American Forests, which is a US non-profit conservation organization, publishes something that they call a Tree Equity Score. What it effectively does is map tree cover across US cities. You can explore what that looks like, here. The score considers things like tree canopy, population density, income, race, as well as many other factors, and then produces a single score from 0 to 100. A score of 100 means that a neighborhood has achieved "Tree Equity."
There is seemingly a lot that you can glean from this score. For one, American Forests have found that income and race tend to correlate with tree canopy. Lower income neighborhoods tend to have less of it and rich neighborhoods tend to have more of it. You can start to see what that looks like in the Instagram post embedded at the top of this post. If it isn't showing up, click here.
But the other thing that is clear from these images is that rich people tend to consume more space. The richer tree-canopied neighborhoods appear to be less dense. The lots are bigger. And there are instances where the homes look to be adjacent to some large contiguous green spaces. This, of course, is a natural market outcome.
American Forests, which is a US non-profit conservation organization, publishes something that they call a Tree Equity Score. What it effectively does is map tree cover across US cities. You can explore what that looks like, here. The score considers things like tree canopy, population density, income, race, as well as many other factors, and then produces a single score from 0 to 100. A score of 100 means that a neighborhood has achieved "Tree Equity."
There is seemingly a lot that you can glean from this score. For one, American Forests have found that income and race tend to correlate with tree canopy. Lower income neighborhoods tend to have less of it and rich neighborhoods tend to have more of it. You can start to see what that looks like in the Instagram post embedded at the top of this post. If it isn't showing up, click here.
But the other thing that is clear from these images is that rich people tend to consume more space. The richer tree-canopied neighborhoods appear to be less dense. The lots are bigger. And there are instances where the homes look to be adjacent to some large contiguous green spaces. This, of course, is a natural market outcome.
The Tree Equity Score tries to correct for this in its methodology. If a neighborhood's population density is very low (less than 2,000 people per km2), then it gets a higher tree canopy adjustment factor. It should have more trees. Conversely, if a neighborhood's population density is high (over 8,000 people per km2), then it's acceptable for there to be less trees (lower adjustment factor).
That said, it would be interesting to see a direct comparison of two neighborhoods -- one rich and one poor -- that have the exact same population densities and overall built form. I think that would speak volumes about tree inequity. I am also very curious about the global relationship between density and household incomes.
If any of you have a good source, please share it in the comment section below.
This is an interesting article talking about the price of carbon and where it will need to go if we are to get to zero carbon emissions by 2050. The current price of carbon on the EU’s Emissions Trading System is around $59 per tonne. But according to the OECD, carbon will need to be closer to $150 per tonne by 2030 to keep the world on track with its sustainability goals. What this means is that if you emit carbon, it will get more expensive to do that.
The article also suggests that there is talk of a minimum price on carbon that would slowly increase over time. This would provide greater certainty to investors who are buying/trading carbon, while at the same time encouraging a broader push away from carbon emissions. This proposal has been backed by the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, which is a group of companies that collectively represent about $6.6 trillion of assets under management.
I think it is clear that we are headed in this direction. But it is going to be an expensive transition. Take, for example, the case of new buildings. Many/most cities now have sustainability goals that similarly increase — become more stringent — over time. The thinking is that this gradual transition allows the development industry to incrementally adapt. Makes sense.
However, there are real challenges. Generally speaking, these new targets increase the cost of building. The result is a set of opposing forces. We want more sustainable buildings, but we also want more affordable housing. The problem is that the former often works against the latter, even though it is the right thing to do. And so it is not only about the industry catching up to new targets, it is also about the market catching up through higher rents and higher sale prices.
My view is that offsets and subsidies are important to rebalancing some of these forces. Because without them, it is likely that we are doing things that run counter to each other.
Monroe County, Florida, which is the county that includes the Florida Keys, held a public meeting at the end of last month to discuss what they are going to do to respond to climate change. The agenda can be found over here. According to this article in Grist, it was a seven-hour public meeting and the overall tone was something along the lines of this:
“The water is coming and we can’t stop it,” said Michelle Coldiron, mayor of Monroe County, which encompasses the Keys. “Some homes will have to be elevated, some will have to be bought out. It’s very difficult to have these conversations with homeowners, because this is where they live. It can get very emotional.”
In attendance at the public meeting was a scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who outlined that they are expecting an additional 17 inches of sea level rise by 2040. This is the "intermediate high" scenario based on the below chart.
The Tree Equity Score tries to correct for this in its methodology. If a neighborhood's population density is very low (less than 2,000 people per km2), then it gets a higher tree canopy adjustment factor. It should have more trees. Conversely, if a neighborhood's population density is high (over 8,000 people per km2), then it's acceptable for there to be less trees (lower adjustment factor).
That said, it would be interesting to see a direct comparison of two neighborhoods -- one rich and one poor -- that have the exact same population densities and overall built form. I think that would speak volumes about tree inequity. I am also very curious about the global relationship between density and household incomes.
If any of you have a good source, please share it in the comment section below.
This is an interesting article talking about the price of carbon and where it will need to go if we are to get to zero carbon emissions by 2050. The current price of carbon on the EU’s Emissions Trading System is around $59 per tonne. But according to the OECD, carbon will need to be closer to $150 per tonne by 2030 to keep the world on track with its sustainability goals. What this means is that if you emit carbon, it will get more expensive to do that.
The article also suggests that there is talk of a minimum price on carbon that would slowly increase over time. This would provide greater certainty to investors who are buying/trading carbon, while at the same time encouraging a broader push away from carbon emissions. This proposal has been backed by the Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance, which is a group of companies that collectively represent about $6.6 trillion of assets under management.
I think it is clear that we are headed in this direction. But it is going to be an expensive transition. Take, for example, the case of new buildings. Many/most cities now have sustainability goals that similarly increase — become more stringent — over time. The thinking is that this gradual transition allows the development industry to incrementally adapt. Makes sense.
However, there are real challenges. Generally speaking, these new targets increase the cost of building. The result is a set of opposing forces. We want more sustainable buildings, but we also want more affordable housing. The problem is that the former often works against the latter, even though it is the right thing to do. And so it is not only about the industry catching up to new targets, it is also about the market catching up through higher rents and higher sale prices.
My view is that offsets and subsidies are important to rebalancing some of these forces. Because without them, it is likely that we are doing things that run counter to each other.
Monroe County, Florida, which is the county that includes the Florida Keys, held a public meeting at the end of last month to discuss what they are going to do to respond to climate change. The agenda can be found over here. According to this article in Grist, it was a seven-hour public meeting and the overall tone was something along the lines of this:
“The water is coming and we can’t stop it,” said Michelle Coldiron, mayor of Monroe County, which encompasses the Keys. “Some homes will have to be elevated, some will have to be bought out. It’s very difficult to have these conversations with homeowners, because this is where they live. It can get very emotional.”
In attendance at the public meeting was a scientist from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), who outlined that they are expecting an additional 17 inches of sea level rise by 2040. This is the "intermediate high" scenario based on the below chart.
Which is why the county is looking to spend $1.8 billion over the next 25 years to raise some 150 miles of roads and deploy a bunch of other fixes that include things like new drains, pumping stations, and vegetation -- all of which are of course intended to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise.
One problem, which shouldn't be all that surprising, is that the county doesn't have the money to pay for all of this. And as the quote at the beginning of this post suggests, part of "this" includes buying out many of the homes. Presumably these are the higher risk homes where there are no clear alternatives.
This is a problematic situation. Because as time goes on, one would expect the tax base here to start to decreasing. Both as homes get bought out and as overall housing demand weakens. There are also financing and insurance considerations. Already the Keys have some of if not the highest insurance premiums in Florida.
As I understand it, the Florida Keys are one of the most vulnerable areas in North America when it comes to sea level rise. And so unfortunately, the public meeting that took place two weeks ago could very well be considered a leading indicator for what's to come.
Which is why the county is looking to spend $1.8 billion over the next 25 years to raise some 150 miles of roads and deploy a bunch of other fixes that include things like new drains, pumping stations, and vegetation -- all of which are of course intended to mitigate the impacts of sea level rise.
One problem, which shouldn't be all that surprising, is that the county doesn't have the money to pay for all of this. And as the quote at the beginning of this post suggests, part of "this" includes buying out many of the homes. Presumably these are the higher risk homes where there are no clear alternatives.
This is a problematic situation. Because as time goes on, one would expect the tax base here to start to decreasing. Both as homes get bought out and as overall housing demand weakens. There are also financing and insurance considerations. Already the Keys have some of if not the highest insurance premiums in Florida.
As I understand it, the Florida Keys are one of the most vulnerable areas in North America when it comes to sea level rise. And so unfortunately, the public meeting that took place two weeks ago could very well be considered a leading indicator for what's to come.
