A Bright Energy Future for Tysons, Virginia, California...and America?

First, California leads the nation once again, "poised to pass the first law in the nation linking greenhouse gas emissions to urban planning, a departure from the growth approach that spawned the state's car culture and urban sprawl."  You may recall that California is aiming to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 25% by 2020. In contrast, Virginia is talking about - not acting on, mind you - a "plan" to PERHAPS cut Virginia's greenhouse gas emissions by a paltry 7% by 2025.  The science, of course, says that we must cut greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050 - 20% per decade between 2010 and 2050 - in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change.  California's moving in that direction.  Virginia?  Not so much.

The bottom line is that we should be doing what California's doing: slash emissions 25% by 2020 (and much more beyond that date), in part by giving "existing and new high-density centers where people live, work and shop top priority in receiving local, state and federal transportation funds."  That's right, we're talking about strong incentives - a "hard carrot," as it's being called - for smart growth, for doing what Tim Kaine TALKED ABOUT in 2005, tying transportation and land use planning, for dealing with the fact that "[w]ithout reducing the number of miles people drive every day...the state cannot hope to live up to its environmental policies."  

This brings us to the second article, "A Green Makeover for Tysons Corner."  Currently, Tysons is a mess that "exemplifies sprawl," with "120,000 people work[ing] in Tysons, but only 17,000 people liv[ing] there."  And god help you if you try to walk or bike anywhere in Tysons, you're taking your life into your hands.  
Today, however, there's hope of turning the current Tysons monstrosity into a model "edge city" for Virginia and the country. As Trip Pollard, director of the Land and Community Program at the Southern Environmental Law Center, writes, "Tysons presents a grand opportunity to transform auto-dependent sprawl into a walkable, transit-oriented community that is more cohesive, vibrant and sustainable."

How, you ask?  Well, the Tysons Land Use Task Force has a plan, and it looks like a good one, involving green buildings, parks, a street grid, bike lanes, "pedestrian amenities," mixed-use development to allow "people to live close to transit and jobs in Tysons," slashing the amount of "impervious surface area" (a disaster for stormwater runoff and the health of streams, if any remain, in Tysons), and overall "[e]nsuring levels of density are high enough to create a vibrant, 24-hour community."  Oh, and then there's Metro. Obviously, that should be built as quickly, cost-effectively, and smart-growth-friendly as possible.  That means, in short, competitive bidding and tunneling through Tysons, NOT the idiotic "aerial option" favored by "Big Dig" Bechtel and by the politicians who do Bechtel's bidding (not naming any names here, but let's just say that my hero's list - Chap Petersen and John Foust, for instance - isn't very long).

Finally, there's a review of "Hot, Flat and Crowded", Tom Friedman's new book on "Why We Need a Green Revolution -- And How It Can Renew America."  The bottom line here is that America needs to drastically and rapidly change its ways with regard to energy. As the reviewer writes, "Incremental change will not be enough."  

What this means is that, while "changing the light bulbs" is very nice and all, it is not even close to sufficient to the monumental task we've got ahead of us - if we hope to save the planet from environmental catastrophe (we're already seeing it, by the way - just look at the open expanses of water where there used to be a polar ice cap).  Instead, what we need is the "green revolution" Friedman talks about.  What we also need is for all of us to become "'"green hawks,' turning conservation and cleaner energy into a winning strategy in many different arenas, including the military."  The lowest of low-hanging fruits here, as always, is ENERGY EFFICIENCY - by far the most economical way to slash our energy consumption and carbon emissions without in the least bit harming our quality of life (in fact, LEED buildings, smart growth, and 100 mpg cars will only ENHANCE our quality of life).  And, as a few politicians - like Mark Warner, based on a lengthy conversation I had with him on this subject - understand, "rather than costing too much, such initiatives can create investment opportunities, new jobs and global leadership for the U.S. economy."  

This is not a difficult concept, yet the American public and the politicians keep coming back to the same old silliness - gas tax holidays, "crack down on evil speculators," investigate "gouging," release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and of course the worthless (but popular) "drill here, drill there, drill everywhere" mantra. Ugh.

Speaking of "drill, drill, drill," I'll add one more article to my list, from the New York Times editorial board on "John McCain's Energy Follies."

The John McCain of a few years ago understood this. He sponsored a bill with John Kerry that would have aggressively raised fuel economy standards, and another that would have put a stiff price on carbon emissions to encourage investment in cleaner technologies.

Unfortunately, that John McCain has receded from view just in time for the presidential campaign. He has dropped his opposition to offshore drilling, pandered shamelessly by urging a gas tax holiday, and missed several crucial votes on bills extending credits for wind and solar power.

And while his acceptance speech promised "the most ambitious national project in decades," including efforts to improve energy efficiency, increasing oil production remains the centerpiece of his strategy.

These positions divert public attention from an unavoidable truth: a nation that uses one-quarter of the world's oil while owning only 3 percent of its reserves cannot drill its way to happiness or self-sufficiency. And they trivialize the very hard work that lies ahead.

Sadly, that's where politicians (of both parties, by the way) and the American public seem to be right now - trivializing the seriousness of this issue and the "very hard work that lies ahead."  What they are also trivializing is the enormous opportunities that await those individuals, industries, states, and countries that grasp the opportunities (and perils) here, move ahead with leadership and determination, tell the Dominion Powers and ExxonMobils of the world where to shove it, and - above all - stop talking about what we CAN'T do and instead focus on what we CAN do.  

Comments