Minor, N. (2023, April 29). Polis’ land use bill aimed to blunt climate change. Conservation groups say watering it down is a ‘huge disappointment.’ Colorado Public Radio. https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/28/polis-land-use-bill-aimed-to-blunt-climate-change-conservation-groups-say-watering-it-down-is-a-huge-disappointment/

A zoning bill allowing for higher-density housing in Colorado was deemed controversial. The SB23-213 has been revised for more support, resulting in what some say are key aspects of the bill being removed. Higher-density developments and housing have directly been linked to a lower carbon footprint. A portion allowing a higher population density and laxer parking laws in certain areas has been taken out. The result is a half-stripped bill that holds much smaller promises than were previously supported. 

There’s a call for a statewide approach, but I wonder what state-led zoning support would look like. Especially in relation to population growth and land development. There are arguments to be made that more land zoning laws would result in slower development and fall behind in sufficient housing for the population, further exacerbating the cost of living and limited housing crisis. All of these must be taken into consideration when deciding on this type of legislation. Human safety, health, and even economic developments are the priority and will be held to a higher degree of importance in decision-making before any decisions are made on climate change. 

The Hill.  (2023, April 21). US biofuel policy must recognize land use tradeoffs. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3962812-us-biofuel-policy-must-recognize-land-use-tradeoffs/

Fifteen years ago, biofuels were set up to be the dominant renewable energy source of the future, but today, they are rarely utilized. Corn ethanol and other biofuels were hopeful but failed to become widespread. Instead, solar power and other electricity-driven power have dramatically dropped in cost and have become the preferred method for renewable energy by most sectors. The amount of land used in order to grow biofuel becomes very lacking in efficiency. 

The overall efficiency of biofuel is questionable, but given the lack of positive results could continue to drive down in popularity until a potential breakthrough occurs. If federal support for biofuel continues, it could be a viable option. EVs and solar power have been heavily encouraged federally and are the reason for their explosion in popularity. A similar support in research could yield positive results.  Water usage is also important to note, innovations would have to be implemented to avoid water waste due to agriculture’s already resource-intensive nature. 

Castillo, A. (2023, May 4). Report: Land use policies can reduce carbon emissions – American City and County. American City and County. https://www.americancityandcounty.com/2023/04/17/report-land-use-policies-can-reduce-carbon-emissions/

Around 70-90% of residential property is single-family detached homes. The emergence of suburb-style infrastructure is very energy intensive and requires driving more average miles to complete daily activities and discourages walkable infrastructure. A reform must be made in order to accommodate denser zoning, of which increasing height limitations and decreasing the number of parking spaces is dedicated. This slowly transitions to a goal of creating the right infrastructure to support public transportation and trends in higher-density housing.

According to the EPA’s 2021 report, the transportation sector is responsible for more than a quarter of national greenhouse gas emissions annually. While a car-dependent culture can be to blame, it originated for a reason. Suburbs became fairly sparse and wide resulting in long distances having to be driven instead. A historical lack of support federally for multifamily housing and public transportation has now added some strain on the total emissions caused by everyday people. In general, I think most sectors can lower carbon emissions by implementing the most efficient (cost to return) strategies that happen to work well on a variety of subjects, but I know policy is tricky and easily influenced. There is a lot of money to be made in the energy sector – and all the others dependent on it. 

USDA. (2023, July 18). USDA invests $7.4 million in 25 urban agriculture and innovative production efforts. https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2023/07/18/usda-invests-74-million-25-urban-agriculture-and-innovative

Competitive grants, now totaling more than 7 million dollars are being used to fund and encourage urban agricultural development. With an emphasis on funding only the most successful applicants, community gardens, producers, and other non-profits have been among a select few to receive support from the USDA. Some explicit goals are to assist in food equity, education, and the general support of urban agriculture and forestry. Long-term business ideas are being developed, showing a hopeful future of urban agriculture.

The US has been very accustomed to large agricultural plots, that still make up the vast majority of what most consume. I wonder what the total carbon footprint would look like of a larger-scale urban agricultural area, or if the goal is to have many smaller community-driven gardens. There are multiple benefits that are both cost-effective and serving to the community. I’m interested to see how this can grow in popularity and potentially reduce carbon emissions from heat islands as well.

Rodriguez, C. (2023, June 22). What Biden’s proposed conservation rule would mean for America’s most vulnerable public lands. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-bidens-proposed-conservation-rule-would-mean-for-americas-most-vulnerable-public-lands/

A proposed Conservation Rule under the Biden administration would give the land under the Bureau of Land Management more protection for conservation, recreation, and restoration purposes. Currently, only about 14 percent of the land managed by the BLM has sufficient protection (about 200 million acres unprotected). Most of the land is available for extractive industries. The goal is for the BLM to encourage restoration, community benefit (including future tribal co-stewardship), and responsible development, including compensatory mitigation if needed as well as conservation leases, in which a third party requests the BLM to support restoration or mitigation. 

While it sounds beneficial for many reasons, I wonder if there will be any drawbacks to energy-driven sectors, or if a transition to more renewable energy is enough to account for our energy consumption. Most of the land is up for lease for mining and drilling. To my knowledge, the BLM won’t alter current law but will act as more of a facilitator, as most of the language describing explicit actions the Beareu is very vague. I’m interested in seeing the numerical data with the possible benefits it can have with oxygen production and population restoration since those are the main two effects of hostile extractive industries.