copake, New York. 00:01:01.360 --> 00:01:03.030 align:middle line:84% And finally, we'll talk a little bit 00:01:03.030 --> 00:01:08.080 align:middle line:84% about what permitting reform might mean for decarbonization. 00:01:08.080 --> 00:01:09.490 align:middle line:90% So let's just-- 00:01:09.490 --> 00:01:11.350 align:middle line:84% I'm going to structure our talk today 00:01:11.350 --> 00:01:15.220 align:middle line:84% with three key questions about land use and decarbonization. 00:01:15.220 --> 00:01:19.720 align:middle line:84% First, let's ask, simply, should cities continue to expand? 00:01:19.720 --> 00:01:21.850 align:middle line:84% I think I showed you a few weeks ago 00:01:21.850 --> 00:01:25.690 align:middle line:84% or a few lectures ago the statistics from the UN 00:01:25.690 --> 00:01:29.980 align:middle line:84% urbanization prospects, showing every major region of the world 00:01:29.980 --> 00:01:32.960 align:middle line:84% continuing to urbanize-- some faster than others, 00:01:32.960 --> 00:01:34.870 align:middle line:84% but every region of the world is going 00:01:34.870 --> 00:01:38.470 align:middle line:84% to be a majority urban population in the coming years, 00:01:38.470 --> 00:01:40.070 align:middle line:90% over the next 30 years. 00:01:40.070 --> 00:01:41.560 align:middle line:84% So there's a fundamental question. 00:01:41.560 --> 00:01:44.080 align:middle line:84% Should cities continue to expand or not? 00:01:44.080 --> 00:01:46.150 align:middle line:84% Should they expand in terms of area? 00:01:46.150 --> 00:01:48.980 align:middle line:84% Do they expand in terms of their proportion of the population? 00:01:48.980 --> 00:01:53.418 align:middle line:84% These are things that we have to plan for going forward. 00:01:53.418 --> 00:01:55.210 align:middle line:84% Another key question we'll talk about today 00:01:55.210 --> 00:01:57.460 align:middle line:84% is, what is the role of land use planning 00:01:57.460 --> 00:02:00.430 align:middle line:84% in shaping the energy use and climate impact of the built 00:02:00.430 --> 00:02:01.340 align:middle line:90% environment? 00:02:01.340 --> 00:02:03.670 align:middle line:84% In other words, if we shape land use, 00:02:03.670 --> 00:02:05.620 align:middle line:84% how does that shape subsequent development 00:02:05.620 --> 00:02:09.220 align:middle line:84% and subsequent energy use and climate impact? 00:02:09.220 --> 00:02:11.440 align:middle line:84% Finally, another key question we'll 00:02:11.440 --> 00:02:13.360 align:middle line:84% talk about in this lecture, and also 00:02:13.360 --> 00:02:15.340 align:middle line:84% talk about in our discussion is, who 00:02:15.340 --> 00:02:17.530 align:middle line:84% and how should land uses be decided? 00:02:17.530 --> 00:02:18.970 align:middle line:90% What's the correct framing? 00:02:18.970 --> 00:02:21.780 align:middle line:84% We talked about climate justice last time. 00:02:21.780 --> 00:02:25.030 align:middle line:84% We talked about rhetorical framing of justice concerns 00:02:25.030 --> 00:02:27.220 align:middle line:84% that everyone has, but different populations 00:02:27.220 --> 00:02:30.470 align:middle line:84% may react to different framings or rhetorics differently. 00:02:30.470 --> 00:02:32.980 align:middle line:84% But if we're going to talk about how land use should 00:02:32.980 --> 00:02:35.350 align:middle line:84% be governed or land use should be decided, 00:02:35.350 --> 00:02:37.070 align:middle line:90% what framing should we use? 00:02:37.070 --> 00:02:38.528 align:middle line:84% And that's something we'll probably 00:02:38.528 --> 00:02:41.620 align:middle line:90% talk about mostly in class. 00:02:41.620 --> 00:02:43.380 align:middle line:84% So to start with the Tomalty report, 00:02:43.380 --> 00:02:46.140 align:middle line:84% this is a report about Ontario's Greenbelt 00:02:46.140 --> 00:02:48.660 align:middle line:84% around the city of Toronto, one of the largest 00:02:48.660 --> 00:02:50.610 align:middle line:90% greenbelts in the world. 00:02:50.610 --> 00:02:54.000 align:middle line:84% And it has a number of notable features. 00:02:54.000 --> 00:02:57.780 align:middle line:84% It has this like 300-kilometer, I think, long corridor. 00:02:57.780 --> 00:03:01.320 align:middle line:84% It has a lot of agricultural land inside the Greenbelt 00:03:01.320 --> 00:03:03.360 align:middle line:90% itself. 00:03:03.360 --> 00:03:06.357 align:middle line:84% And just to show you examples of other greenbelts, 00:03:06.357 --> 00:03:08.940 align:middle line:84% this is London's greenbelt. This is a greenbelt that, I think, 00:03:08.940 --> 00:03:12.060 align:middle line:84% has existed for almost 100 years, designed to govern 00:03:12.060 --> 00:03:13.320 align:middle line:90% the expansion of London. 00:03:13.320 --> 00:03:18.028 align:middle line:84% London has been expanding for maybe 250 years 00:03:18.028 --> 00:03:20.070 align:middle line:84% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. 00:03:20.070 --> 00:03:21.780 align:middle line:84% And the greenbelt was put in place 00:03:21.780 --> 00:03:24.090 align:middle line:84% to try to govern development and try 00:03:24.090 --> 00:03:26.790 align:middle line:84% to limit the extent of London, which is an increasing 00:03:26.790 --> 00:03:29.190 align:middle line:90% portion of the entire country. 00:03:29.190 --> 00:03:32.610 align:middle line:84% Of course, London, as we know, is a dynamic urban environment. 00:03:32.610 --> 00:03:35.310 align:middle line:84% In some cases, development has leapfrogged the greenbelt, 00:03:35.310 --> 00:03:38.130 align:middle line:84% and some people commute in across the greenbelt every day 00:03:38.130 --> 00:03:39.090 align:middle line:90% to London. 00:03:39.090 --> 00:03:42.090 align:middle line:84% And of course, there is some development in the greenbelt. 00:03:42.090 --> 00:03:44.640 align:middle line:84% This is from the London Greenbelt Council. 00:03:44.640 --> 00:03:47.880 align:middle line:84% They've put together this map of development projects, which 00:03:47.880 --> 00:03:50.440 align:middle line:84% means that they're proposals to build on protected greenbelt 00:03:50.440 --> 00:03:50.940 align:middle line:90% sites. 00:03:50.940 --> 00:03:53.550 align:middle line:84% So greenbelts are a policy that can 00:03:53.550 --> 00:03:56.100 align:middle line:84% be used to constrain development or shape development, 00:03:56.100 --> 00:03:58.980 align:middle line:84% but also they have to be maintained, protected, 00:03:58.980 --> 00:04:01.420 align:middle line:90% or perhaps modified over time. 00:04:01.420 --> 00:04:06.490 align:middle line:84% Another city that famously has a greenbelt is Seoul, Korea. 00:04:06.490 --> 00:04:09.300 align:middle line:84% So let's just talk about the implications of the greenbelt 00:04:09.300 --> 00:04:12.000 align:middle line:84% and land use planning for urban expansion 00:04:12.000 --> 00:04:14.500 align:middle line:84% and for the shape of the city itself. 00:04:14.500 --> 00:04:17.190 align:middle line:84% Here's a few greenbelt facts from the Toronto Greenbelt 00:04:17.190 --> 00:04:17.910 align:middle line:90% Report. 00:04:17.910 --> 00:04:21.459 align:middle line:90% It's close to 750,000 hectares-- 00:04:21.459 --> 00:04:25.400 align:middle line:84% 1.8 million acres, the largest greenbelt in the world. 00:04:25.400 --> 00:04:28.040 align:middle line:84% It's an integrated band of mostly green countryside, 00:04:28.040 --> 00:04:29.870 align:middle line:84% allowing for more complete ecosystem 00:04:29.870 --> 00:04:32.550 align:middle line:84% habitats and continuous migration routes. 00:04:32.550 --> 00:04:35.720 align:middle line:84% It allows for more complete habitats 00:04:35.720 --> 00:04:38.120 align:middle line:84% and migration routes than do isolated parks. 00:04:38.120 --> 00:04:41.330 align:middle line:84% One thing that ecologists tend to look at for species 00:04:41.330 --> 00:04:44.630 align:middle line:84% or for fauna is how large the patch size is. 00:04:44.630 --> 00:04:47.190 align:middle line:84% How large is the size of the ecosystem 00:04:47.190 --> 00:04:48.800 align:middle line:84% so it can develop more complexity 00:04:48.800 --> 00:04:51.830 align:middle line:84% and develop more species and more freedom of movement 00:04:51.830 --> 00:04:55.820 align:middle line:90% for animals and other species? 00:04:55.820 --> 00:04:59.450 align:middle line:84% The Greenbelt in Toronto has 217,000 00:04:59.450 --> 00:05:04.670 align:middle line:84% hectares or 535,000 acres of lakes, wetlands, river valleys, 00:05:04.670 --> 00:05:07.640 align:middle line:84% and forests, providing habitat for over one third 00:05:07.640 --> 00:05:10.390 align:middle line:90% of Ontario's species at risk. 00:05:10.390 --> 00:05:13.180 align:middle line:84% It preserves space for locally accessible tourism, recreation, 00:05:13.180 --> 00:05:15.550 align:middle line:90% and outdoor activities. 00:05:15.550 --> 00:05:18.550 align:middle line:84% It has over 7,000 farms in the Greenbelt. Agriculture 00:05:18.550 --> 00:05:20.500 align:middle line:84% is the predominant land use in the Greenbelt, 00:05:20.500 --> 00:05:26.320 align:middle line:84% generating $1.5 billion in gross farm receipts annually. 00:05:26.320 --> 00:05:29.980 align:middle line:84% And here's the key point that we want to take home and discuss 00:05:29.980 --> 00:05:31.780 align:middle line:90% from this Greenbelt report. 00:05:31.780 --> 00:05:35.620 align:middle line:84% In terms of carbon storage, the Greenbelt stores about 1.4-- 00:05:35.620 --> 00:05:39.650 align:middle line:84% sorry-- 147 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. 00:05:39.650 --> 00:05:41.380 align:middle line:84% And to put this in perspective and kind 00:05:41.380 --> 00:05:45.355 align:middle line:84% of highlight reasoning, we want to put this quantity of carbon 00:05:45.355 --> 00:05:47.590 align:middle line:84% in perspective, this amounts to more than twice 00:05:47.590 --> 00:05:51.640 align:middle line:84% the total CO2 released each year in Ontario transportation, 00:05:51.640 --> 00:05:54.310 align:middle line:84% the province's largest source of emissions. 00:05:54.310 --> 00:05:56.320 align:middle line:84% And I highlighted this in blue because I 00:05:56.320 --> 00:06:01.150 align:middle line:84% want to discuss this carbon storage in a number of ways. 00:06:01.150 --> 00:06:05.670 align:middle line:84% The Greenbelt is continuously uptaking carbon 00:06:05.670 --> 00:06:08.730 align:middle line:84% from the atmosphere and continually growing vegetation, 00:06:08.730 --> 00:06:11.910 align:middle line:84% but it may not actually continue to grow in the way 00:06:11.910 --> 00:06:13.712 align:middle line:84% that our greenhouse gas emissions are. 00:06:13.712 --> 00:06:15.420 align:middle line:84% This is why we have a fundamental problem 00:06:15.420 --> 00:06:16.410 align:middle line:90% with climate change. 00:06:16.410 --> 00:06:20.230 align:middle line:84% We continue to emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 00:06:20.230 --> 00:06:22.920 align:middle line:84% Even though the total amount of greenhouse gases 00:06:22.920 --> 00:06:26.610 align:middle line:84% are relatively small compared to natural processes, what we're 00:06:26.610 --> 00:06:28.060 align:middle line:90% doing is upsetting the balance. 00:06:28.060 --> 00:06:30.960 align:middle line:84% And so I think in some ways it's worth discussing. 00:06:30.960 --> 00:06:33.870 align:middle line:84% This carbon storage is a fixed quantity. 00:06:33.870 --> 00:06:37.980 align:middle line:84% It represents twice the CO2 from transportation, the province's 00:06:37.980 --> 00:06:40.320 align:middle line:84% largest source of emissions, but it may not 00:06:40.320 --> 00:06:43.290 align:middle line:84% be continually uptaking twice the amount of CO2 00:06:43.290 --> 00:06:45.240 align:middle line:90% per year as transportation. 00:06:45.240 --> 00:06:47.670 align:middle line:84% In other words, this is to say that it's good that we 00:06:47.670 --> 00:06:49.530 align:middle line:90% have the carbon storage. 00:06:49.530 --> 00:06:51.960 align:middle line:84% We have lots of other ecological benefits 00:06:51.960 --> 00:06:55.260 align:middle line:84% from the Greenbelt. Having said that, there's 00:06:55.260 --> 00:06:59.310 align:middle line:84% a considerable amount of debate among ecologists about how 00:06:59.310 --> 00:07:03.720 align:middle line:84% this quantity of carbon storage is going to change over time. 00:07:03.720 --> 00:07:07.230 align:middle line:84% Is it possible to continue to uptake more carbon? 00:07:07.230 --> 00:07:10.818 align:middle line:84% Is it going to expand any more in the future, 00:07:10.818 --> 00:07:12.360 align:middle line:84% depending on how we manage this land? 00:07:12.360 --> 00:07:14.640 align:middle line:84% But it's not going to continue to expand in the way 00:07:14.640 --> 00:07:16.980 align:middle line:84% that we are emitting greenhouse gases from all 00:07:16.980 --> 00:07:18.880 align:middle line:90% of our activities. 00:07:18.880 --> 00:07:21.360 align:middle line:84% And so this brings me to the idea of nature-based climate 00:07:21.360 --> 00:07:22.000 align:middle line:90% solutions. 00:07:22.000 --> 00:07:26.610 align:middle line:84% This is an incredibly popular idea among the general public, 00:07:26.610 --> 00:07:29.880 align:middle line:84% and scientists, and some activists. 00:07:29.880 --> 00:07:33.360 align:middle line:84% And this fairly distinguished group of scientists 00:07:33.360 --> 00:07:36.480 align:middle line:84% published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 00:07:36.480 --> 00:07:39.240 align:middle line:84% an article, "Natural Climate Solutions." 00:07:39.240 --> 00:07:41.550 align:middle line:84% And in this article, they basically 00:07:41.550 --> 00:07:43.350 align:middle line:84% argue that there's climate mitigation 00:07:43.350 --> 00:07:49.610 align:middle line:84% potential from a number of natural ecosystem solutions. 00:07:49.610 --> 00:07:53.670 align:middle line:84% On the left-hand side, you can see 20 or so natural pathways. 00:07:53.670 --> 00:07:57.000 align:middle line:90% It involves reforesting lands. 00:07:57.000 --> 00:08:01.980 align:middle line:84% And forests also, you can avoid further forest conversion. 00:08:01.980 --> 00:08:04.590 align:middle line:84% You could do better management of natural forests. 00:08:04.590 --> 00:08:07.650 align:middle line:84% You can improve plantation management of forests. 00:08:07.650 --> 00:08:09.870 align:middle line:84% You could avoid trying to use wood fuels. 00:08:09.870 --> 00:08:11.310 align:middle line:84% And you could do fire management. 00:08:11.310 --> 00:08:14.430 align:middle line:84% And those would all improve the climate mitigation potential 00:08:14.430 --> 00:08:15.900 align:middle line:90% of forests. 00:08:15.900 --> 00:08:18.000 align:middle line:84% In terms of agriculture and grasslands, 00:08:18.000 --> 00:08:20.040 align:middle line:84% you could try to develop biochar. 00:08:20.040 --> 00:08:22.710 align:middle line:84% It's a form of carbon storage in charcoal. 00:08:22.710 --> 00:08:25.320 align:middle line:84% You could try to put more trees in croplands. 00:08:25.320 --> 00:08:28.560 align:middle line:84% You could do a better job of managing nutrients. 00:08:28.560 --> 00:08:32.700 align:middle line:84% You could increase the grazing or feed-- 00:08:32.700 --> 00:08:34.110 align:middle line:90% improve grazing or feed. 00:08:34.110 --> 00:08:35.760 align:middle line:84% You could do conservation agriculture, 00:08:35.760 --> 00:08:38.627 align:middle line:84% and you can improve varieties of rice, and so on, and so 00:08:38.627 --> 00:08:39.210 align:middle line:90% on, and so on. 00:08:39.210 --> 00:08:40.770 align:middle line:84% And wetlands are important to note, 00:08:40.770 --> 00:08:43.320 align:middle line:84% you can do coastal restoration, peat restoration, 00:08:43.320 --> 00:08:44.970 align:middle line:90% and avoid peat impacts. 00:08:44.970 --> 00:08:48.360 align:middle line:84% And what these bars on the graph show you are the total climate 00:08:48.360 --> 00:08:49.840 align:middle line:90% mitigation potential. 00:08:49.840 --> 00:08:52.080 align:middle line:84% There's a few things I want to highlight about this. 00:08:52.080 --> 00:08:55.170 align:middle line:84% First, the scientists in this article 00:08:55.170 --> 00:08:57.930 align:middle line:84% are arguing for nature-based carbon climate solutions, 00:08:57.930 --> 00:09:00.930 align:middle line:84% and they actually found a fairly large climate mitigation 00:09:00.930 --> 00:09:01.710 align:middle line:90% potential. 00:09:01.710 --> 00:09:03.870 align:middle line:84% If you'll keep in mind the number we discussed 00:09:03.870 --> 00:09:07.350 align:middle line:84% in the first class of greenhouse gas emissions, ranging from, 00:09:07.350 --> 00:09:12.190 align:middle line:84% let's say, 25 to about 30 or 40 gigatons per year, 00:09:12.190 --> 00:09:14.610 align:middle line:84% depending on your data source and what you count, 00:09:14.610 --> 00:09:17.160 align:middle line:84% then this climate mitigation potential in 2030 00:09:17.160 --> 00:09:19.770 align:middle line:84% actually looks fairly significant. 00:09:19.770 --> 00:09:22.290 align:middle line:90% It looks like we have roughly-- 00:09:22.290 --> 00:09:25.320 align:middle line:84% this bar graph is composed of how much it might cost. 00:09:25.320 --> 00:09:28.920 align:middle line:84% And you can see that the bar is almost as big as 10 00:09:28.920 --> 00:09:30.870 align:middle line:90% petagrams of CO2 per year. 00:09:30.870 --> 00:09:32.610 align:middle line:84% That's the same thing as a gigaton, 00:09:32.610 --> 00:09:34.703 align:middle line:84% if you remember our powers of 10. 00:09:34.703 --> 00:09:36.120 align:middle line:84% The other thing to note about this 00:09:36.120 --> 00:09:39.210 align:middle line:84% is the tremendously large error bars on reforestation. 00:09:39.210 --> 00:09:43.380 align:middle line:84% Reforestation could get us up to 10 petagrams. 00:09:43.380 --> 00:09:44.740 align:middle line:90% But that's relatively expensive. 00:09:44.740 --> 00:09:46.470 align:middle line:84% That's the maximum of safeguards. 00:09:46.470 --> 00:09:49.740 align:middle line:84% The low cost portion of that climate mitigation potential 00:09:49.740 --> 00:09:53.010 align:middle line:84% is 3 petagrams of CO2 equivalent per year. 00:09:53.010 --> 00:09:56.490 align:middle line:84% But the error bars range from less than 3 to more than 10. 00:09:56.490 --> 00:09:58.680 align:middle line:84% We actually don't know the order of magnitude 00:09:58.680 --> 00:10:00.370 align:middle line:90% of reforestation potential. 00:10:00.370 --> 00:10:02.110 align:middle line:84% This is not to say we shouldn't do it. 00:10:02.110 --> 00:10:04.350 align:middle line:84% We just have to start trying this and studying 00:10:04.350 --> 00:10:06.450 align:middle line:84% this to understand how to do it best. 00:10:06.450 --> 00:10:07.767 align:middle line:90% And then we'll see. 00:10:07.767 --> 00:10:10.350 align:middle line:84% It's also worth noting that some of these nature-based climate 00:10:10.350 --> 00:10:12.630 align:middle line:84% solutions or climate mitigation potential 00:10:12.630 --> 00:10:15.450 align:middle line:84% is not the same thing as all the other benefits I mentioned 00:10:15.450 --> 00:10:16.890 align:middle line:90% of the Greenbelt itself. 00:10:16.890 --> 00:10:18.510 align:middle line:90% Because see this bar here? 00:10:18.510 --> 00:10:22.200 align:middle line:84% This legend of these little bars indicate other benefits, 00:10:22.200 --> 00:10:25.440 align:middle line:84% like air quality benefits, biodiversity benefits, water 00:10:25.440 --> 00:10:26.610 align:middle line:90% benefits, and soil benefits. 00:10:26.610 --> 00:10:29.850 align:middle line:84% Those are all really important environmental problems, too. 00:10:29.850 --> 00:10:32.340 align:middle line:84% So it's a question of how do we balance the mitigation 00:10:32.340 --> 00:10:34.170 align:middle line:84% potential of these nature-based climate 00:10:34.170 --> 00:10:36.810 align:middle line:84% solutions with other benefits, but also, 00:10:36.810 --> 00:10:39.210 align:middle line:84% how do we reduce the uncertainties of this climate 00:10:39.210 --> 00:10:41.180 align:middle line:90% mitigation potential? 00:10:41.180 --> 00:10:43.220 align:middle line:84% Just to give you a kind of a side note, 00:10:43.220 --> 00:10:45.030 align:middle line:84% I should have talked about earlier, 00:10:45.030 --> 00:10:46.970 align:middle line:84% but it's also in the MacKay book. 00:10:46.970 --> 00:10:51.470 align:middle line:84% We have the Powers of Ten, the name of a famous 1977 film 00:10:51.470 --> 00:10:53.240 align:middle line:90% by Charles and Ray Eames. 00:10:53.240 --> 00:10:55.820 align:middle line:84% But this is to say that petagrams of carbon dioxide 00:10:55.820 --> 00:10:58.897 align:middle line:84% equivalent may not necessarily be a unit that we're 00:10:58.897 --> 00:10:59.480 align:middle line:90% familiar with. 00:10:59.480 --> 00:11:02.900 align:middle line:84% It's 10 to the 15 grams, but actually, it turns out 00:11:02.900 --> 00:11:04.700 align:middle line:90% a ton is 10 to the 6 grams. 00:11:04.700 --> 00:11:08.120 align:middle line:84% So 10 to the 9 gigatons-- a gigaton, 00:11:08.120 --> 00:11:11.480 align:middle line:84% which is 10 to the 9 tons, times 10 to the 6 00:11:11.480 --> 00:11:13.917 align:middle line:84% gives you the exact same unit as a petagram. 00:11:13.917 --> 00:11:15.500 align:middle line:84% And that's just worth keeping in mind. 00:11:15.500 --> 00:11:18.320 align:middle line:84% As we continue to look at different numbers, 00:11:18.320 --> 00:11:20.210 align:middle line:84% we want to convert them, convert the units, 00:11:20.210 --> 00:11:22.670 align:middle line:84% and also convert their orders of magnitude properly. 00:11:22.670 --> 00:11:26.000 align:middle line:90% 00:11:26.000 --> 00:11:29.240 align:middle line:84% Many of these same scientists in the first paper who 00:11:29.240 --> 00:11:32.030 align:middle line:84% wrote an article about nature-based solutions 00:11:32.030 --> 00:11:35.480 align:middle line:84% for the world also write a nature-based climate solution 00:11:35.480 --> 00:11:37.160 align:middle line:90% paper for the US. 00:11:37.160 --> 00:11:40.040 align:middle line:84% And they find in this paper-- this is in Science Advances 00:11:40.040 --> 00:11:43.945 align:middle line:84% or Science-- we find a maximum potential of 1.2, 00:11:43.945 --> 00:11:47.840 align:middle line:84% 0.9 to 1.6 petagrams CO2 per year, 00:11:47.840 --> 00:11:50.900 align:middle line:84% the equivalent of 21% of current net annual emissions 00:11:50.900 --> 00:11:52.460 align:middle line:90% in the United States. 00:11:52.460 --> 00:11:56.100 align:middle line:84% At current carbon market prices, which are relatively low, 00:11:56.100 --> 00:11:58.820 align:middle line:90% at $10 per megagram-- 00:11:58.820 --> 00:12:02.000 align:middle line:84% sorry-- yeah, megagram of CO2 equivalent, 00:12:02.000 --> 00:12:06.440 align:middle line:84% this could be achieved, or rather, nature-based solutions 00:12:06.440 --> 00:12:08.690 align:middle line:84% could provide air and water filtration, flood control, 00:12:08.690 --> 00:12:11.000 align:middle line:84% soil health, wildlife habitat, and climate resilience 00:12:11.000 --> 00:12:13.070 align:middle line:90% benefits. 00:12:13.070 --> 00:12:15.770 align:middle line:84% And so to look at the potential for the United States, 00:12:15.770 --> 00:12:19.100 align:middle line:84% you can see, of course, the x-axis is much smaller, 00:12:19.100 --> 00:12:21.830 align:middle line:84% but they look at many of the same kinds 00:12:21.830 --> 00:12:23.840 align:middle line:84% of nature-based climate solutions. 00:12:23.840 --> 00:12:26.190 align:middle line:84% In this case, they look at 21 or so. 00:12:26.190 --> 00:12:29.360 align:middle line:84% And you can see that, again, the uncertainties are fairly high. 00:12:29.360 --> 00:12:33.738 align:middle line:84% The bars are composed of low, medium, and high-cost benefits. 00:12:33.738 --> 00:12:35.030 align:middle line:90% So this is worth talking about. 00:12:35.030 --> 00:12:38.300 align:middle line:84% We have a total potential climate mitigation potential, 00:12:38.300 --> 00:12:40.280 align:middle line:84% but only a small amount of reforestation 00:12:40.280 --> 00:12:45.050 align:middle line:84% can be achieved for $10 USD per megagram or ton of carbon 00:12:45.050 --> 00:12:46.160 align:middle line:90% dioxide equivalent. 00:12:46.160 --> 00:12:48.920 align:middle line:84% It'll be $50 a ton to achieve the most potential. 00:12:48.920 --> 00:12:52.130 align:middle line:84% And for reforestation, there's a relatively small potential 00:12:52.130 --> 00:12:56.780 align:middle line:84% that could be achieved at a very high cost of $100 per ton. 00:12:56.780 --> 00:12:59.510 align:middle line:84% Of course, again, the uncertainties are very high. 00:12:59.510 --> 00:13:01.010 align:middle line:84% That doesn't say we shouldn't do it. 00:13:01.010 --> 00:13:03.440 align:middle line:84% That says we should start thinking very carefully 00:13:03.440 --> 00:13:05.270 align:middle line:84% and studying how to do it properly 00:13:05.270 --> 00:13:08.470 align:middle line:90% before we try to go to scale. 00:13:08.470 --> 00:13:10.950 align:middle line:84% And so this brings me to some of the conversations 00:13:10.950 --> 00:13:13.440 align:middle line:84% I've been having with ecologists for the last few years, 00:13:13.440 --> 00:13:16.980 align:middle line:84% in some cases longer, about the importance of land use and land 00:13:16.980 --> 00:13:17.730 align:middle line:90% cover. 00:13:17.730 --> 00:13:19.770 align:middle line:84% Now, if I had to summarize those conversations 00:13:19.770 --> 00:13:22.530 align:middle line:84% and that kind of literature in just, I guess, 00:13:22.530 --> 00:13:24.060 align:middle line:84% a few key bullet points that I want 00:13:24.060 --> 00:13:26.730 align:middle line:84% you to take home for our discussion on land use, 00:13:26.730 --> 00:13:29.130 align:middle line:84% first, the total sequestration potential 00:13:29.130 --> 00:13:33.870 align:middle line:84% of land use and land cover is currently quite uncertain. 00:13:33.870 --> 00:13:37.500 align:middle line:84% Dynamics of sequestration are also quite uncertain. 00:13:37.500 --> 00:13:40.860 align:middle line:84% For example, one of our new faculty at MIT 00:13:40.860 --> 00:13:42.720 align:middle line:84% has written a number of papers on how 00:13:42.720 --> 00:13:46.590 align:middle line:84% if we increase trying to do carbon sequestration in trees 00:13:46.590 --> 00:13:49.560 align:middle line:84% by ostensibly sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, 00:13:49.560 --> 00:13:51.630 align:middle line:84% we may actually be taking carbon dioxide out 00:13:51.630 --> 00:13:53.820 align:middle line:84% of the soil that's currently stored in the soil. 00:13:53.820 --> 00:13:56.400 align:middle line:84% So we have to understand the dynamics of sequestration 00:13:56.400 --> 00:13:58.680 align:middle line:84% and how that's going to work going forward 00:13:58.680 --> 00:14:02.420 align:middle line:84% if we want to pursue these nature-based climate solutions. 00:14:02.420 --> 00:14:04.680 align:middle line:84% Now, one thing that comes through the ecological 00:14:04.680 --> 00:14:08.280 align:middle line:84% literature quite consistently is that natural or existing 00:14:08.280 --> 00:14:13.013 align:middle line:84% ecosystems that are perhaps better preserved than other 00:14:13.013 --> 00:14:15.180 align:middle line:84% ecosystems-- you have many ecosystems that have been 00:14:15.180 --> 00:14:17.550 align:middle line:84% modified in North America by Indigenous peoples, 00:14:17.550 --> 00:14:19.590 align:middle line:90% and subsequent-- 00:14:19.590 --> 00:14:21.660 align:middle line:84% continuous waves of human settlement. 00:14:21.660 --> 00:14:24.113 align:middle line:84% But those ecosystems that are existing 00:14:24.113 --> 00:14:25.530 align:middle line:84% are much more efficient than if we 00:14:25.530 --> 00:14:28.920 align:middle line:84% tried to do ecological restoration or management. 00:14:28.920 --> 00:14:31.260 align:middle line:84% Those ecosystems tend to be more complex. 00:14:31.260 --> 00:14:33.420 align:middle line:84% They tend to sequester more carbon. 00:14:33.420 --> 00:14:36.160 align:middle line:84% We tend to do things-- like in natural ecosystems, 00:14:36.160 --> 00:14:38.010 align:middle line:90% we will let old logs lie. 00:14:38.010 --> 00:14:42.330 align:middle line:84% Those old logs not only preserve the carbon in the forest 00:14:42.330 --> 00:14:45.000 align:middle line:84% as opposed to us taking them out for timber products, 00:14:45.000 --> 00:14:49.440 align:middle line:84% but those old logs also provide the basis for other carbon 00:14:49.440 --> 00:14:52.050 align:middle line:84% sequestering activities, like the growth 00:14:52.050 --> 00:14:55.410 align:middle line:90% of ecosystems on old logs. 00:14:55.410 --> 00:14:57.810 align:middle line:84% And they provide nutrients for the forest 00:14:57.810 --> 00:15:00.840 align:middle line:84% to actually continue to become more complex 00:15:00.840 --> 00:15:03.090 align:middle line:90% and to sequester more carbon. 00:15:03.090 --> 00:15:05.610 align:middle line:84% Finally, it's worth pointing out for the last 20 or so 00:15:05.610 --> 00:15:08.100 align:middle line:84% climate solutions I showed, the policy mechanisms 00:15:08.100 --> 00:15:11.190 align:middle line:84% may be wildly different to preserve different ecosystems. 00:15:11.190 --> 00:15:14.460 align:middle line:84% For example, farm preservation is a very different kind 00:15:14.460 --> 00:15:17.463 align:middle line:84% of policy mechanism than biodiversity protections. 00:15:17.463 --> 00:15:19.380 align:middle line:84% Actually, significant United States, actually, 00:15:19.380 --> 00:15:21.930 align:middle line:84% is preserved for conservation through biodiversity 00:15:21.930 --> 00:15:24.030 align:middle line:90% and through other laws. 00:15:24.030 --> 00:15:26.130 align:middle line:84% But it's worth pointing out that all of these laws 00:15:26.130 --> 00:15:27.005 align:middle line:90% are really different. 00:15:27.005 --> 00:15:28.922 align:middle line:84% So we have to think about different ecosystems 00:15:28.922 --> 00:15:31.270 align:middle line:84% or, let's say, different land uses in different ways. 00:15:31.270 --> 00:15:35.640 align:middle line:84% And so if we want to add carbon storage as an objective of all 00:15:35.640 --> 00:15:38.010 align:middle line:84% of our different policies, we may 00:15:38.010 --> 00:15:40.110 align:middle line:84% have to fit this into different policy mechanisms. 00:15:40.110 --> 00:15:42.810 align:middle line:84% For example, if we have a policy mechanism 00:15:42.810 --> 00:15:45.270 align:middle line:84% for protecting biodiversity, that 00:15:45.270 --> 00:15:48.210 align:middle line:84% may protect that natural or existing ecosystem. 00:15:48.210 --> 00:15:50.130 align:middle line:84% But if you want to do coastal restoration 00:15:50.130 --> 00:15:51.930 align:middle line:84% or coastal preservation, that's going 00:15:51.930 --> 00:15:54.720 align:middle line:84% to be quite different than agricultural preservation, 00:15:54.720 --> 00:15:58.380 align:middle line:84% and quite different than forestry management. 00:15:58.380 --> 00:16:01.860 align:middle line:84% Finally, we're going to talk in this class more 00:16:01.860 --> 00:16:04.770 align:middle line:84% about what does this all imply for urban planning of cities. 00:16:04.770 --> 00:16:07.500 align:middle line:84% We may have to look at carbon storage 00:16:07.500 --> 00:16:09.870 align:middle line:84% as the additional objective, but also 00:16:09.870 --> 00:16:13.050 align:middle line:84% managing our different lands, different agricultural lands 00:16:13.050 --> 00:16:16.770 align:middle line:84% at the outskirts of cities, brownfield sites within cities, 00:16:16.770 --> 00:16:17.580 align:middle line:90% industrial lands. 00:16:17.580 --> 00:16:19.080 align:middle line:84% These are all things that we'll have 00:16:19.080 --> 00:16:24.360 align:middle line:84% to consider in terms of carbon storage and climate solutions. 00:16:24.360 --> 00:16:27.867 align:middle line:84% And so one answer to what does this 00:16:27.867 --> 00:16:29.450 align:middle line:84% imply for the urban planning of cities 00:16:29.450 --> 00:16:31.850 align:middle line:84% is that controlling the spatial expansion of cities 00:16:31.850 --> 00:16:35.600 align:middle line:84% is going to be crucial, as the Toronto Greenbelt example shows 00:16:35.600 --> 00:16:36.320 align:middle line:90% us. 00:16:36.320 --> 00:16:38.820 align:middle line:90% Toronto is a vibrant urban city. 00:16:38.820 --> 00:16:41.180 align:middle line:84% It's got a very expensive housing market. 00:16:41.180 --> 00:16:42.680 align:middle line:84% We have to think carefully about how 00:16:42.680 --> 00:16:44.840 align:middle line:84% to control the spatial expansion of cities. 00:16:44.840 --> 00:16:47.960 align:middle line:84% Portland, Oregon has very famously an urban growth 00:16:47.960 --> 00:16:49.310 align:middle line:90% boundary. 00:16:49.310 --> 00:16:52.620 align:middle line:84% And the urban growth boundary expands over time. 00:16:52.620 --> 00:16:55.280 align:middle line:84% So house prices are also high in Portland, 00:16:55.280 --> 00:16:58.640 align:middle line:84% but the city is continuing to build high density housing. 00:16:58.640 --> 00:17:01.620 align:middle line:90% So it's not uncontrolled growth. 00:17:01.620 --> 00:17:03.890 align:middle line:84% So just to give you a sense of what 00:17:03.890 --> 00:17:08.450 align:middle line:84% the relative breakdown of land uses are in the United States, 00:17:08.450 --> 00:17:09.890 align:middle line:84% you can see on the left-hand side 00:17:09.890 --> 00:17:11.307 align:middle line:84% the land use in the United States, 00:17:11.307 --> 00:17:14.589 align:middle line:84% and on the right-hand side, the comparison for the land use 00:17:14.589 --> 00:17:17.569 align:middle line:84% required for 1,000 gigawatts of renewables. 00:17:17.569 --> 00:17:19.700 align:middle line:84% This is from the Rewiring America report, 00:17:19.700 --> 00:17:21.530 align:middle line:84% which argues that, yes, we can rewire 00:17:21.530 --> 00:17:23.750 align:middle line:90% America in a renewable way. 00:17:23.750 --> 00:17:25.960 align:middle line:84% Land use is going to be one of our main challenges. 00:17:25.960 --> 00:17:28.460 align:middle line:84% If you look on the left-hand side, much of the United States 00:17:28.460 --> 00:17:32.060 align:middle line:84% is used for cropland, forest use land, and grassland. 00:17:32.060 --> 00:17:34.405 align:middle line:84% That would be great to try to site renewables on those. 00:17:34.405 --> 00:17:35.780 align:middle line:84% But we just said that we actually 00:17:35.780 --> 00:17:39.480 align:middle line:84% need to preserve a lot of this land for climate solutions, 00:17:39.480 --> 00:17:44.510 align:middle line:84% and perhaps other benefits, like air quality, water, 00:17:44.510 --> 00:17:46.650 align:middle line:90% biodiversity, and food. 00:17:46.650 --> 00:17:49.340 align:middle line:84% So if we start to look at the existing uses, 00:17:49.340 --> 00:17:51.830 align:middle line:84% you can see that we've already allocated 00:17:51.830 --> 00:17:54.890 align:middle line:84% a large part of the US for rural parks and wildlife. 00:17:54.890 --> 00:17:56.390 align:middle line:84% There's miscellaneous other uses, 00:17:56.390 --> 00:17:58.190 align:middle line:90% which is mysterious and large. 00:17:58.190 --> 00:18:01.190 align:middle line:84% But if we look at the things that are relevant to us, 00:18:01.190 --> 00:18:05.060 align:middle line:84% we have urban areas around 69 million acres. 00:18:05.060 --> 00:18:08.060 align:middle line:84% We have rural transportation, roads, farm roads, 00:18:08.060 --> 00:18:09.170 align:middle line:90% idle crop land. 00:18:09.170 --> 00:18:10.980 align:middle line:90% Those all seem pretty big. 00:18:10.980 --> 00:18:14.480 align:middle line:84% But that is worth putting for a moment in perspective 00:18:14.480 --> 00:18:19.340 align:middle line:84% with what it will require to get 1,000 gigawatts of renewables. 00:18:19.340 --> 00:18:23.070 align:middle line:84% The 1,000 gigawatts of wind will require 56 million acres, 00:18:23.070 --> 00:18:25.280 align:middle line:84% which is roughly as much area as we need for all 00:18:25.280 --> 00:18:27.080 align:middle line:90% the urban areas in the US. 00:18:27.080 --> 00:18:28.820 align:middle line:84% We need 1,000 gigawatts of solar, 00:18:28.820 --> 00:18:30.650 align:middle line:84% which will require much less because solar 00:18:30.650 --> 00:18:32.460 align:middle line:90% has higher density of energy. 00:18:32.460 --> 00:18:33.740 align:middle line:90% We'll talk about that more. 00:18:33.740 --> 00:18:36.890 align:middle line:84% But that's also like saying we need to basically take 00:18:36.890 --> 00:18:39.290 align:middle line:84% all the farmsteads and all the farm roads in the US 00:18:39.290 --> 00:18:40.610 align:middle line:90% and convert them to solar. 00:18:40.610 --> 00:18:44.327 align:middle line:84% We obviously aren't going to focus on that certain category. 00:18:44.327 --> 00:18:46.910 align:middle line:84% It's just to give you a sense of the magnitude of the problem. 00:18:46.910 --> 00:18:49.610 align:middle line:84% Farm roads, not always well maintained, 00:18:49.610 --> 00:18:52.710 align:middle line:84% or regular highways, not always particularly well maintained. 00:18:52.710 --> 00:18:57.330 align:middle line:84% Now to think about how to actually locate as much uses. 00:18:57.330 --> 00:18:59.540 align:middle line:84% And if we don't maintain existing roads well, 00:18:59.540 --> 00:19:02.000 align:middle line:84% we're not going to do silly things like putting solar 00:19:02.000 --> 00:19:04.550 align:middle line:84% on top of roads, or anything like that, which has sometimes 00:19:04.550 --> 00:19:07.070 align:middle line:90% been suggested. 00:19:07.070 --> 00:19:10.250 align:middle line:84% So this is just to say that many aspects of decarbonization 00:19:10.250 --> 00:19:12.940 align:middle line:90% depend on land use. 00:19:12.940 --> 00:19:14.790 align:middle line:84% Let's just focus on a few of the ways 00:19:14.790 --> 00:19:17.790 align:middle line:84% that decarbonization will depend on land use in the electricity 00:19:17.790 --> 00:19:18.540 align:middle line:90% sector. 00:19:18.540 --> 00:19:22.200 align:middle line:84% Solar and wind, as I've said, are different energy densities, 00:19:22.200 --> 00:19:26.230 align:middle line:84% but in both cases, they're less energy dense than fossil fuels. 00:19:26.230 --> 00:19:28.680 align:middle line:84% They're going to require much more land area. 00:19:28.680 --> 00:19:31.487 align:middle line:84% Nuclear power plants are relatively energy dense, but, 00:19:31.487 --> 00:19:33.570 align:middle line:84% of course, we have concerns about siting the power 00:19:33.570 --> 00:19:36.150 align:middle line:84% plant, plus handling the radioactive fuel 00:19:36.150 --> 00:19:38.010 align:middle line:90% for the next 10,000 years. 00:19:38.010 --> 00:19:40.500 align:middle line:84% Hydropower in North America is an energy resource 00:19:40.500 --> 00:19:43.680 align:middle line:84% that is relatively clean now that we've been exploiting it 00:19:43.680 --> 00:19:44.890 align:middle line:90% for over 100 years. 00:19:44.890 --> 00:19:47.370 align:middle line:84% But we've also tapped most of the hydropower potential 00:19:47.370 --> 00:19:48.210 align:middle line:90% in the US. 00:19:48.210 --> 00:19:51.150 align:middle line:84% There's discussion of maybe using 00:19:51.150 --> 00:19:54.510 align:middle line:84% hydropower in smaller rivers and streams, 00:19:54.510 --> 00:19:56.760 align:middle line:84% revamping the hydropower that we have, 00:19:56.760 --> 00:20:00.180 align:middle line:84% but most estimates don't have a vast increase in hydropower 00:20:00.180 --> 00:20:02.880 align:middle line:84% as much as maintaining the hydropower potential we already 00:20:02.880 --> 00:20:03.780 align:middle line:90% have. 00:20:03.780 --> 00:20:06.090 align:middle line:84% And of course, in order for solar, wind, and nuclear, 00:20:06.090 --> 00:20:08.340 align:middle line:84% and hydropower to work better, especially 00:20:08.340 --> 00:20:10.480 align:middle line:84% the first two categories of solar and wind, 00:20:10.480 --> 00:20:12.660 align:middle line:84% we're going to need much more transmission lines. 00:20:12.660 --> 00:20:14.987 align:middle line:84% We're going to need to site the transmission lines, 00:20:14.987 --> 00:20:17.070 align:middle line:84% and we're going to need to provide interconnection 00:20:17.070 --> 00:20:21.372 align:middle line:84% so solar and wind projects can connect to the grid. 00:20:21.372 --> 00:20:22.830 align:middle line:84% In terms of buildings, I've already 00:20:22.830 --> 00:20:25.740 align:middle line:84% talked about how we need to change our heating and cooling 00:20:25.740 --> 00:20:26.640 align:middle line:90% systems. 00:20:26.640 --> 00:20:29.143 align:middle line:84% That also means we have to, in a lot of cases, 00:20:29.143 --> 00:20:31.560 align:middle line:84% get rid of the pipes going into our houses, the pipes that 00:20:31.560 --> 00:20:34.470 align:middle line:84% carry natural gas and oil, in some cases, the oil 00:20:34.470 --> 00:20:35.495 align:middle line:90% tanks in houses. 00:20:35.495 --> 00:20:37.620 align:middle line:84% And we're going to need to replace that with wires. 00:20:37.620 --> 00:20:40.710 align:middle line:84% That's actually going to be a really big challenge. 00:20:40.710 --> 00:20:43.320 align:middle line:84% And of course, location, location, location-- 00:20:43.320 --> 00:20:45.090 align:middle line:90% that matters for real estate. 00:20:45.090 --> 00:20:47.430 align:middle line:84% And the buildings may have to be in different places 00:20:47.430 --> 00:20:50.940 align:middle line:84% if you want to try to achieve lower carbon transit 00:20:50.940 --> 00:20:52.350 align:middle line:90% or transportation. 00:20:52.350 --> 00:20:54.660 align:middle line:84% And of course, we're going to have to offset that 00:20:54.660 --> 00:20:57.900 align:middle line:84% with all of our challenges in how the buildings are used, 00:20:57.900 --> 00:20:59.530 align:middle line:84% what the value of the buildings are, 00:20:59.530 --> 00:21:02.477 align:middle line:84% historic preservation, and occupancy. 00:21:02.477 --> 00:21:04.060 align:middle line:84% One thing I probably should have added 00:21:04.060 --> 00:21:06.400 align:middle line:84% is that we know we have an affordable housing crisis 00:21:06.400 --> 00:21:08.230 align:middle line:90% in many cities in the US. 00:21:08.230 --> 00:21:10.930 align:middle line:84% So we have to balance our buildings, rebuilding 00:21:10.930 --> 00:21:13.730 align:middle line:84% our buildings, and frankly, building much more housing 00:21:13.730 --> 00:21:16.570 align:middle line:84% so everyone can afford a reasonably priced place 00:21:16.570 --> 00:21:17.980 align:middle line:90% to live. 00:21:17.980 --> 00:21:20.560 align:middle line:84% In terms of transportation, transportation and mobility 00:21:20.560 --> 00:21:22.390 align:middle line:84% is going to make this all possible. 00:21:22.390 --> 00:21:25.360 align:middle line:84% Not only do we need to have better roads and bridges, which 00:21:25.360 --> 00:21:27.160 align:middle line:84% are currently in a poor state of repair, 00:21:27.160 --> 00:21:28.900 align:middle line:84% we're trying to add charging stations 00:21:28.900 --> 00:21:30.880 align:middle line:84% so people can electrify their vehicles. 00:21:30.880 --> 00:21:33.160 align:middle line:84% And so, frankly, people can drive electric vehicles 00:21:33.160 --> 00:21:34.630 align:middle line:84% and have some assurance they'll be 00:21:34.630 --> 00:21:38.800 align:middle line:84% able to charge them at work or on long distance trips. 00:21:38.800 --> 00:21:41.890 align:middle line:84% Again, transportation dictates the locations 00:21:41.890 --> 00:21:42.985 align:middle line:90% of where things happen. 00:21:42.985 --> 00:21:44.635 align:middle line:90% It dictates urban expansion. 00:21:44.635 --> 00:21:48.005 align:middle line:84% It dictates real estate value in many cases. 00:21:48.005 --> 00:21:49.380 align:middle line:84% And of course, on top of that, we 00:21:49.380 --> 00:21:52.300 align:middle line:84% need to think about transit, freight, air, and shipping. 00:21:52.300 --> 00:21:55.060 align:middle line:84% Everything in our houses, everything that we use 00:21:55.060 --> 00:21:57.460 align:middle line:84% gets shipped to us in various ways. 00:21:57.460 --> 00:21:59.710 align:middle line:84% These large transportation systems 00:21:59.710 --> 00:22:02.770 align:middle line:90% require decarbonization. 00:22:02.770 --> 00:22:04.630 align:middle line:84% Sectors like freight and air and shipping 00:22:04.630 --> 00:22:06.980 align:middle line:84% actually have very large climate impacts, 00:22:06.980 --> 00:22:09.430 align:middle line:84% which is why we want to think about managing our demand 00:22:09.430 --> 00:22:11.640 align:middle line:90% or consumption also. 00:22:11.640 --> 00:22:14.660 align:middle line:84% And finally, where do we make all this stuff? 00:22:14.660 --> 00:22:19.010 align:middle line:84% Currently, we have a lot of manufacturing around the world. 00:22:19.010 --> 00:22:21.860 align:middle line:84% As we know, this year supply chains have been stressed out. 00:22:21.860 --> 00:22:23.720 align:middle line:84% And in some cases, companies have 00:22:23.720 --> 00:22:26.990 align:middle line:84% looked at moving manufacturing closer to consumption, 00:22:26.990 --> 00:22:28.190 align:middle line:90% like back to United States. 00:22:28.190 --> 00:22:30.860 align:middle line:84% And of course, we have a new industrial policy 00:22:30.860 --> 00:22:34.730 align:middle line:84% that is very focused on bringing factories and manufacturing 00:22:34.730 --> 00:22:36.200 align:middle line:90% back to the United States. 00:22:36.200 --> 00:22:37.790 align:middle line:84% The implication for decarbonization 00:22:37.790 --> 00:22:40.400 align:middle line:84% is that if we want to try to achieve decarbonization 00:22:40.400 --> 00:22:43.160 align:middle line:84% with new fuel sources, like hydrogen, 00:22:43.160 --> 00:22:44.780 align:middle line:84% like renewable energy, we're going 00:22:44.780 --> 00:22:46.880 align:middle line:84% to have to change how manufacturing works. 00:22:46.880 --> 00:22:49.040 align:middle line:84% In many cases, factories are located 00:22:49.040 --> 00:22:50.360 align:middle line:90% near energy infrastructure. 00:22:50.360 --> 00:22:53.270 align:middle line:84% Many times factories have their own energy sources. 00:22:53.270 --> 00:22:56.600 align:middle line:84% We need to convert all of that industrial supply chain 00:22:56.600 --> 00:22:58.490 align:middle line:90% to new energy sources. 00:22:58.490 --> 00:23:00.770 align:middle line:84% And of course, we know it's very important in politics 00:23:00.770 --> 00:23:02.900 align:middle line:84% to think about the job implications. 00:23:02.900 --> 00:23:05.570 align:middle line:84% Part of the reason why we have polarization in this country 00:23:05.570 --> 00:23:08.510 align:middle line:90% is by income and by education. 00:23:08.510 --> 00:23:11.120 align:middle line:84% A lot of manufacturing and industrial jobs 00:23:11.120 --> 00:23:14.030 align:middle line:84% used to be open to people who had a high school education 00:23:14.030 --> 00:23:16.220 align:middle line:84% and didn't have a college education. 00:23:16.220 --> 00:23:18.860 align:middle line:84% Now we know we need increasing levels of training 00:23:18.860 --> 00:23:20.780 align:middle line:84% for populations who might be left behind 00:23:20.780 --> 00:23:22.010 align:middle line:90% in that energy transition. 00:23:22.010 --> 00:23:24.197 align:middle line:84% And of course, as we rebuild all of our electricity, 00:23:24.197 --> 00:23:26.030 align:middle line:84% all of our building, all our transportation, 00:23:26.030 --> 00:23:27.470 align:middle line:84% and all of our industry, we're going 00:23:27.470 --> 00:23:29.428 align:middle line:84% have to think about where the jobs are provided 00:23:29.428 --> 00:23:32.300 align:middle line:84% and which groups have jobs, are going 00:23:32.300 --> 00:23:34.400 align:middle line:84% to be assured to have jobs, whether or not 00:23:34.400 --> 00:23:37.120 align:middle line:90% they had jobs in the past. 00:23:37.120 --> 00:23:40.560 align:middle line:84% And so this is what brings me to the importance of land use 00:23:40.560 --> 00:23:41.310 align:middle line:90% and energy. 00:23:41.310 --> 00:23:43.980 align:middle line:84% In the US, almost all decisions about land use 00:23:43.980 --> 00:23:46.050 align:middle line:90% are made at the local level. 00:23:46.050 --> 00:23:47.790 align:middle line:84% Just to give you a few examples of what 00:23:47.790 --> 00:23:51.660 align:middle line:84% is decided at the local level, land and property taxes, 00:23:51.660 --> 00:23:55.260 align:middle line:84% zoning, our favorite tool as planners. 00:23:55.260 --> 00:23:57.340 align:middle line:84% Building codes, I would say, sometimes 00:23:57.340 --> 00:23:59.280 align:middle line:84% are not a very sexy topic, but I think 00:23:59.280 --> 00:24:01.200 align:middle line:84% they're really important because that's 00:24:01.200 --> 00:24:03.270 align:middle line:84% how we shape how all the buildings we've built 00:24:03.270 --> 00:24:06.930 align:middle line:84% are retrofitted in the future, including energy codes, fire 00:24:06.930 --> 00:24:11.230 align:middle line:84% codes, inspection, enforcement, and frankly, 00:24:11.230 --> 00:24:14.790 align:middle line:84% other policy mechanisms you want to use to affect buildings. 00:24:14.790 --> 00:24:16.590 align:middle line:90% We also can do urban-- 00:24:16.590 --> 00:24:18.870 align:middle line:84% use other urban planning tools, like visioning, 00:24:18.870 --> 00:24:20.260 align:middle line:90% like community engagement. 00:24:20.260 --> 00:24:25.170 align:middle line:84% We can basically develop a plan that can bring along both 00:24:25.170 --> 00:24:28.240 align:middle line:84% or align both the interests of the public and private sector. 00:24:28.240 --> 00:24:31.470 align:middle line:84% I think we don't talk about visioning and using 00:24:31.470 --> 00:24:36.540 align:middle line:84% graphic tools to get a kind of common vision, 00:24:36.540 --> 00:24:39.040 align:middle line:84% arriving to a common vision together enough. 00:24:39.040 --> 00:24:42.070 align:middle line:84% I think that's one of the key tools that planners have also. 00:24:42.070 --> 00:24:44.220 align:middle line:84% And finally, infrastructure financing-- the US 00:24:44.220 --> 00:24:47.460 align:middle line:84% is unusual in that we have flourishing capital markets 00:24:47.460 --> 00:24:49.180 align:middle line:90% at the subnational level. 00:24:49.180 --> 00:24:50.610 align:middle line:84% In other words, cities and states 00:24:50.610 --> 00:24:53.550 align:middle line:84% do the majority of borrowing for infrastructure in the US. 00:24:53.550 --> 00:24:56.550 align:middle line:84% And also, local governments and state governments 00:24:56.550 --> 00:24:59.430 align:middle line:84% tend to own most of the fixed assets and infrastructure 00:24:59.430 --> 00:25:00.000 align:middle line:90% in the US. 00:25:00.000 --> 00:25:02.670 align:middle line:84% That's including the private sector, including the Defense 00:25:02.670 --> 00:25:03.810 align:middle line:90% Department. 00:25:03.810 --> 00:25:05.700 align:middle line:84% All of our schools, all our water systems, 00:25:05.700 --> 00:25:07.740 align:middle line:84% all of our roads added up together 00:25:07.740 --> 00:25:10.800 align:middle line:84% are worth more than what we think of as the private sector. 00:25:10.800 --> 00:25:13.560 align:middle line:84% And that's worth noting because that's the control 00:25:13.560 --> 00:25:16.830 align:middle line:84% that local and state governments have over infrastructure. 00:25:16.830 --> 00:25:20.280 align:middle line:84% If we look at federal jurisdiction over land use 00:25:20.280 --> 00:25:22.080 align:middle line:84% and energy, the key thing that we'll 00:25:22.080 --> 00:25:24.690 align:middle line:84% be discussing this semester and in politics 00:25:24.690 --> 00:25:28.020 align:middle line:84% is the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970. 00:25:28.020 --> 00:25:30.030 align:middle line:84% This act simply says that you have 00:25:30.030 --> 00:25:33.420 align:middle line:84% to review the impacts of the environment for any projects 00:25:33.420 --> 00:25:35.940 align:middle line:90% that federal agencies allow. 00:25:35.940 --> 00:25:39.600 align:middle line:84% And of course, that is the heart of the permitting reform debate 00:25:39.600 --> 00:25:43.460 align:middle line:84% that we're likely to have in Congress this fall. 00:25:43.460 --> 00:25:44.960 align:middle line:84% And of course, there are other kinds 00:25:44.960 --> 00:25:46.280 align:middle line:90% of federal land protections. 00:25:46.280 --> 00:25:48.590 align:middle line:84% The US government and state governments 00:25:48.590 --> 00:25:50.630 align:middle line:90% simply outright a large-- 00:25:50.630 --> 00:25:53.690 align:middle line:84% simply outright own a large part of the US. 00:25:53.690 --> 00:25:56.540 align:middle line:84% About 40% of the US is actually just outright owned 00:25:56.540 --> 00:25:58.110 align:middle line:84% by federal and state governments. 00:25:58.110 --> 00:25:59.930 align:middle line:84% And so they actually have jurisdiction. 00:25:59.930 --> 00:26:02.690 align:middle line:84% They actually have to manage these lands in a certain way, 00:26:02.690 --> 00:26:05.600 align:middle line:84% sometimes for uses like oil and gas leasing, 00:26:05.600 --> 00:26:07.520 align:middle line:84% or sometimes for timber management, 00:26:07.520 --> 00:26:09.320 align:middle line:84% but also some of the federal agencies 00:26:09.320 --> 00:26:11.930 align:middle line:84% have to manage lands for other uses, 00:26:11.930 --> 00:26:16.470 align:middle line:84% like recreation, but also conservation and biodiversity. 00:26:16.470 --> 00:26:18.300 align:middle line:84% And of course, the states may have 00:26:18.300 --> 00:26:21.000 align:middle line:84% what's called little NEPAs, their own state environment 00:26:21.000 --> 00:26:23.730 align:middle line:84% policy acts that require further review. 00:26:23.730 --> 00:26:26.730 align:middle line:84% And this is part of the burden on development. 00:26:26.730 --> 00:26:29.670 align:middle line:84% And that takes a long time to build in the US. 00:26:29.670 --> 00:26:32.148 align:middle line:84% At the same time, we can have a debate or discussion 00:26:32.148 --> 00:26:34.440 align:middle line:84% in class about whether or not we need these protections 00:26:34.440 --> 00:26:37.920 align:middle line:84% to protect communities or protect the kind of development 00:26:37.920 --> 00:26:40.840 align:middle line:90% we want around local areas. 00:26:40.840 --> 00:26:44.340 align:middle line:84% So we have at the state level, as I said, some states have 00:26:44.340 --> 00:26:45.570 align:middle line:90% regional growth plans. 00:26:45.570 --> 00:26:47.880 align:middle line:90% Oregon, most famously. 00:26:47.880 --> 00:26:50.100 align:middle line:84% We also have public utility commissions. 00:26:50.100 --> 00:26:54.510 align:middle line:84% Our energy system is essentially divided into 50 energy systems, 00:26:54.510 --> 00:26:58.450 align:middle line:84% where utilities are regulated at the state level. 00:26:58.450 --> 00:27:01.260 align:middle line:84% So we actually have 50 or so commissions that 00:27:01.260 --> 00:27:02.430 align:middle line:90% regulate the energy system. 00:27:02.430 --> 00:27:05.070 align:middle line:84% We'll talk more in this class about how that-- 00:27:05.070 --> 00:27:07.980 align:middle line:84% what implications that has for the development of the energy 00:27:07.980 --> 00:27:09.130 align:middle line:90% system. 00:27:09.130 --> 00:27:12.060 align:middle line:84% And finally, we have state level legislation and constitutions. 00:27:12.060 --> 00:27:15.420 align:middle line:84% Sometimes states can preempt local towns 00:27:15.420 --> 00:27:18.650 align:middle line:84% or local governments from making decisions about cities. 00:27:18.650 --> 00:27:21.150 align:middle line:84% One example I've said to you a couple of times in this class 00:27:21.150 --> 00:27:23.880 align:middle line:84% is that for many years, the state of Massachusetts 00:27:23.880 --> 00:27:26.190 align:middle line:84% has not been allowing local governments 00:27:26.190 --> 00:27:28.350 align:middle line:90% to pass natural gas bans. 00:27:28.350 --> 00:27:31.410 align:middle line:84% You see a number of states now, predominantly 00:27:31.410 --> 00:27:34.470 align:middle line:84% through the Southeast and Southwest, mostly Republican 00:27:34.470 --> 00:27:37.440 align:middle line:84% states, passing state level legislation that 00:27:37.440 --> 00:27:40.110 align:middle line:84% doesn't allow local governments for cities 00:27:40.110 --> 00:27:44.430 align:middle line:84% to pass natural gas bans because cities, in places like Texas, 00:27:44.430 --> 00:27:47.640 align:middle line:84% tend to be much more liberal than their state government 00:27:47.640 --> 00:27:49.470 align:middle line:84% because the federal system of government 00:27:49.470 --> 00:27:51.930 align:middle line:84% allows the federal government to preempt states, 00:27:51.930 --> 00:27:53.760 align:middle line:84% and states to preempt local government. 00:27:53.760 --> 00:27:56.340 align:middle line:84% But the point of this slide is to say 00:27:56.340 --> 00:28:00.600 align:middle line:84% that local governments still have a lot of jurisdiction 00:28:00.600 --> 00:28:02.670 align:middle line:84% and a lot of capacity to actually think 00:28:02.670 --> 00:28:06.260 align:middle line:84% about how to shape energy use at the local level. 00:28:06.260 --> 00:28:08.840 align:middle line:84% So this brings me to one more theme I want to talk about, 00:28:08.840 --> 00:28:11.830 align:middle line:84% which is the idea of local fragmentation. 00:28:11.830 --> 00:28:15.970 align:middle line:84% Mancur Olson was a scholar who wrote this book way back 00:28:15.970 --> 00:28:19.062 align:middle line:84% when in 1965 called The Logic of Collective Action. 00:28:19.062 --> 00:28:20.770 align:middle line:84% It's a pretty interesting book, actually, 00:28:20.770 --> 00:28:24.280 align:middle line:84% because a lot of books that preceded this 00:28:24.280 --> 00:28:26.710 align:middle line:84% were concerned with, let's say, the tyranny 00:28:26.710 --> 00:28:28.910 align:middle line:84% of the majority over the minority. 00:28:28.910 --> 00:28:31.048 align:middle line:84% How do you protect the rights of the minority? 00:28:31.048 --> 00:28:33.340 align:middle line:84% And Mancur Olson actually writes this interesting book. 00:28:33.340 --> 00:28:36.460 align:middle line:84% It's really about the difficulty of achieving collective action. 00:28:36.460 --> 00:28:38.380 align:middle line:84% And he argues that collective action 00:28:38.380 --> 00:28:42.020 align:middle line:84% is difficult to achieve because of a free rider problem. 00:28:42.020 --> 00:28:45.130 align:middle line:84% For example, things that would probably benefit many people, 00:28:45.130 --> 00:28:47.260 align:middle line:84% let's say, the majority, may be opposed 00:28:47.260 --> 00:28:49.240 align:middle line:90% by a concentrated minority. 00:28:49.240 --> 00:28:51.160 align:middle line:84% One example might be it might be better 00:28:51.160 --> 00:28:54.397 align:middle line:84% and generally popular to try to pursue climate policy. 00:28:54.397 --> 00:28:56.230 align:middle line:84% But if you're the concentrated minority that 00:28:56.230 --> 00:28:58.660 align:middle line:84% had a die hard interest in, let's say, 00:28:58.660 --> 00:29:00.970 align:middle line:84% continuing our current energy system, 00:29:00.970 --> 00:29:02.950 align:middle line:84% like the fossil fuel industry, they 00:29:02.950 --> 00:29:04.630 align:middle line:84% may be much more highly motivated 00:29:04.630 --> 00:29:06.400 align:middle line:84% to do something about climate policy 00:29:06.400 --> 00:29:08.330 align:middle line:84% than the vast majority of people. 00:29:08.330 --> 00:29:11.260 align:middle line:84% And so if the many people are not sufficiently motivated, 00:29:11.260 --> 00:29:12.760 align:middle line:90% then the few people can win. 00:29:12.760 --> 00:29:14.800 align:middle line:84% So Mancur Olson's book is kind of interesting. 00:29:14.800 --> 00:29:16.633 align:middle line:84% It argues that collective action is actually 00:29:16.633 --> 00:29:19.600 align:middle line:84% hard to achieve because concentrated minorities may 00:29:19.600 --> 00:29:23.930 align:middle line:84% oppose broadly what the majority wants to do. 00:29:23.930 --> 00:29:27.070 align:middle line:84% And so kind of as a rebuttal to Mancur Olson's book, 00:29:27.070 --> 00:29:31.840 align:middle line:84% but also to Garrett Hardin's famous essay "The Tragedy 00:29:31.840 --> 00:29:34.210 align:middle line:84% of the Commons," Elinor Ostrom in 1990 00:29:34.210 --> 00:29:36.640 align:middle line:84% writes this book called Governing the Commons. 00:29:36.640 --> 00:29:39.640 align:middle line:84% And she argues in this book that common pool resources 00:29:39.640 --> 00:29:42.280 align:middle line:84% can be preserved by collective action and goals. 00:29:42.280 --> 00:29:45.730 align:middle line:84% And the mechanisms may be particular institutions. 00:29:45.730 --> 00:29:49.270 align:middle line:84% There may be norms or cultures of behavior that 00:29:49.270 --> 00:29:51.040 align:middle line:90% govern common pool resources. 00:29:51.040 --> 00:29:52.970 align:middle line:84% And there may be enforcement mechanisms. 00:29:52.970 --> 00:29:55.780 align:middle line:84% Those enforcement mechanisms can be formal or informal. 00:29:55.780 --> 00:29:57.670 align:middle line:84% But her argument generally is that it's 00:29:57.670 --> 00:30:01.780 align:middle line:84% possible to achieve collective action in things like managing 00:30:01.780 --> 00:30:03.910 align:middle line:84% common pool resources, like a fishery, or, 00:30:03.910 --> 00:30:05.260 align:middle line:90% let's say, natural benefits. 00:30:05.260 --> 00:30:07.750 align:middle line:84% But she starts to look at-- she really kicks off 00:30:07.750 --> 00:30:09.790 align:middle line:84% a lot of the study of institutions, and norms, 00:30:09.790 --> 00:30:12.000 align:middle line:90% and enforcement mechanisms. 00:30:12.000 --> 00:30:15.620 align:middle line:84% And this also leads in the 1990s to a big level 00:30:15.620 --> 00:30:17.480 align:middle line:84% of big growth in interest in governance, 00:30:17.480 --> 00:30:20.090 align:middle line:84% this idea of how is governance achieved. 00:30:20.090 --> 00:30:23.510 align:middle line:84% Governance is not only achieved through formal governance. 00:30:23.510 --> 00:30:25.940 align:middle line:84% It may be through other informal institutions, 00:30:25.940 --> 00:30:27.950 align:middle line:84% or non-governmental organizations, 00:30:27.950 --> 00:30:31.910 align:middle line:84% or community groups, or norms or other means. 00:30:31.910 --> 00:30:34.190 align:middle line:84% But you also may need enforcement mechanisms 00:30:34.190 --> 00:30:40.610 align:middle line:84% to achieve a broad interest that is not represented by, let's 00:30:40.610 --> 00:30:42.890 align:middle line:90% say, a concentrated minority. 00:30:42.890 --> 00:30:45.640 align:middle line:84% And so this brings me to the Jonathan Chait column 00:30:45.640 --> 00:30:48.040 align:middle line:84% that I suggested from earlier this year. 00:30:48.040 --> 00:30:51.040 align:middle line:84% It actually says one of the more depressing lead sentences 00:30:51.040 --> 00:30:54.340 align:middle line:84% I've ever read in a news story published on January 11. 00:30:54.340 --> 00:30:56.860 align:middle line:84% "A temporary moratorium on developing large scale 00:30:56.860 --> 00:30:59.650 align:middle line:84% ground-mounted solar projects is winning support 00:30:59.650 --> 00:31:00.640 align:middle line:90% from residents." 00:31:00.640 --> 00:31:02.560 align:middle line:84% Of course, this is the article that 00:31:02.560 --> 00:31:06.250 align:middle line:84% highlights in the national media the moratorium in my hometown 00:31:06.250 --> 00:31:07.660 align:middle line:90% of Amherst, Massachusetts. 00:31:07.660 --> 00:31:10.210 align:middle line:84% I also, as I've said to you before in class, 00:31:10.210 --> 00:31:13.450 align:middle line:84% find this really depressing that an otherwise liberal 00:31:13.450 --> 00:31:15.670 align:middle line:84% progressive town that everyone ostensibly 00:31:15.670 --> 00:31:17.440 align:middle line:84% believes in climate change actually 00:31:17.440 --> 00:31:21.310 align:middle line:84% considered passing moratoriums to avoid solar. 00:31:21.310 --> 00:31:24.400 align:middle line:84% This brings me to this kind of case study story 00:31:24.400 --> 00:31:27.130 align:middle line:90% that in Copake, New York-- 00:31:27.130 --> 00:31:31.060 align:middle line:84% and it talked about a solar farm essentially dividing the town 00:31:31.060 --> 00:31:33.940 align:middle line:84% until it didn't divide the town, until the two groups 00:31:33.940 --> 00:31:36.310 align:middle line:84% came together and achieved common ground. 00:31:36.310 --> 00:31:39.070 align:middle line:84% Of course, it is worth looking at the story 00:31:39.070 --> 00:31:42.430 align:middle line:84% carefully when you read it this week, because it talks partly 00:31:42.430 --> 00:31:44.770 align:middle line:84% about the relationships between the people 00:31:44.770 --> 00:31:47.470 align:middle line:84% and how different opposing groups came 00:31:47.470 --> 00:31:49.000 align:middle line:90% to achieve a compromise. 00:31:49.000 --> 00:31:52.117 align:middle line:84% And it also talks about some of the New York State legislation 00:31:52.117 --> 00:31:53.950 align:middle line:84% that essentially forced some of these groups 00:31:53.950 --> 00:31:55.700 align:middle line:84% to compromise when they didn't necessarily 00:31:55.700 --> 00:31:57.857 align:middle line:90% want to compromise before. 00:31:57.857 --> 00:32:00.190 align:middle line:84% One other reason-- I think I mentioned the Debbie Booley 00:32:00.190 --> 00:32:02.005 align:middle line:90% article for this week-- 00:32:02.005 --> 00:32:03.130 align:middle line:90% it's a very different area. 00:32:03.130 --> 00:32:05.710 align:middle line:84% It's about solar subsidies and connections to the grid. 00:32:05.710 --> 00:32:08.590 align:middle line:84% But I would argue that a lot of the interest in Debbie 00:32:08.590 --> 00:32:11.080 align:middle line:84% Dooley as a solar activist in Florida 00:32:11.080 --> 00:32:14.590 align:middle line:84% is because she has a really fundamentally different take 00:32:14.590 --> 00:32:18.797 align:middle line:84% and a different opinion or a different view 00:32:18.797 --> 00:32:21.130 align:middle line:84% about the relationships between individuals, government, 00:32:21.130 --> 00:32:22.420 align:middle line:90% and technology. 00:32:22.420 --> 00:32:25.990 align:middle line:84% And so there have been many national reporters 00:32:25.990 --> 00:32:27.760 align:middle line:84% who have written many positive articles 00:32:27.760 --> 00:32:30.760 align:middle line:84% about her effectiveness because she's a really unusual activist 00:32:30.760 --> 00:32:31.540 align:middle line:90% for solar power. 00:32:31.540 --> 00:32:33.520 align:middle line:84% She has fundamentally different motivations. 00:32:33.520 --> 00:32:35.710 align:middle line:84% She is opposed to government intervention, 00:32:35.710 --> 00:32:38.170 align:middle line:84% and frankly, utilities restraining people 00:32:38.170 --> 00:32:41.190 align:middle line:84% from putting solar on their rooftops. 00:32:41.190 --> 00:32:42.840 align:middle line:84% And so the key questions I want to ask 00:32:42.840 --> 00:32:47.150 align:middle line:84% about permitting reform as we go through the semester are-- 00:32:47.150 --> 00:32:49.110 align:middle line:84% or rather, the key questions you should 00:32:49.110 --> 00:32:53.120 align:middle line:84% ask as we talk about different ideas on permitting reform, 00:32:53.120 --> 00:32:56.290 align:middle line:84% are we actually talking about specific legislative language? 00:32:56.290 --> 00:32:59.970 align:middle line:84% We don't have any drafts of what a permitting reform 00:32:59.970 --> 00:33:00.970 align:middle line:90% deal might look like. 00:33:00.970 --> 00:33:03.630 align:middle line:84% So there's a lot of heat and not so much 00:33:03.630 --> 00:33:08.380 align:middle line:84% light so far about what specific legislation might look like. 00:33:08.380 --> 00:33:10.900 align:middle line:84% We should ask ourselves if we do permitting reform, 00:33:10.900 --> 00:33:13.330 align:middle line:84% is this going to change the speed of current permitting? 00:33:13.330 --> 00:33:15.430 align:middle line:84% Is there sufficient administrative capacity 00:33:15.430 --> 00:33:18.490 align:middle line:90% to govern the permitting? 00:33:18.490 --> 00:33:20.470 align:middle line:84% Are changes in permitting going to result 00:33:20.470 --> 00:33:23.330 align:middle line:90% in more or less litigation? 00:33:23.330 --> 00:33:25.580 align:middle line:84% Will our permitting reform change the amount 00:33:25.580 --> 00:33:27.530 align:middle line:84% of public participation that's currently 00:33:27.530 --> 00:33:28.970 align:middle line:90% allowed in the process? 00:33:28.970 --> 00:33:31.345 align:middle line:84% Do we need to change the level of public participation 00:33:31.345 --> 00:33:31.970 align:middle line:90% in the process? 00:33:31.970 --> 00:33:34.530 align:middle line:84% Do we need to change who shows up in the process? 00:33:34.530 --> 00:33:36.290 align:middle line:84% We know that lots of urban planning 00:33:36.290 --> 00:33:40.340 align:middle line:84% processes that solicit public participation are quite often 00:33:40.340 --> 00:33:42.590 align:middle line:84% dominated by, frankly, people who 00:33:42.590 --> 00:33:46.460 align:middle line:84% are older and whiter than the residents of places that 00:33:46.460 --> 00:33:48.020 align:middle line:90% may be looking at development. 00:33:48.020 --> 00:33:49.940 align:middle line:84% They may be represented by people who already live there, 00:33:49.940 --> 00:33:51.523 align:middle line:84% not the people who want to live there. 00:33:51.523 --> 00:33:53.960 align:middle line:84% So how do we need to change public participation 00:33:53.960 --> 00:33:55.910 align:middle line:84% to truly reflect community desires, 00:33:55.910 --> 00:33:58.190 align:middle line:84% but also try to achieve building the things 00:33:58.190 --> 00:34:00.080 align:middle line:90% that also communities desire? 00:34:00.080 --> 00:34:03.240 align:middle line:84% Everybody wants better roads, bridges, infrastructure. 00:34:03.240 --> 00:34:07.280 align:middle line:84% Everybody, probably most people, want a cleaner energy system. 00:34:07.280 --> 00:34:08.780 align:middle line:84% So how are we going to achieve that? 00:34:08.780 --> 00:34:11.360 align:middle line:84% We have to not lose sight of those goals. 00:34:11.360 --> 00:34:13.760 align:middle line:84% And of course, we should ask ourselves, 00:34:13.760 --> 00:34:16.699 align:middle line:84% both in terms of permitting reform, but our existing 00:34:16.699 --> 00:34:20.449 align:middle line:84% permitting regime, are these permitting systems 00:34:20.449 --> 00:34:22.690 align:middle line:84% leading to the desired outcomes we want? 00:34:22.690 --> 00:34:24.440 align:middle line:84% And are we going to need permitting reform 00:34:24.440 --> 00:34:26.179 align:middle line:90% to build renewable resources? 00:34:26.179 --> 00:34:28.850 align:middle line:84% Are we going to need to build things like affordable housing? 00:34:28.850 --> 00:34:30.590 align:middle line:84% And are we going to need permitting 00:34:30.590 --> 00:34:34.940 align:middle line:84% to stay as it is to build or block fossil fuel resources? 00:34:34.940 --> 00:34:37.280 align:middle line:84% Some people argue that environmental groups 00:34:37.280 --> 00:34:40.310 align:middle line:84% are really good at using litigation to block fossil fuel 00:34:40.310 --> 00:34:41.210 align:middle line:90% development. 00:34:41.210 --> 00:34:43.760 align:middle line:84% But we've also built a lot of fossil fuel infrastructure 00:34:43.760 --> 00:34:45.570 align:middle line:90% in the last 20 or 30 years. 00:34:45.570 --> 00:34:48.260 align:middle line:84% It's not like we haven't built a lot of other pipelines, 00:34:48.260 --> 00:34:50.060 align:middle line:84% even if we've stopped some pipelines. 00:34:50.060 --> 00:34:52.429 align:middle line:84% So we should ask ourselves, is the permitting system 00:34:52.429 --> 00:34:56.300 align:middle line:84% we have enabling us to achieve the outcomes we want? 00:34:56.300 --> 00:34:59.150 align:middle line:84% And finally, if we have permitting reform, 00:34:59.150 --> 00:35:02.570 align:middle line:84% can it get the necessary votes in the House or Senate? 00:35:02.570 --> 00:35:08.030 align:middle line:84% 45 or 50 House Democrats have already 00:35:08.030 --> 00:35:11.600 align:middle line:84% signed a letter saying that they oppose any permitting reform. 00:35:11.600 --> 00:35:13.130 align:middle line:84% If we ask if the Senate, it's going 00:35:13.130 --> 00:35:15.230 align:middle line:90% to need 10 Republican votes. 00:35:15.230 --> 00:35:18.290 align:middle line:84% The previous climate bill was done through reconciliation. 00:35:18.290 --> 00:35:21.290 align:middle line:84% So it can be done with 51 Democratic votes, 00:35:21.290 --> 00:35:23.690 align:middle line:84% or 50 Democratic votes plus the vice president. 00:35:23.690 --> 00:35:26.810 align:middle line:84% But if you want to do something non-financial or 00:35:26.810 --> 00:35:30.110 align:middle line:84% non-budget-related, it has to go through the filibuster. 00:35:30.110 --> 00:35:33.350 align:middle line:84% And filibuster requires at least 10 Republican votes. 00:35:33.350 --> 00:35:35.210 align:middle line:84% So we talk about permitting reform. 00:35:35.210 --> 00:35:37.880 align:middle line:84% There's been a lot of discussion of what the perfect permitting 00:35:37.880 --> 00:35:39.200 align:middle line:90% system might be. 00:35:39.200 --> 00:35:41.750 align:middle line:84% The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. 00:35:41.750 --> 00:35:45.290 align:middle line:84% We need a possible level of permitting reform 00:35:45.290 --> 00:35:48.740 align:middle line:84% that 50 House Democrats and 10 Senate Republicans 00:35:48.740 --> 00:35:49.490 align:middle line:90% can agree on. 00:35:49.490 --> 00:35:52.520 align:middle line:84% We do not know if any legislative language currently 00:35:52.520 --> 00:35:55.130 align:middle line:84% exists or any reform exists that's going 00:35:55.130 --> 00:35:58.430 align:middle line:84% to satisfy these two different extremes 00:35:58.430 --> 00:36:01.100 align:middle line:90% on the political spectrum. 00:36:01.100 --> 00:36:03.500 align:middle line:84% So we're going to do a class discussion on Tuesday. 00:36:03.500 --> 00:36:05.050 align:middle line:84% I want you to be prepared to discuss 00:36:05.050 --> 00:36:06.820 align:middle line:90% your p-set answers at length. 00:36:06.820 --> 00:36:11.020 align:middle line:84% We're going to discuss it quite actively in Tuesday's class. 00:36:11.020 --> 00:36:14.210 align:middle line:84% The questions I had in the p-set are all on the slide. 00:36:14.210 --> 00:36:16.690 align:middle line:84% I encourage you to think very carefully about your answers 00:36:16.690 --> 00:36:20.140 align:middle line:84% and be prepared to talk about them with your classmates. 00:36:20.140 --> 00:36:23.460 align:middle line:84% Thank you very much, and have a good one. 00:36:23.460 --> 00:36:36.000 align:middle line:90%