Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Subscribe

Tag: climate change

  • Built form and climate impact

    Building height and density are not one and the same. You can have tall buildings configured in a low-density way (think post-war towers in the park). And you can have low/mid-rise buildings configured in a high-density way (think Paris and Barcelona). This is one of the reasons why it is important to decouple density and tallness when thinking about our cities.

    This line of thinking is the approach that a recent study took when trying to determine the optimal built form for minimizing climate impact. In the study they define four building typologies: 1) high density, high-rise, 2) low density, high-rise, 3) high density, low-rise, and 4) low density, low-rise.

    What they found was that taller environments tend to have higher life cycle GHG emissions, but that lower-density environments are (obviously) far more land consumptive. To determine life cycle GHG emissions they looked at both embodied and operating emissions, which is why the taller stuff didn’t score as well under their methodology. There’s typically a lot of concrete and steel in tall buildings.

    This lead the team to conclude that if you want to optimize around climate impact, you should probably aim for that perfect middle ground: dense, but not super tall.

    But as Joe Cortright (City Observatory) rightly pointed out in his email newsletter, one of the big limitations of this analysis is that it does not consider transportation-related impacts. And since we know that transportation is one of if not the largest source of GHG emissions and that how we get around is heavily dependent on land use patterns, it is probably an important piece to consider.

    Photo by Alfons Taekema on Unsplash

  • A new agricultural frontier in Canada and Russia

    Last year over the holidays, I attended a virtual wine tasting event that was put on by one of our partners. It was with a vineyard / winemaker in Spain and so it was evening for us and some ungodly hour for him.

    At the end of the tasting — which was exceptional, by the way — I asked him what he thought about the Niagara region. Some of you may know that I love to support local Ontario wines. His response was hilarious and something along the lines of: “When we think of Niagara wines, we think of a part of the world that shouldn’t produce wine but somehow does.”

    Ouch.

    This was maybe the case before. But I think the region, vines, and industry have all matured. We also have some exceptional winemakers, some of which have come from the Old World because our startup-y wine region affords them far more creative freedom.

    But you might also argue that things are changing because our climate is changing. The Financial Times recently published an interesting “big read” about how agricultural production and crop types are shifting around the world in the face of climate temperatures.

    It turns out that wine grapes are a pretty good leading indicator. A canary in the coal mine if you will. Because climate matters a great deal if you’re trying to make exceptional wines. And if you’ve been harvesting a particular thing at a certain time for the last 5 decades and you’re now doing it several weeks earlier, it might be a sign that something is changing.

    It also turns out that two countries, in particular, stand to disproportionately benefit from this shifting agricultural landscape: Canada and Russia. As temperatures change, a new agricultural frontier is going to be created. And it is expected that more than 50% of this land will be in these two countries. See image at the top of this post.

    Of course, there’s a flipside to this change. Countries on the other end of the spectrum with marginal growing climates and/or low production yields, could be severely impacted by higher temperatures. So perhaps it is a good idea to stay on top of what’s happening in the world of wine. Might I recommend something from Niagara?

    Image: FT

  • Our sustainability goals and the price of carbon

    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.

  • Sea-level rise projections in the Florida Keys

    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.

  • Creating change

    I was reading about a proposed development earlier today (it doesn’t really matter which one for this story) and I immediately thought to myself, “wow, this is a beautiful development. I like what they’ve done here.” The project happens to be by one of my favorite architects in the city. Sadly though, we have yet to work with them on any of our projects.

    I then decided to read the comment section of the article. There were dozens and dozens of comments and virtually all of them were negative and against the development. What is, of course, clear is that we all have different beliefs. We all see things differently. And that’s part of the reason why creating any sort of change is usually so difficult.

    But if you think about it, so much of our world resolves around change. If we want to address climate change, we are going to need to make changes. If we want to improve housing affordability, we are going to need to make changes. If we want to build more inclusive and economically prosperous cities, we are going to need to make changes.

    The challenge with all of this change is that we have inertia working against us. Case in point: I’m sure that most of us have been in a meeting at one point or another when a decision was made purely based on what was done the last time around. We did X. So let’s do X again. Why change? Probably a safe bet.

    Seth Godin once said that, “if you do anything that matters, it means you’re trying to change something.” He was talking about the world of marketing. But I believe that there’s a universal truth to this. Change unlocks potential.

  • The climate idol of the unimaginative

    Here’s some food for thought around electrical vehicles. In this recent article in The American Conservative, Jordan McGillis argues that, “the electric vehicle is the climate idol of the unimaginative.”

    Rather than simply changing what’s under the hood of our cars, we should be reexamining the broader impacts that the car has had on the urban landscape. Here’s an excerpt that speaks to this:

    “All of the effort directed towards EV adoption would be better expended on improving our development patterns, bringing them to human-scale and reducing the necessity of the automobile. The obvious reform candidate is zoning. According to the New York Times, it is illegal to build anything other than a single-family home on 75 percent of land zoned for residential use in the United States. Zoning exclusively for single-family homes artificially flattens our cities, necessitates daily automobile commutes, and increases our greenhouse gas emissions. As Istvan Bart has documented for the Climate Strategy Institute, suburban sprawl bears more responsibility for increased emissions from transportation than either population or GDP.“

    There is no question that electric vehicles are helpful to addressing climate change. But Jordan is also not wrong. We can’t ignore that built form is crucial to this discussion, and likely even more important.

  • A new $162 million fund dedicated to climate change

    This week, Union Square Ventures, which describes itself as a “thesis-driven venture capital firm,” announced a new $162 million Climate Fund. The thesis for this fund is pretty simple. They want to invest in companies that either provide mitigation for or adaption to the climate crisis. The thinking behind this approach is as follows. They want to invest in companies that directly attack the causes of climate change (mitigation), but they are also recognizing that the climate crisis is not some distant thing. It’s already here, which is why it’s important to also focus on companies that are dealing with the consequences of it (adaptation).

    One of their first investments is in a company called Leap. What Leap does is provide the connective (software) tissue between local energy devices/applications and the broader energy markets. For example, let’s say you have a Leap-enabled smart thermostat. If the grid is in need of power, it might automatically reduce your local energy consumption so as to help with load balancing on the broader network. In exchange for this, you would earn money for your contributions. In effect, Leap acts as a kind of virtual power plant.

    Why does this matter? Well, it matters because two important things seem to be happening with energy production: (1) It’s moving toward renewables and (2) production and storage are both decentralizing. Assuming this trend continues, there will be an increasing need for software to help manage energy consumption, production, load balancing, the broader energy markets, and so on. That’s where companies like Leap come in. It’s also why many are arguing that Tesla is so valuable. More than an EV company, it is creating a new decentralized renewable energy network through its car batteries, powerwalls, and solar panels.

    That does sound valuable.

    Photo by Jason Blackeye on Unsplash

  • Peak meat

    There is evidence to suggest, according to this recent Bloomberg Green article as well as many other sources, that we may be hitting “peak meat.” That is, the global production of animal proteins appears to be declining. It declined last year in 2019 and that was only the second time since 1961 in which that happened. And this year, the same is projected to happen, which is supposedly unprecedented in modern times.

    The big change is that people are eating a lot less beef. In fact, per capita beef production peaked way back in the 1970s and has been slowing declining ever since. The growth over the years has really been coming from chicken. In 1961, 39% of all meat production was beef. As of 2018, that number had declined to 20%. Pork as a percentage of all production has remained more or less consistent. But chicken has basically tripled from 11% to 34%.

    From an environmental and climate change standpoint, this is a very good thing. As most of you know, greenhouse gas emissions from the production of beef are vastly higher (about 10x) than for pork and chicken. Chicken is the lowest (see above). At the same time, big bets are being made that this growing love of chicken isn’t enough. In the first 7 months of 2020, over $1.4 billion of venture capital was raised for “faux meat” startups (source). This is already a significant increase compared to 2019.

    This money is expecting the future of meat to be plant-based and cell-based.

    All charts from Bloomberg Green.

  • Twelve climate technologies

    This is an excellent blog post by entrepreneur and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla about some of the “instigators” that are working to help solve our climate crisis and some of the areas in which we probably should be focusing on next. One of the things that’s noteworthy about the post is that he distills it all down into 12 areas of focus that — if solved and if scaled — could have a material impact on carbon emissions. They are (verbatim):

    1. Electric vehicles & automotive batteries
    2. Food & agriculture, especially meat
    3. Low carbon transportation: Air transportation (jet fuel), shipping (electrofuels, biofuels?)
    4. Cement or substitute construction material
    5. Low carbon dispatchable electricity generation (fusion, geothermal, nuclear)
    6. Public transit
    7. Grid storage (long duration battery storage)
    8. HVAC
    9. Industrial processes (hydrogen?)
    10. Fertilizer (hydrogen)
    11. Water
    12. Steel

    Looking at this list, it is clear that some of these things are already happening (and some aren’t). I currently own an ICE vehicle, but I’m fairly certain it will be the last non-electric vehicle I ever own. It’s also not clear whether I will want to continue owning a car. Dynamic mass transit and overall autonomy are things that we’ve talked a lot about on this blog.

    But here’s the other idea put forward in Khosla’s post. If these are in fact the 12 most impactful and important categories, then we may only be 12 or so companies away from real solutions. We only be 12 or so entrepreneurs away from meaningful societal change. When you look at it this way, the climate crisis should hopefully feel a lot less daunting.

  • Floodplain homes in the US are overvalued by a total of $34 billion

    This recent paper by Miyuki Hino (University of North Carolina) and Marshall Burke (Stanford) makes the case that US homes situated within floodplains are currently overvalued by a total of $34 billion. And that’s because the associated risks are not being properly accounted for in the value of these homes.

    The problem, it would seem, comes down to information. Because the discount for flood risk was found to be higher (1) for commercial buyers (presumably because they’re more sophisticated and/or have better access to information) and (2) in states where sellers must disclose flood risk (Louisiana is probably the most stringent about this).

    This feels a bit like one of those realtor commercials that tries to scare you into using one. But it does appear to demonstrate just how opaque the market can be and how information asymmetries potentially distort asset prices. Perhaps most importantly, I wonder when climate risk will get fully valued.