Thrilling Land Use Post

When someone says "land use policy," what do you think?  Time for a beer?  Time to clip my toenails?  Worthwhile Canadian initiative?

I feel your pain.  And yet: it's important!  Here are two examples.  First, from Kaid Benfield at NRDC, there's urban land use:

It's quite possible that California's new land use and transportation planning law, SB375, has been a game-changer....Suddenly people who two years ago wouldn't give smart growth advocates the time of day are talking about things like transit-oriented development and growth boundaries (if they still haven't caught on to revitalization and walkability, unfortunately), and mainstream enviros are beginning to seek ways to increase neighborhood density instead of opposing it.

....Smart growth and smart transportation choices can reduce the amount Americans need to drive — as measured in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) — by 10 percent per capita from 2005 levels. A 10 percent reduction in per capita VMT would reduce annual transportation emissions by 145 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (MMTCO2) in the year 2030, equivalent to the annual emissions of about 30 million cars or 35 large coal plants.

And now, rural land use.  In particular, an amendment to an appropriations bill last week that would have banned federal scientists from considering land use changes when calculating greenhouse gas emissions.  It failed, but only barely.  Michael O'Hare comments:

This is a particularly vile attempt to protect the corn industry at the expense of the planet by short-circuiting the science Obama promised would guide his administration....I can't be too clear or flatfooted about this: there is no respectable or responsible view that growing biofuel feedstock on land that could be used for food does not cause an indirect land use discharge of greenhouse gas, and corn ethanol is the biofuel with the largest indirect land use change effect.

....This is not a close scientific call even though the size of the LUC effect for a given fuel is subject to debate, it's a disagreement between people who will say anything for money and people who know what they're talking about....If we are willing to make stuff up and stifle the science with legislation like this, countries like India and China, and the Europeans, have no reason to get on board, especially after the last eight years of Bush administration denial and ignorantism and stasis on climate. It will be a catastrophe.

Mike wrote that last week, and as I said, the amendment ended up failing in committee.  But only by 30-29, and it's coming back to the floor this week.  Mike has more here on what you can do about this.