The Assumption of Inconvenience

Early this week, I noticed a number of my favorite bloggers linking to this Elisabeth Rosenthal essay at Environment 360, on the mysterious greenness of European nations. The average American, as it happens, produces about twice as much carbon dioxide each year as your typical resident of Western Europe.

Rosenthal attributes much of this difference to behavioral factors relating, it seems, to Europeans’ unique tolerance of inconvenience. She writes:

But even as an American, if you go live in a nice apartment in Rome, as
I did a few years back, your carbon footprint effortlessly plummets.
It’s not that the Italians care more about the environment; I’d say
they don’t. But the normal Italian poshy apartment in Rome doesn’t have a clothes dryer
or an air conditioner or microwave or limitless hot water. The heat
doesn’t turn on each fall until you’ve spent a couple of chilly weeks
living in sweaters. The fridge is tiny. The average car is small. The
Fiat 500 gets twice as much gas mileage as any hybrid SUV. And it’s not
considered suffering. It’s living the dolce vita.

She later adds:

Also, in Europe, the construction of most cities preceded the invention
of cars. The centuries-old streets in London or Barcelona or Rome
simply can’t accommodate much traffic — it’s really a pain, but you
learn to live with it. In contrast, most American cities, think Atlanta
and Dallas, were designed for people with wheels.

What makes this particularly remarkable is that she opens the essay by discussing an experience she has in Stockholm, in which she insists on taking a taxi from the airport, which ends up being much slower and more expensive than the train.

Brad Plumer frames the piece as a fascinating read in light of the "lifestyle taboo," writing:

It’s not considered the height of political savvy here in the United
States to point out that European lifestyles are greener than our own.
Don’t expect that line in an Obama speech anytime soon. Too many facets
of European life—the cramped apartments, the clotheslines for drying
laundry—would likely strike suburbanites as inconvenient, burdensome,
or even downright primitive…

Rosenthal wonders whether similar measures could fly in the United
States: "I believe most people are pretty adaptable and that some of
the necessary shifts in lifestyle are about changing habits, not giving
up comfort or convenience." Maybe so, but this sort of talk still tends
to be taboo in mainstream U.S. green circles. Josh Patashnik wrote a terrific piece for TNR
last year on Arnold Schwarzenegger’s brand of "pain-free
environmentalism" in California—it’s all just peachy to talk about
swapping out coal-fired plants for solar-thermal stations, but ixnay on
trying to rein in suburban growth or coax people into smaller homes.

I see several problems with Rosenthal’s essay and with Brad’s framing of it. One is that it’s not really correct to attribute the huge gap in per capita emissions between America and Western Europe to the charming European habit of drying their clothes on clotheslines.

As Brad notes, power sources play a major role, whether one is talking about greater use of natural gas, the French nuclear industry, or Iceland’s geothermal capacity.

Climate is extremely important. Western Europe is fairly temperate relative to much of America (and especially compared to the dirtiest parts of the country). In the same way, Californians are much greener than Texans, thanks to the moderate conditions along the heavily populated Pacific coast, which reduce the number of days on which home heating or cooling is needed.

But there are lifestyle issues involved, particularly where transportation and land use are concerned. And contrary to Rosenthal, it isn’t that Europeans have opted for inconvenience. Rather, they have chosen different conveniences, as her Stockholm air train anecdote makes clear.

It is incorrect to say that an overabundance of land drove America to sprawl, and to drive. The Netherlands is dense of necessity, of course, but in Britain and France and Germany there is ample countryside, which might easily be home to sprawling subdivisions.

But Western Europeans have largely chosen not to encourage such growth, opting instead to tax gas at high rates, invest in transit, and protect center cities from the threat of urban freeways.

I think it is very difficult, objectively, to demonstrate that their choices have produced ways of life that are clearly less convenient than American lives. It is clear that Europeans tend to have better health outcomes than us, and they die in car accidents at much lower rates, and of course they’re enjoying levels of wealth similar to our own while producing half as much carbon.

The obvious retort to this line of thinking is that perhaps that’s all true, but like it or not America is now sprawling, and any effort to make the country greener by pursuing European land use and transportation options would be very difficult. In a similar vein, it is argued that attempts to push Americans into such a life via gas taxes or carbon prices would wind up being very painful.

But this is not quite right. As I have pointed out before, America will more or less need to build itself all over again by 2050 in order to accommodate population growth. Just because most of America is currently sprawling doesn’t mean that most of the America built between now and mid-century has to look the same.

It’s also not clear that increasing the push factor on households has to be especially painful. Taxes on drivers can be levied in a progressive fashion, if some revenues are used to fund transit options while others are refunded to lower and middle income households to help offset the added cost of driving.

Congestion tolling would mean higher government revenues and reduced driving, but it would benefit rich and poor alike. As with tax revenues, tolls could be used to provide a cushion against the increased cost for lower income families and increased investment in transit. Higher income households (which will tend to place a greater value on work hours lost to congestion) would enjoy a speedy ride into the office.

If the federal government worked to address limits on urban growth in green cities like New York and San Francisco — limits which also serve to make housing in such places extremely expensive — then America could grow denser and greener by improving access for middle-income households to some of the most dynamic metropolitan economies in the country.

Perhaps not all of the policy changes needed to reduce America’s carbon footprint will be a walk in the park, but efforts to improve land use and transportation decisions are likely to be some of the most benefit-rich aspects of the climate change fight (as you’d think most people would realize, given the obvious pain of congestion, high gas prices, driving fatalities, and isolation among those unable to drive, among other things).

This storyline — that changing lifestyles to enhance walkability will be painful — makes it harder to pass good metropolitan policies and easier for politicans to fall back on the lame argument that Americans simply won’t tolerate anything other than the sprawling suburban patterns which have dominated new development in recent decades.

And by reinforcing the idea that some of the most promising and least painful policy changes that can be made are unlikely to "work" here in America, writers and politicians alike ensure that more of the hard job of cutting emissions will fall to the parts of the economy where there are no good alternative options, and where change will be painful for households.

Rosenthal’s essay is odd yet revealing. She instinctually attributes European greenness to practices Americans would dub backward, while pretending that the very convenient and green transport options she finds are built, and presumably used, by Europeans based on some peculiarity in their culture that we lack.

But we could build trains! In any given legislative sessions bills are introduced that would move the country toward the level of convenience Rosenthal enjoyed in her train ride to the Stockholm airport. It’s just that they don’t pass, because "it’s not considered the height of political savvy" to embrace those policies, because Americans seem to think that their American-ness will render such conveniences inconvenient.

"Trains won’t work here," because "Americans love their cars," and so high quality rail lines aren’t built, and so Americans continue to drive. And then we sit around wondering what it is about the European character that makes them enjoy using clotheslines so much.

  • Kenney

    Ryan, thanks for another great article, as usual. When you have a chance, please clarify/expand on what you meant by saying “Higher income households (which will tend to place a greater value on work hours lost to congestion) would enjoy a speedy ride into the office.” I’m particularly concerned with the implication that value on time goes up as income goes up, because I believe lower income people have just as much if not more to lose being stuck in traffic.

    Also, that line seems to imply that investments in transit will cut road congestion by diverting poorer motorists to buses and rail, while the freed up road space as a result will go to benefit higher income motorists (“speedy ride into the office”). As an aside, it kind of reminds me of a funny Onion headline that read “98% of Americans Support Public Transportation for Other People.” Anyhow, my point is, I notice that transit advocates too often make implicit or explicit arguments that transit can’t capture a significant amount of ridership among higher income individuals.

    Consider that a recent study by WMATA concluded that the median income of subway users in Washington, DC is about $103,000. I understand that there are unique characteristics to the demographics here that aren’t found anywhere else in the country, but it still proves to me that good transit can get almost anyone out of their car.

  • Ryan Avent

    Kenney, I’m saying that a lost hour of work will cost a higher income person more, because they earn more per hour. There is an offsetting effect — for poorer workers, the marginal dollar is of greater value — but I think the net effect of reduced congestion on drivers would be a benefit for high earners.

    This doesn’t necessarily mean that transit will always be the mode of the poor. It’s time that’s important, so where transit options are fast and convenient, upper income workers will ride along with everyone else. As you note, Metro provides very convenient service between high income neighborhoods and job centers, and so many upper income professionals avail themselves of it.

  • Kenney

    Thanks, Ryan. Looking forward to your next piece!

  • Sell the benefits — not the collective benefits, but the personal ones. For example, how much better it is to be able to walk, bike, or ride transit, instead of having to sit in traffic. I’ve lived both ways, and I definitely prefer the former.

  • Nathanael

    Good point. I’ve found travel to be infinitely more convenient in most of Europe, where I can walk and take frequent, fast trains, than in the US, where I am often forced to drive (ugh).

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Deadly Year for European Rail Still Safer Than the American Average

|
Does the recent train derailment in Spain, which killed 79 people, justify America’s onerous approach to regulating rail safety? Federal Railroad Administration safety rules are designed to maximize “crashworthiness,” making U.S. passenger trains heavier and more expensive than their counterparts in Europe, where the safety approach is based on crash avoidance. So what do we have to […]

Deadly Year for European Rail Still Safer Than the American Average

|
Does the recent train derailment in Spain, which killed 79 people, justify America’s onerous approach to regulating rail safety? Federal Railroad Administration safety rules are designed to maximize “crashworthiness,” making U.S. passenger trains heavier and more expensive than their counterparts in Europe, where the safety approach is based on crash avoidance. So what do we have to […]

Can We Bike Our Way to a Stable Climate?

|
Crossposted from the Frontier Group.  Earlier this week, I had the chance to talk about the role of bicycling in addressing climate change at the National Bike Summit in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the League of American Bicyclists. The conversation was framed around the Paris climate agreement – the pact signed by 195 nations in December […]

Apartment Blockers

|
Alan Durning is the executive director and founder of Sightline Institute, a think tank on sustainability issues in the Pacific Northwest. This article, originally posted on Sightline’s blog, is #9 in their series, “Parking? Lots!” Have you ever watched the excavation that precedes a tall building? It seems to take forever. Then, when the digging […]

Shoup to O’Toole: The Market for Parking Is Anything But Free

|
We’re reprinting this reply [PDF] from UCLA professor Donald Shoup, author of the High Cost of Free Parking, to Randal O’Toole, the libertarian Cato Institute senior fellow who refuses to acknowledge the role of massive government intervention in the market for parking, and the effect this has had on America’s car dependence. It’s an excellent […]

The Environmental Impact of Your Two-Wheeled Commute

|
Slate’s Brian Palmer wrote in an article this week that he’s thinking of switching his commute “from four wheels to two” but he’s concerned about the environmental impact of bicycling: specifically, “about all the energy it takes to manufacture and ship a new bicycle.” He wants to know how many miles he would “bike the […]