Yule Heibel's Library tagged phil_mckenna →  View Popular

I have some questions about the source of this report/ research, which claims that density (including examples such as Vancouver's eco-density) "would yield insignificant CO2 reductions."
QUOTE
Even if 75 percent of all new and replacement housing in America were built at twice the density of current new developments, and those living in the newly constructed housing drove 25 percent less as a result, CO2 emissions from personal travel would decline nationwide by only 8 to 11 percent by 2050, according to the study. If just 25 percent of housing units were developed at such densities and residents drove only 12 percent less as a result, CO2 emissions would be reduced by less than 2 percent by 2050.
UNQUOTE

I guess the problem is with defining real density as a mere "twice the density of current new developments": if you consider that new developments include suburban greenfield spreads on 1/4 to 1/2 acre for each SFH, then doubling that density really doesn't amount to much.

Further down, the report just makes the case for building more fuel-efficient cars - so maybe that's where the report's agenda originates.

www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx - Preview

mit_techreview sprawl urbanplanning phil_mckenna density national_academy_of_sciences