You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Later this week, Vice President Kamala Harris will give the first major policy speech of her campaign focused on tackling the “rising cost of living,” according to early press reports. That includes the skyrocketing cost of housing — but of course, you don’t need me to tell you that.
The housing shortage is now perhaps America’s defining economic problem. Over the past two decades, the median cost of housing in America — for renters and for owners alike — has grown much faster than the median income; more than 90% of Americans live in a place where housing costs have outstripped income growth.
Housing is in such short supply that it is distorting and holding back the country’s economy. This morning, the Labor Department announced that prices rose only 2.9% over the past year, a welcome signal that inflation has finally returned to a normal rate. The inflation that we’re still experiencing is driven, above all, by housing, which was responsible for a whopping 90% of the monthly increase in prices.
Friday’s speech is meant to fill out Harris’s relatively skinny set of policy proposals; so far, her team has yet to announce any real deviation from the Biden administration’s climate policy. But I would encourage her — and them — to see housing policy as a climate policy issue. If America hopes to reach net-zero by 2050, then one of the easiest and cheapest ways for it to do so will be to build more housing, especially in cities and transit-connected suburbs.
In America, where you live determines how much carbon dioxide you emit. That’s somewhat less of an issue in other countries that have retained older and more walkable development patterns. But here, half a century of sprawling suburban development has made a high-emissions-lifestyle all but compulsory. If you live in New York, Washington, D.C., or another walkable city, then your carbon emissions are substantially lower than if you live in the suburbs or exurbs. In the country’s sprawling suburbs — not only in the Sunbelt, but also in New Jersey, Maryland, and California — carbon emissions are much higher.
That’s because where you live basically determines how much you drive — and driving is America’s biggest climate problem. The transportation sector is the most carbon-intensive part of America’s economy, generating more emissions than any other activity, and cars and trucks are responsible for most of those emissions. By one estimate, cars and trucks create perhaps 40% of America’s carbon emissions. (That estimate includes the greenhouse gases emitted by manufacturing cars and trucks.) Even in 2030, when millions more Americans have purchased electric vehicles, driving is still expected to dominate the country’s emissions portfolio, according to the Rhodium Group, a private energy analysis company.
So if we want to cut emissions, we should make it as easy as possible for Americans not to drive — or to drive only when they want to. But right now, housing is critically undersupplied in the cities and suburbs where that is possible. Freddie Mac, a federally-backed enterprise that supports the housing market, estimated in 2018 that America had roughly 2.5 million fewer homes than it needed; it has since updated that number to 3.8 million. Many of these housing shortages are worst in the cities where economic growth has been most profound. In the 2010s, New York permitted fewer new housing units than in the 2000s, or even the 1960s.
“Oftentimes, the climate-friendly choice is more expensive, or you’re trying to get people to embrace something they wouldn’t always embrace,” Ben Furnas, the former director of the New York City mayor’s office for climate and sustainability, told me. But that isn’t the case for building more housing in dense, walkable, and transit-affiliated areas, he said.
“The prices in all of these places suggest there’s huge pent-up demand for people to live in these places,” he said. “And even just lowering the regulatory barriers to let that kind of development happen and that kind of growth occur would both make it more affordable, and let people live closer to their families, and be good for the climate in terms of per capita emissions.”
Housing is more than a climate issue for driving-related reasons, though. America’s buildings are responsible for about a third of the country’s carbon emissions. Most of those emissions come from heating and cooling, as well as from generating hot water. But it is cheaper and more energy efficient to do that heating and cooling when houses share a wall or are in the same building. “Heating and cooling a 3,000-square-foot single family home is much more expensive than heating and cooling a 3,000-square-foot condominium in a city,” Paul Williams, the executive director of the Center for Public Enterprise, told me. “The heating loss and cooling loss is much lower in apartment buildings than in single family homes, so having those levels of density matters a lot.”
This is not a millennial problem. America has been underbuilding housing for a long time, and much of that supply shortfall is due to overly restrictive zoning codes at the local level. Even as president, however, Harris has ways to nudge cities to build more. A bipartisan group of lawmakers has proposed the “YIMBY Act,” which would fund cities and states to pursue a race-to-the-top-style effort to loosen housing restrictions. Even without help from Congress, a Harris administration could create a national housing construction fund to provide steady financial support to build new multifamily housing, so that the construction of new apartments and condos doesn’t stop when interest rates rise or the economy hits a snag. Finally, Harris could use the bully pulpit to push local governments — especially in Democratic-leaning states with their own forward-looking climate policies — to drop rules that restrict multifamily development, enforce parking minimums, or prevent the construction of single-stair buildings.
These policies don’t have to transform American society to do a lot of good. “Even a difference between a long drive and a short drive also makes a climate difference,” Furnas, who now runs the 2030 Project, Cornell University’s climate initiative, said. “If you live in a duplex in a somewhat walkable area, one of the two parents drives to work and the other takes the bus, and they can walk to the kid’s school or a grocery store,” that is much more pleasant — and will have much lower emissions — than a scenario where both parents must drive everywhere. It will also be cheaper.
Harris doesn’t need to sound like a radical on these policies, in other words. And she doesn’t even need to do anything more than nod at them. (If I were giving her political advice, I’d say that she doesn’t need to spend much time talking about climate policy between now and November 5 — although as a climate journalist, of course, I feel differently — but perhaps that’s a topic for another column.) But they are basically the free money of America’s climate transition — they would cut inflation, reduce greenhouse gases, and create more pleasant places to live. Should she win the White House, she should pursue them aggressively.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Almost half of developers believe it is “somewhat or significantly harder to do” projects on farmland, despite the clear advantages that kind of property has for harnessing solar power.
The solar energy industry has a big farm problem cropping up. And if it isn’t careful, it’ll be dealing with it for years to come.
Researchers at SI2, an independent research arm of the Solar Energy Industries Association, released a study of farm workers and solar developers this morning that said almost half of all developers believe it is “somewhat or significantly harder to do” projects on farmland, despite the clear advantages that kind of property has for harnessing solar power.
Unveiled in conjunction with RE+, the largest renewable energy conference in the U.S., the federally-funded research includes a warning sign that permitting is far and away the single largest impediment for solar developers trying to build projects on farmland. If this trend continues or metastasizes into a national movement, it could indefinitely lock developers out from some of the nation’s best land for generating carbon-free electricity.
“If a significant minority opposes and perhaps leads to additional moratoria, [developers] will lose a foot in the door for any future projects,” Shawn Rumery, SI2’s senior program director and the survey lead, told me. “They may not have access to that community any more because that moratoria is in place.”
SI2’s research comes on the heels of similar findings from Heatmap Pro. A poll conducted for the platform last month found 70% of respondents who had more than 50 acres of property — i.e. the kinds of large landowners sought after by energy developers — are concerned that renewable energy “takes up farmland,” by far the greatest objection among that cohort.
Good farmland is theoretically perfect for building solar farms. What could be better for powering homes than the same strong sunlight that helps grow fields of yummy corn, beans and vegetables? And there’s a clear financial incentive for farmers to get in on the solar industry, not just because of the potential cash in letting developers use their acres but also the longer-term risks climate change and extreme weather can pose to agriculture writ large.
But not all farmers are warming up to solar power, leading towns and counties across the country to enact moratoria restricting or banning solar and wind development on and near “prime farmland.” Meanwhile at the federal level, Republicans and Democrats alike are voicing concern about taking farmland for crop production to generate renewable energy.
Seeking to best understand this phenomena, SI2 put out a call out for ag industry representatives and solar developers to tell them how they feel about these two industries co-mingling. They received 355 responses of varying detail over roughly three months earlier this year, including 163 responses from agriculture workers, 170 from solar developers as well as almost two dozen individuals in the utility sector.
A key hurdle to development, per the survey, is local opposition in farm communities. SI2’s publicity announcement for the research focuses on a hopeful statistic: up to 70% of farmers surveyed said they were “open to large-scale solar.” But for many, that was only under certain conditions that allow for dual usage of the land or agrivoltaics. In other words, they’d want to be able to keep raising livestock, a practice known as solar grazing, or planting crops unimpeded by the solar panels.
The remaining percentage of farmers surveyed “consistently opposed large-scale solar under any condition,” the survey found.
“Some of the messages we got were over my dead body,” Rumery said.
Meanwhile a “non-trivial” number of solar developers reported being unwilling or disinterested in adopting the solar-ag overlap that farmers want due to the increased cost, Rumery said. While some companies expect large portions of their business to be on farmland in the future, and many who responded to the survey expect to use agrivoltaic designs, Rumery voiced concern at the percentage of companies unwilling to integrate simultaneous agrarian activities into their planning.
In fact, Rumery said some developers’ reticence is part of what drove him and his colleagues to release the survey while at RE+.
As we discussed last week, failing to address the concerns of local communities can lead to unintended consequences with industry-wide ramifications. Rumery said developers trying to build on farmland should consider adopting dual-use strategies and focus on community engagement and education to avoid triggering future moratoria.
“One of the open-ended responses that best encapsulated the problem was a developer who said until the cost of permitting is so high that it forces us to do this, we’re going to continue to develop projects as they are,” he said. “That’s a cold way to look at it.”
Meanwhile, who is driving opposition to solar and other projects on farmland? Are many small farm owners in rural communities really against renewables? Is the fossil fuel lobby colluding with Big Ag? Could building these projects on fertile soil really impede future prospects at crop yields?
These are big questions we’ll be tackling in far more depth in next week’s edition of The Fight. Trust me, the answers will surprise you.
Here are the most notable renewable energy conflicts over the past week.
1. Worcester County, Maryland –Ocean City is preparing to go to court “if necessary” to undo the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval last week of U.S. Wind’s Maryland Offshore Wind Project, town mayor Rick Meehan told me in a statement this week.
2. Magic Valley, Idaho – The Lava Ridge Wind Project would be Idaho’s biggest wind farm. But it’s facing public outcry over the impacts it could have on a historic site for remembering the impact of World War II on Japanese residents in the United States.
3. Kossuth County, Iowa – Iowa’s largest county – Kossuth – is in the process of approving a nine-month moratorium on large-scale solar development.
Here’s a few more hotspots I’m watching…
The most important renewable energy policies and decisions from the last few days.
Greenlink’s good day – The Interior Department has approved NV Energy’s Greenlink West power line in Nevada, a massive step forward for the Biden administration’s pursuit of more transmission.
States’ offshore muddle – We saw a lot of state-level offshore wind movement this past week… and it wasn’t entirely positive. All of this bodes poorly for odds of a kumbaya political moment to the industry’s benefit any time soon.
Chumash loophole – Offshore wind did notch one win in northern California by securing an industry exception in a large marine sanctuary, providing for farms to be built in a corridor of the coastline.
Here’s what else I’m watching …