Where in Newton would you put 8,330 multi-family homes? That’s the question that the City Council has to figure out.
In January, Governor Charlie Baker signed into law the Housing Choice Act and a companion economic development bill. The economic development bill mandates that so-called MBTA Communities (Newton is one, by dint of our Green Line, commuter rail, and bus service) create at least one zoning district where multi-family housing is allowed as of right. At least part of such a district must be within a half-mile of transit. And, the district must be of “reasonable size.”
Yesterday, the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development issued guidance about what constitutes reasonable size and what is meant by the proximity-to-transit requirement. (The link is to an overview page. The actual guidance is here.) Proximity is the easy part to explain and for Newton to comply with. At least half of the area of the transit district must be within a half-mile of a transit stop and the remainder must have easy access by existing streets, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes. Since an overwhelming amount of Newton is within a half-mile of the T, commuter rail, or a bus stop, this should not be a challenging requirement to meet.
Reasonable size, the guidance reveals, is a function of the size of the municipality and the type of transit in the city. At a minimum, a transit district must be a contiguous 50 acres (10% of the area in a circle with a diameter of a half-mile). But, the transit district (or, presumably, districts) must be large enough that it allows for a minimum number of multi-family homes, that minimum being determined by the size of the municipality and the type of transit in the city. Size is measured by the number of housing units in the municipality as of the 2020 census. Newton had 13,320 33,320 homes in 2020. And, as a city with trolley service, Newton has to provide a by-right opportunity to create multi-family housing equivalent to 25% of the 2020 census number: 8,330 multi-family units. (For commuter rail, bus, and adjacent communities, the factors are 10, 15, and 20%.)
Importantly, Newton is under no obligation to actually produce 8,330 multi-family units. One needs to be able to look at the district on a zoning map and calculate the number of multi-family units that are possible to build by right – without discretionary review – according to the lots on the map and the zoning that applies to the lots. It’s all about the opportunity zoning creates.
A few other wrinkles. The district must have an average density of 15 units per acre. But, the district can have sub-districts with higher and lower densities, so long as all of the district allows multi-family homes by right and the average is 15 units per acre. And, existing multi-family homes count against the total.
Note, this is draft guidance. But, unless the final rules scuttle the general approach, Newton’s going to have to add a lot more multi-family zoning along the lines defined.
At 15 units per acre, Newton’s required transit districtage is about 550 acres. What acres should we make into transit districts?
Along the spectrum of approaches to the obligation, the approach that is most consistent with the explicit purpose of the law – to create more housing around transit – would put 50-acre-plus districts near our seven Green Line stops and three commuter-rail stops. It might not be ten separate districts. One can imagine a long transit district along Washington St. and a transit district connecting Newton Highlands and Newton Centre, for instance.
At the other end of the spectrum is an approach that seeks to limit the opportunity for new multi-family housing and would draw the transit districts to include the most existing (or recently permitted) multi-family housing possible. One can imagine huge transit districts along Boylston St. (Route 9) and Needham St. that capture the Towers at Chestnut Hill, Imperial Towers, the Residences, the Farm, the two Avalons, Northland, &c. Since existing multi-family housing is not nearly sufficient to meet our 8,330-unit obligation and since a district must be contiguous and larger than 50 acres, some large portion of the neighborhoods surrounding the big apartment buildings would also have to be zoned multi-family. There may also be some areas around Nonantum that are already 15 units-per-acre dense.
The first approach is consistent with the city’s aim to revitalize our village centers and to meet our climate objectives by enabling car-free and car-lite living. The second approach would concentrate multi-family housing where multi-family housing already exists, but not near our most valuable transit, unless a district includes Riverside and another 28 acres around Riverside or a Route 9 district extends right up to the Chestnut Hill T.
Where would you put Newton’s transit districts? Would you spread the density across 550 acres or have smaller coverage where more density is allowed.
I’d simply create multi-family by-right zoning within a half-mile of the Green Line and commuter rail and create pockets of higher density in village centers that can support and would benefit from 15 unit-per-acre density. Those pockets would need to be sufficient to meet our transit district obligations. I might also create carve outs for a few streets with a significant concentration of single-family homes of distinction, like Lincoln St., though I would allow multi-family conversions on such streets.
—
As always, you are free to take the conversation where it will go. But please note, I intend to post in the next few days about the requirement that multi-family zoning under the law and the guidance must allow housing that is suitable for families with children. That might be the better place for the inevitable and important discussion about the impact of these requirements on school capacity.
Clarification please. Is it mandatory OR newton loses certain funds.
What is the dollar amount of lost funds?
And as a technical matter, could newton just push all the thousands if units to north of the pike while having a small handful of luxury multifamily giant town houses in 2 unit developments in waban and newton center?
“An MBTA community that does not comply with Section 3A is not eligible for funding from: the Housing Choice Initiative, the Local Capital Projects Fund, or the MassWorks Infrastructure Program.”
What is the $ amount that Newton has received each year?
Just trying to lay down the facts.
No idea. I did see something on the state website that $200,000 was earmarked from the Housing Choice Initiative for the Armory project, but I was unable to match that up with a line item in that project.
I think we would need a budget expert to weigh in.
an independent budget expert can tell us how much revenue the extra 8000 units will bring in vs costs for at least 16000 new residents. At least a 17% increase in population
Will property taxes go up or down? I don’t know…
If we only missing out on 500k of funds in exchange of 17% increase in population/resources then its probably not worth it
Found the information in the Zoning and Planning meeting agenda for tonight:
The City of Newton has received both Massworks and Housing Choice grant funding in recent years and would anticipate seeking future funding under these programs to further economic development and affordable housing. These funding grants include:
• $7 million in Massworks funding for Route 9 improvements (2012-2014)
• $1.6 million in Massworks funding for Oak Street/Needham Street Intersection (2019)
• $400,000 in Masswork funding for design of Pettee Square (2021)
• $220,000 in Housing Choice funding to undertake affordable housing feasibility study for West Newton Armory
• $75,000 in Housing Choice funding to examine zoning options for California Street manufacturing area
WEST NEWTON HILL!!!!!!!
could easily put 3500 units
would nicely blend in!!!!!
comm ave
chestnut st
beacon st
that would be a really good start!!!!!!!!
could run shuttles
to all the village sq”s
BUT be careful In west newton sq “AKA AS THE GATEWAY TO HELL”
its ten times worse than before!!!!!!!!
We all knows its going to be on the 2 mile stretch of washington st…between wholefoods and west newton.
Let’s stop pretending there will be an equitable solution here.
Since when is 8330 25% of 13320? Shouldn’t that be 3330? 5000 units plus or minus is no big deal, I guess.
There’s a typo in the main post. Newton has 33,320 homes, not 13,320.
8300 new units is a pretty big margin, but not that big!
There is no reason for us to add 8300 units and likely >20K people simply to get extra state funding. We talk about equity, lets talk about how Newton has no need for additional state funding. Other communities on the T do, like Everett, Chelsea, Boston, Quincy, etc.
Not to mention think about the impact of adding 2-5K kids to the school system. The school system which is already struggling to stay relevant under our atrocious leadership.
For me, this is an easy no. Newton is great because of the way Newton is. I didn’t move here to live in Somerville. I moved here to live in Newton. Stop the madness.
Obviously the city needs more housing, but Newton needs to stay like Newton always has been. I moved here during the 1680’s, and I don’t even recognize what my neighborhood has turned into anymore. My neighbors used to be a family of wild turkeys. While I didn’t appreciate all the noise, at least they didn’t burden the school system or bother me with proposals to build high density housing. Stop the madness!
It is 33,320, not 13,320. Fixed it.
Car-free and car-light…how about density-lite? It’s one thing to discuss opening up zoning to allow multi-units on single lots, but 8,300? Let’s face it, that 25% increase will not be spread even (or dare I say, “equitably”) across the city. No, my friends and neighbors, some neighborhoods will get hit much, much harder than others. Public transit? It sucks even during Covid.
And will our tax bills and water bills come down by 25%? Don’t hold your breath. I’m tired of the overwhelming guilt, placed upon Newton’s citizens by certain elected officials and housing advocates for wanting to maintain current density levels. With the new year just around the corner, here’s to a guilt-free Newton in 2022!
The mayor needs this to tout as a mayor policy accomplishment for her “future” plans for future office (eg house, senate)
.. its going to happen unless there is an outcry. They will be smart and place 90% of the new units north of the pike.. ensuring outcry only from a small subset of the population
I guarantee you, councilors from waban/newton center will not be urging several thousand units to be built in their own ward
You left out governor
I’m very glad this legislation passed at the state level. I’ve been thinking for years that, because it is so blessed by transit, Newton has an obligation that it’s not fulfilling to Metro Boston and the entire state. I hope the density will be concentrated in village centers near the T. Right now, waban, Newton Highlands, and especially Newton center are such wasted opportunities. Putting it along Rte. 9,, for instance, would be ridiculous (unless my dream of a dedicated bus lane down the center of Rte. 9 comes to fruition!).
Really feel like people need to calm down a bit.
Let’s say the Council decides to go with Sean’s approach and designate areas around Green Line stops as multi-family zones by right. What is likely to happen around the Woodland stop? It is surrounded by two country clubs with large golf courses, and Newton-Wellesley hospital. Do you suppose that all of a sudden, massive apartment buildings will be sprouting up there? Get real. Similarly, Chestnut Hill stop is surrounded by a school, Longwood Cricket Club, and a mall. Maybe you could add some housing in the mall complex in the shorter term?
The notion that all of a sudden 8300 new units will be built and the city will go to the dogs is ridiculous. Change will be pretty slow, but faster than the glacial pace of today. Over time, density will increase around the T stops. Emphasis on over time, these things will not and cannot happen overnight.
The issue is some people like me have no problem with the current pace of change. Why is it bad that we want to preserve the Newton we decided to move to? For everyone that wants to live in a Somerville or Cambridge, they aren’t that far away, by all means please go live there.
@Frank D in my view, the problem is that Newton is not fulfilling a large obligation. We have a resource —public transportation – that is paid for by everyone in the Commonwealth, but the city has not made it available to enough people because of its housing stock. This isn’t fair to MA taxpayers. So, the Newton that we moved to needs to change. It shouldn’t be a low-density bucolic suburb with a public resource that we’re basically hogging.
The problem is the green line is horrible. And also, why would we sacrifice our city for the greater good? Im not into that. But hey, jam a bunch of condos by the pike if you want. Cause we all know that is where it will happen.
We dont need the money. Newton is great. The extreme proposal is not acceptable.
And now cue the “split newton in half” debate. Perhaps we should chop he city in half. Divide it on Comm Ave. make the northern part into watertown or waltham. Let the southern half be like wellesley and needham. That what you want? Sounds like it…
Yesh, I am not in to the greater good either. I want this proposal to pass so I can demolish my house, build four condos and move out. Just as you would like the state to not tell you about how you shpuld live, I don’t want anyone dictating what I should do withy property.
Holly,
If you feel strongly, please shame/lobby ward councilors with T access to pound the table for THOUSANDS of new affordable high density housing in their ward. Shame them to update their websites to demand building thousands of units in their own wards
Wards 5,6 are the ones hogging up the public resources
@bugek I’ll check this out but sounds reasonable. I’m in ward 6. @frank d “why sacrifice our city for the greater good”? Well, reasonable people can disagree whether or not it’s even a sacrifice we’re talking about. I believe not. My adult children, and most of the people I know, would much rather live in a more dense suburb, for cultural, lifestyle, and environmental reasons. Plus the fact that “We’re keeping all our stuff and not sharing” is not the way to run a functional society.
@Gary Miller
Despite being wedged between two golf courses and a hospital, the Woodland green line station has 450 housing units within 500 feet of the platform. I doubt there is any other T station in Newton with similar density at such proximity.
This is due to a large apartment building right next to the station. Every stop should have something similar.
The point though is that it’s very difficult to expand housing next to Woodland any further regardless of what the zoning says.
I simply don’t understand why the residents of Newton are even listening to these proponents who
would like to see Newton ground up and turned into Brighton, or Summerville. This city, which has been voted
as one of the best cities in the entire country, and the safest city in the country has achieved this level
of greatness by listening to the people of Newton, not the developers, and not the promoters of high density neighborhoods. While not perfect, Newton is a great city, and a great place to live, and grow up in. Don’t
let these people destroy Newton so they can build their view of what Newton should look like. High density living brings high density problems with crime, parking, and traffic no matter how close to the T you put it. People who want to live in Newton and can afford it will also want cars to get around. Keep Newton the suburban bedroom community it has been since it started, not Brighton or Waltham, or Summerville.
laura,
I don’t believe residents are listening to these proponents, at the same time they prefer not to speak out in fear of being called racists, climate change deniers and boomers. However, I imagine the Mayor strongly supports this …. it’s going to happen unless there is significant outcry
There will not be “far-spread” outcry because the distribution of these new units will certainly not be equitable. “Special and unique” parts of Newton will not be impacted by crowded schools, traffic, noise, higher property taxes (affluent areas absorb it easier)
@Laura Mullen – agree with you 100%, but here’s the disconnect. Newton voters approved the Northland project, dumping 822 apartments in a village of only 1,200 homes today.
Newton voters continue to elect pro-development, pro-density, anti-car candidates starting with our current Mayor. If Sean and friends have it their way, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Matt,
This strategy is intentional… dumping hundreds of units few ward at a time to prevent widespread objection
The woke councilors in affluent wards can demonstrate how woke they are while incurring ZERO negative side affects to their immediate ward
Change is coming one way or another. If we don’t act on climate change by becoming less dependent on cars, the change in Newton will be far more dramatic than some additional multi-family housing. When Boston is underwater, do we expect to go on with life-as-usual in the surrounding communities? But far sooner than that…Newton’s budget is already so tight…imagine what will happen to property taxes (and our schools) as we pay for the skyrocketing costs of storm cleanup, sewer flooding and infrastructure repair & expansion. We can all keep talking about the characteristics of Newton that attracted us to settle down here, but that world is gone and is not coming back. We can either make changes now or let the devastating impact of climate change happen to us. Adding transit-oriented housing is really a path to preserving what we love about our city.
Rhanna,
If density was the solution to climate change then NYC, Hong Kong would be the greenest places on earth. Quite the opposite, the carbon footprint and air quality is horrible.
Fix the transportation issue first to get ICE cars and ubers off the road.
If the issue was so urgent, newton could BAN any non electric car from parking on any Newton public street and public parking lot. Is it a existential threat or not?
Or is it only an existential threat if developers provide the solution?
Very well said. You have to do things in a proper order.
People don’t take the green line because it sucks, not because they don’t care about climate change. I will never take the green line downtown because it takes me triple the time it takes me to drive. Lets say that means 20 mins vs an hour. Each way. Thats a total of 80 minutes saved per day, i would rather 80 minutes per day spent with my family. Assuming 200 work days that is 266 hours per year with my family. There is no way you convince me, someone who is a majoy proponent of smart climate change legislation, to take the green line. And if you thinn I am in the minority, you would be wrong.
As was said, newton is a great bedroom community with amazing amenities. If we wanted to live in Brighton or Watertown we could. Instead we chose Newton.
#KeepNewtonNewton
Per capita carbon emissions in Hong Kong: 5.3 metric tons
Per capita carbon emissions in NYC: 6.1 metric tons
Per capita carbon emissions in NY state: 8.0 metric tons
Per capita carbon emissions in Massachusetts: 9.2 metric tons
Per capita carbon emissions in Kansas: 19.9 metric tons
Density is strongly correlated with lower carbon emissions.
Which air would you rather breathe for the rest of your life? The toxic tailpipes in NYC or the countryside in Kansas?
The rampant disposal lifestyle generates most of the trash and carbon footprint. Eg buying and trashing clothes each fashion season, takeout and small goods packaging.
If density came with a outright ban (or made impractical to own a gas car) on gas vehicles in Newton then maybe the residents would see some tangible impact on climate change
Today’s air quality in Kansas ranges from: 23 (good) to 78 (moderate)
Today’s air quality in NYC: 32 (good)
Today’s air quality in Massachusetts ranges from 25-35 (all good).
https://www.iqair.com/us/usa
Overall, Massachusetts (and NYC) has better air quality than Kansas. I would prefer to breathe the air here.
I hear you about the disposable lifestyle but that has nothing to do with density.
I would commend to you this excellent piece on why simply replacing gasoline-based cars with electric cars won’t improve our lives, solve the climate change problem, or rectify the serious inequities in our society. Electric cars are one part of the solution, not *the* solution.
https://mass.streetsblog.org/2021/04/23/guest-column-electric-cars-wont-save-us/
And Hong Kong has an air quality of 45, worse than here. You forgot to mention that despite praising Hong Kong earlier :).
Can I ask a serious question though? what is the goal of these climate change initiatives and the militant nature of those pushing them? As I said I support smart legislation to curb emissions and help climate change, however the reality is we in Newton, Massachusetts, or the USA aren’t going to fix anything without India and China on board (and a few other countries). All of the worst offenders are there unfortunately so without them, we aren’t solving anything. Doesn’t mean we don’t try no, but people should remember we aren’t fixing anything without those two countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-polluted_cities_by_particulate_matter_concentration
Well said!
@rhanna well put. We cannot have our heads in the sand about these realities.
The ugly little thing that no one wants to talk about is world population, which has gone from about 4 billion since I was in high school to nearly 8 billion now.
Expect another 2 billion in the next 30 years.
There’s some simple math here: 1 person * energy usage and consumption = carbon output.
Everyone has to become a ascetic; that’s the only way out. No beef, vegan only, live in a small two room apartment, no car, take only public transportation, only stay-cation a – basically Amish – well that’s how we can maximize the number of people on the planet.
You can’t maximize both your current lifestyle (even with electric cars, which use rubber tires, lithium batteries, etc.) and population.
@Rick Frank I believe you are referring to the Kaya identity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaya_identity
Basically:
Carbon emissions = Population * GDP per capita * energy intensity * carbon intensity
With a rising population, you have much more pressure on reducing the other factors if you are going to bring emissions down. It’s not impossible, it’s just a lot harder. And I don’t expect anyone to want to reduce GDP per capita (a proxy for living standards). If population and living standards go up, the intensity factors really need to plummet.
That’s certainly one equation that represents the situation. Population growing more or less exponentially, reducing the other factors is going to be nearly impossible. Everything that humans do – consumption or services – produces carbon dioxide, or reduces sinks. The production of cement, the cutting down of trees to build more housing. Traveling to visit relatives, or going on a eco-vacation that’s not just walking along the charles River. The manufacturing of electric vehicles. Anyways, the whole housing thing, as a “solution” to climate change, is completely myopic. Seriously, we would have to move to a pre industrial life style, given such a large population – a large portion of which desires to increase their own lifestyle to the lifestyle of the average person writing on this thread – to really get back to a low enough emissions rate. And I’m equally to blame. I guess the term is virtue signaling? I’m not virtue signaling. Just pointing out facts that date back to my reading of Issac Asimov and Carl Sagan in high school. You can’t maximize both population and “lifestyle” given our current economic system.
@Rick – For the record, we do disagree somewhat here.
First, world population is not growing “exponentially”. China’s birth rate is below replacement level, as is Japan’s, South Korea’s, Russia’s, much of Western Europe’s, and now the US and India have joined them. Basically every country in the world has a declining birth rate other than Chad.
Secondly, if you examine the equation, we have:
Population – something that government policy has not proven to have much impact on in the short term.
Economic growth – difficult to expect populations to accept reduced growth as a price
Energy intensity – no one has ever figured out how to achieve growth without using more energy
That leaves decarbonization. This is why everyone focuses on this aspect to the exclusion of the other factors. It’s a difficult way forward, but it’s feasible.
Gerry, What I do find interesting is the small blip in carbon emissions during covid. Thought it would be much more given ppl were not driving, commuting, eating out and consuming. Likely because the the factories in China/india were still spewing toxic air
So essentially, you could force half of USA into remote work with zero commute and it would still only register as a blip for global warming.
So, is density is really going to do anything. The data from covid tells us NO. These are cold hard FACTS
In the US, carbon emissions dropped by 13% in 2020. That’s a lot!
But it was almost all related to lower transport emissions – people driving less basically.
How does this relate to density? Well, density means less driving. So it helps but of course you are right that it doesn’t solve the problem. The problem is complex and multi-faceted. Climate change will not be solved by one change. It requires progress on a lot of fronts. I would not agree that a 13% drop is nothing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3
global emissions during covid only dropped 6%. You could create the most dense housing WORLDWIDE such that no one needs to drive to work and it would still only save 6% for the planet!!!!
back to Newton, The public transportation is so poor that density certainly does not guarantee double digit drop in car commutes. As more EVs are sold the whole point of more density = less tailpipe emissions becomes complete mute.
I’m simply presenting facts that even PEAK desity would do little for climate change as PROVEN by facts during covid. The planet is not USA so only global emissions drops should be quoted
6% worldwide carbon emission drop under the most optimistic scenario possible of ZERO commuting
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3
That’s just not right. Most countries didn’t go into lockdown! Neither did the US, not really. Many many essential workers and others still commuted. That’s very far from 0% driving. I used the US because we have a pretty good picture of what happened here.
Density is about more than commuting/driving. Single family homes are less efficient to heat than apartment or condo buildings too.
It’s just incorrect to say that because reducing driving has a limited impact on emissions we should not bother to try to do that at all. Every step we can take has a limited impact, it’s only in total that we start to take big steps.
Ok, we’re at the top bend of the logistic S curve. But an increase of 81 million people per year is a heckofa lot.
Government plans that increase the status of women, and make family planning available are the two programs that I can think of that have correlations with declining birth rates.
And, projections, FWIW, are to reach 10 billion people by 2060.
China is encouraging people to have more children now
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-plans-further-shift-toward-encouraging-childbirth-11624003448
Because now that they have gone the capitalist route, they too have discovered the perverse link between GDP and population growth.
Elon musk made some noise recently about how we need more people.
I don’t have a good answer. Should we do nothing? Are the “things” we are doing now – solar panels etc – the new recycling of the 90s? ( in other words, not really effective).
One thing we should do- build sea walls along Boston Harbor.
Gary,
I agree we need small steps. Unfortunately the small step suggested in this post involves increasing Newton population 30% (and likely not equitably distributed) to improve worldwide emissions by 0.000000000000000000000001%
That is precisely the kind of alarmist, over the top rhetoric that gives comfort to the science deniers and their media henchpeople. Great job Ms. Kidwell. Keep up the good work!
Science: if you stopped all commuting WORLDWIDE, it would only drop global emissions for the planet 6%.. as confirmed during covid
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00090-3
Increase density in newton for climate change… also known as a drop in the ocean. As presenting by facts and science
@Sean, there are 83 houses for sale in Somerville. I know a couple realtors for you if you need one.
Those of us who like Newton as it is are happy to stay. Please let me know if you want their contacts. They are great and super helpful!
Curious what anti-density folks think of Carmel, Indiana, about the same population & size as Newton: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/09/26/carmel-indiana-shows-suburbs-how-to-go-big-on-biking/
The “anti density” folks would like “developer lobbyists” to stop with the name calling.
If climate change was an existential threat, the mayor would have acted on more bike lanes already. The threat is clearly only used when developers benefit
Bugek, I wasn’t using anti-density as a perjorative term. I just thought that was the accurate descriptor.
I’m personally agnostic on how we build for people & mobility, as long as we build density in our village centers with acceptable affordable percentages. I think we should be using all the levers & assets we have, including market & public financing, and city land.
The same size??? Not even close.
Carmel is +/- 50 square miles- more than double Newton.
Newton is more densely populated.
newton median income = 151K
carmel = 112K
newton median home price = 1.3 mil
carmel = 462K
Id say not a bad, but not a great comparison. nearly 1.5X the income and 3X the home value. Boy do I wish my dollars went that far though. But no, adding 8K units to newton will not increase my purchasing power. I want a house with a yard so in all likelihood staying in Newton will be more expensive for people like me if this all moves forward. See Brookline.
@Frank D. Sorry, we got too deep on the other part of the thread and cannot reply directly to your comment.
I did not think to include the air quality in Hong Kong because Bugek’s comment did not include it.
Anyway, I think you are quite correct about the need for India/China/Russia to move for there to be a solution to the climate crisis. Where I am right now is that years of negotiations have not moved these countries (nor the US) to a point where sufficient action is being taken. However, technology *has* improved to the point where clean energy is now cheaper than the alternatives.
So, in the absence of effective collective action, my position right now is that the US should move aggressively and capture the significant competitive advantages that will accrue from these investments. These include cleaner air and water, less costly, more reliable power sources, new technology, and a restoration of US leadership on the global stage along with a delinking of US foreign policy from fossil fuel production.
Once these advantages become clear, these other countries will have no choice but to match us. This is the only way to solve the climate problem fast enough to meet the science.
Federal action is required, and our representatives are on board with that. We can do our part locally by making investments in charging stations, fuel pump conversions, municipal solar, requiring new buildings to use clean energy, etc.
More dense housing is a less obvious part of that picture. Sprawl is associated with increased emissions. Mass transit emits much less CO2 than cars do and reduces pollution overall. I think we would all agree that the T works much less well than we want. Just giving up on the T doesn’t solve that though. Pre-pandemic I drove to the North End from Newton for dinner and it took over an hour and was stressful as hell, so just having everyone drive doesn’t really solve anything.
We need a better T, but we are in a catch-22. Without a better T, people won’t use it. But if people don’t use it, there isn’t enough pressure to improve the T.
There are also significant equity/equality/values issues at play separate from climate change which I would be happy to discuss in a separate thread as this one is getting a bit long and off topic.
Soylent Green. 2022?
Hahaha…well played.