Mark Alan Hughes: energy intensity a decisive competitive factor among regions in the future

Mark Alan Hughes: energy intensity a decisive competitive factor among regions in the future

Nov. 07


By Mark Alan Hughes
For PlanPhilly

See Hughes' piece in the Daily News, 4 November 2008

“We don’t shovel sunshine down here.” Twenty years ago, a counter clerk in Dallas teased me with that line as I paid him to ship presents back to Philadelphia after a Christmas visit.

The line has ever since epitomized for me the competitive challenge facing Philadelphia as a region in which to live and work. Sunbelt triumphalism has guided investor psychology for half a century.

In an era where energy and water were perceived as almost too cheap to meter, there was no way that Philadelphia could compete with Charlotte and San Diego.

When people routinely commute 30 or 40 miles from home to work and when goods routinely travel hundreds or thousands of miles from origin to market, Philadelphia is essentially obsolete. It’s cheaper to build new cities than to adapt the old ones.

Sure, public policies like defense spending and mortgage subsidies and new technologies like air-conditioning accelerated our obsolescence. The fundamental cause, however, was a world of cheap and falling energy prices.

But now, for the first time in six or seven decades, the big changes in the world are increasing rather than evaporating the value of the assets we’ve inherited. The main change is rising energy prices and the key asset is a metropolitan infrastructure that was built for high energy prices.

Our regional network of dense local places (think Center City, Germantown, Frankford, Doylestown, Bryn Mawr, and Upper Darby all tied together by rail and each surrounded by housing and schools within walking distance) is the perfect urban form for the future.

The very best evidence of this is the attempt underway by Atlanta and Phoenix and Denver to reinvent themselves into the kind of city and region we already are.

It’s been a hundred years since anyone walked down the streets of Philadelphia and concluded, “yes, this is the future.” But imaginative folks are doing just that these days. Our challenge is to turn imagination into reality.

So, I have a notion. Sustainability can reposition Philadelphia as a city and region of the (and with a) future. It’s our best chance since the building of the interstate highway system to recapture a larger share of American prosperity.

But I’ll be frank with you. I don’t have the time I once had to read and think and discuss. I don’t have time to test my notions as fully as I need to. These days, as I attempt to drink from a fire hose like all overwhelmed public servants, I’m a consumer not a producer of evidence and arguments.

So I need help with this notion and I want to use this great forum to invite that help.

I propose that energy intensity will be a decisive factor in the competition among regions in the coming decades. By energy intensity, I mean the full costs (money, carbon, climate, etc.) associated with living and doing business in a place. Energy intensity implicates access to food and water, the structure and cost of energy utilities and regulation, the vulnerability of housing stock and infrastructure to rising prices and changing climates, and so on.

The question I offer for debate in this region, is there anything to this idea? Can we orient a new economic development strategy in Philadelphia around the idea of reducing our energy intensity and marketing our lower energy intensity to potential employers and residents?

Such strategy would potentially change the way we perceive and use our assets. For example, SEPTA isn’t just our public transit system; it’s a critical element in our ability to lower and sustain our competitive energy intensity. Investing in SEPTA’s capacity to lower the region’s energy intensity would become a fundamental economic development decision not a public transit decision.

I speak in public forums two or three times a week and I release requests for proposals for new initiatives every other week. But on this big idea, I want to invite the broadest possible discussion and response.

Mark Alan Hughes is a Senior Adviser to Mayor Nutter and the City’s first Sustainability Director. Contact him at mark.alan.hughes@phila.gov





    "Energy Intensity" is an interesting notion (as I read it in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_intensity) but it's seems limited. How does the term help us imagine innovative solutions? What I hear in "Energy Intensity" is a call to conservation. And that's great, but it's only part of the story. Sustainability isn't about deprivation, it's about imagining no-waste, cradle-to-cradle solutions. I don't think that energy intensity takes into account energy's basic attributes. That it comes in many forms, and those forms are reasonably interchangeable. That energy is produced, used and stored, and that a system is sustainable when increasing its inputs adds to its self-regeneration. No, we don't shovel sunshine in Philly, not now, at least. But we do get some of our energy from other weather-related sources, often expressed in water. Water - on the earth or under it -- can be turned in energy. So, while we don't shovel energy here, we can and do pump it. But I believe that our greatest treasure of energy is embedded. You can choose to "mine" that energy in the least energy intensive way. But I'd like to go beyond merely reducing intensity to integrating our energy needs with biological systems that are self-sustaining and create abundance. Wouldn't you?

    Submitted by Bruce Schimmel (not verified) on November 18, 2008 - 2:12pm

    For energy intensity (full cost) to become an important factor in decision making (especially for the individual and for-profit entities), the costs must be internalized. By internalized I mean that they are more direct--they show up in dollars and rewards and penalties. Currently, many of the costs that make up "energy intensity" are externalized--the cost of pollution, roads that carbon emitting vehicles use, etc are passed to future generations or paid indirectly by the government through taxes. Without all of these costs at the forefront of individuals' minds when making a decision, they will often be brushed aside and a choice will be made on immediate and more apparent costs. A simple example is conventional vs. hybrid vehicles. Hybrids are more expensive upfront, yet have a lower carbon cost and fuel cost. Subsidies are in place to bring the upfront cost of hybrids down so that these benefits are noted. This is a start in the right direction of making the energy intensity more apparent. However, in effect, all taxpayers are paying a small amount to the government, and those who bought hybrids get money from that pot. A better way to internalize costs would be to tax all conventional car purchases for their extra emissions, and have no subsidy for the hybrid. This way makes the costs of cars more apparent up front, and does not penalize those who do not buy a vehicle at all. This logic can be applied to many different examples, and if the goal is to market Philadelphia as competitive in its energy intensity, it will have to be done on both large and small scales. Help is being provided already by the high price of energy that individuals pay for directly--the costs of energy are becoming more apparent because they are more significant. However, for many individuals, simply telling them public transit or city living is more "eco-friendly" is not enough motivation. I think the trend towards acknowledging more of these costs will continue as the direct cost of energy and materials remains high, but we have a long way to go in making the multitude of other costs apparent.

    Submitted by Mario Arnold (not verified) on November 14, 2008 - 11:34am

    How does this lowered energy intensity "carrot" work with the opportunity for growing new jobs around the "green industry" boom now inevitably underway? Philadelphia has a strong population of young industrial designers and engineers and a storied manufacturing history and should be getting poised to produce the Neighborhood Electric Vehicles, solar powered lawn equipment, and low VOC cleaning supplies (all purely for example) that the world must have as we adapt to a changing world of energy scarcity and reduced carbon footprints. Who are the City agencies that now exist that can work together to create incubation and support opportunities for green business development under the policy framework of decreased energy intensity?

    Submitted by Josh (not verified) on November 13, 2008 - 12:10pm

    I'm grew up in the Atlanta area, and all my friends and family are crippled by the rising fuel prices. Commutes are terrible, and everyone is so excited to have the new rail loop in place. I love living here and there is much less commute, but still Septa needs to do more. I live in Mt Airy and work at the Navy Yard. I'm a block from the regional rail, but it takes almost 2 hours to get to work each day if I ride public transit vs. a 35 min drive. Septa doesn't make any conveniences for their riders in terms of token machines, giving change at the counter, etc. Not to mention they charge more for those of us who have to purchase a ticket on the train when there is no other option. It's good to say that we're better positioned to deal with the rising costs, but I think by making a few upgrades, septa's ridership would increase substantially.

    Submitted by Leah (not verified) on November 13, 2008 - 10:18am

    Events

    July 4th 11:00 am

    Architectural Walking Tour: Littlest Streets Filter Square MORE

    July 4th 3:00 pm

    Architectural Walking Tour: Beaux Arts Philadelphia MORE

    July 5th 3:00 pm

    Architectural Walking Tour: Society Hill Stroll MORE

    July 6th 10:00 am

    University City District Summer Jobs Program Kicks Off 4th Season MORE

    July 7th 7:30 pm

    ARE Study Session MORE

    July 8th 9:00 am

    ZCC Meeting MORE

    See all Upcoming Events