Letter: Fighting climate change means rejecting car-centered land use

Graphic by Lori Deaton

Mountain Xpress’ sustainability series served as an excellent reminder that we need to think critically and act conscientiously to address the ongoing climate catastrophe. But it missed an opportunity to discuss our region’s sprawl and car dependency.

According to the Climate and Community Project, transportation is the country’s top source of carbon emissions. And in January, it reported that simply replacing every internal combustion vehicle with an electric one isn’t a solution. Mining lithium for EV batteries is an ecologically destructive activity. Additionally, it demands the continuation of extractivist geopolitical policies that exploit lithium-rich countries in South America.

To fight climate change, we must reduce the “vehicle-miles-traveled” from privately owned automobiles and make alternative modes of transportation more viable. This means rejecting the 1950s-era land use patterns that promote car dependency.

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated repeatedly that urban infill and density are key to promoting alternative transportation and in turn reducing carbon emissions and protecting natural carbon sinks — like forests — from sprawl. It affirmed this most recently in its 2023 “synthesis report.”

Furthermore, it happens that the same old land use patterns driving carbon emissions also drive housing unaffordability. In fact, our “exclusionary zoning” codes that mandate sprawl were intentionally designed a century ago to promote segregation and to ensure housing would be scarce enough to be a safe speculative asset for owners.

Given all of this, why is land use reform a dirty concept in Asheville? Last year’s “open space amendment” [avl.mx/coa] debate saw so-called “environmentalists” defending sprawl against a reform promoting infill housing near transit and jobs.

One reason might be found in environmentalism’s history. For men like the famous John Muir, “the environment” represented something opposed to cities and their pollution but also their heterogeneous populations. Environmentalism was an individualistic pursuit. It meant preservation, but not sustainability or justice.

The climate and housing crises together demand that we do what generations of environmentalists have done before us — to question our own biases and received understandings of what is just and what is “green” and to evolve accordingly. (One noted environmentalist doing this work is Bill McKibben, who writes this month in Mother Jones about his own conversion to opposing “NIMBYism.”)

Asheville will soon have the opportunity to evolve its position on land use, as the city is slated to address its zoning code’s “missing middle” [avl.mx/cob]. I hope next year the sustainability series will evolve to address land use, too.

— Andrew Paul


Thanks for reading through to the end…

We share your inclination to get the whole story. For the past 25 years, Xpress has been committed to in-depth, balanced reporting about the greater Asheville area. We want everyone to have access to our stories. That’s a big part of why we've never charged for the paper or put up a paywall.

We’re pretty sure that you know journalism faces big challenges these days. Advertising no longer pays the whole cost. Media outlets around the country are asking their readers to chip in. Xpress needs help, too. We hope you’ll consider signing up to be a member of Xpress. For as little as $5 a month — the cost of a craft beer or kombucha — you can help keep local journalism strong. It only takes a moment.

About Letters
We want to hear from you! Send your letters and commentary to letters@mountainx.com

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

One thought on “Letter: Fighting climate change means rejecting car-centered land use

  1. Keith Thomson

    Two essential elements for living well in higher density communities: cleaner air and less noise pollution. Solar Electrification of buildings and vehicles are solutions to multiple problems.

    Increasing energy efficiency captures wasted resources, providing savings and benefits that are greater than the sum of their parts.

    Improving battery chemistries and manufacturing processes is enabling substitution of conflict minerals and supply chains, repurposing and recycling of longer life batteries, and accelerating other innovative strategies are contributing to better alternatives to endless dependence on global fossil fuel supply chains.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.