This commentary is by Vince Bolduc, who holds a Ph.D. in sociology and is a professor emeritus at St. Michael’s College. He is coauthor of “Vermont in Transition” and the five “Pulse of Vermont” publications on quality of life. He is a member of South Burlington’s Affordable Housing Committee and thinks of himself as a Democrat.
In case anyone needed convincing, the overwhelming evidence provided by the COP26 world conference should have persuaded even the most ardent climate change deniers that our planet has a problem.
Vermont has ample evidence of our own warming patterns, and some level of climate migration is already in evidence. For example, see the recent Valley News article republished in VTDigger: “Experts warn the Upper Valley a likely destination for climate migration, and we should plan for it.”
How do we prepare? Obviously there are daunting lists of steps that should be taken to reduce global warming, including in Vermont, where the primary cause of greenhouse gas emissions comes from the transportation sector, doing about 45% of the damage (Agency of Natural Resources).
What steps are we taking today to reduce these emissions for tomorrow? One step that is not receiving the attention that it deserves is the need for an innovative and courageous effort at regional and urban planning to influence population and housing growth between towns.
Vermont population growth has been relatively slow this past decade, but there has been steady population growth in Chittenden County (7.5%), where one in four Vermonters live. It is the economic, cultural and social center of the state, and home to the state’s two largest employers. There is every reason to believe that it will continue to grow in the foreseeable future, especially with modest rates of climate and pandemic-related migration.
If the current trickle of climate migrants becomes a stream or a river, where should they live? Housing is already in very short supply, and the costs are already through the proverbial roof.
The conventional answer is that new migrants can simply move into the distant suburbs and exurbs, where housing costs are manageable. Easy. Unfortunately, the easy answer is the wrong answer if we are serious about doing our part to slow climate change.
Compared to growth in the core communities (e.g., South Burlington, Colchester, etc.), housing growth in the peripheral towns will have an enormous effect on releasing greenhouse gases. New residents will have to commute a greater distance for jobs, services and entertainment in the core. More households will need two cars and more of their time will be spent driving. Long trips by garbage trucks, service vehicles and UPS deliveries will follow and regionwide sprawl will become a common complaint.
The simple fact is this: The greater the distance from urban centers, the more CO2 generated. By one calculation, centrally located South Burlington households “only” contribute 8.77 metric tons of transportation-related greenhouse gas to the atmosphere per year, whereas households in Hinesburg add 10.22 tons and households in Jericho add 11.51 tons. Not just for one year, but forever.
To slow climate change, the first thing we need to do is stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere. We need to use the tools of regional planning that employ a wider lens than single communities, which tend to act in their narrow self-interests.
The planning literature seems unanimous that higher densities toward the urban cores reduce the carbon footprint of a population, primarily by reducing transportation time, but also by making alternative means of mobility more feasible — such as public transportation, walking and biking.
There are other environmental advantages to an increase in urban density as well. My own inner-core city of South Burlington, for example, already has urban infrastructure, such as public water, sewers and sophisticated planning tools, in place to cope with the challenges of growth. This is an environmental efficiency that exurban towns do not have.
Our Regional Planning Commission’s ECOS plan recognizes these simple facts. They argue that sustainable communities actively concentrate their land use to reduce auto travel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (pages 6-8). We need more such regional-level thinking and less focus on one community at a time.
This means that if core towns become preoccupied with protecting land only within their own borders, then damage is done to the environment of the wider region. This is indeed paradoxical, but the great wisdom of environmentalism is that our natural world is inextricably interconnected. Fields protected in core towns result in fields developed in peripheral towns. The gain and loss is 1:1. It’s a wash.
Unfortunately, the effects are not so benign with CO2 emissions, where the gain and loss ratio may be 1:2 or worse. Development in the periphery contributes far more to global warming than development in the core. As one community, can we recognize this simple truth and better plan for it?
To solve this environmental crisis, every town must keep in mind that the big picture — the region, the state, the earth — needs to be our primary focus, not just our own backyards. First and foremost, we need to stop adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere. To do this, we may need to make it easier — not harder — to develop denser housing in the core communities of Chittenden County. In the exurbs, we should do the opposite.
