Articles by Eric de Place

Sprawl is often thought to erode social capital, but the evidence is mixed

In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam argues that the decline of social capital in the U.S. can be attributed partly to urban form. In other words, according to Putnam, sprawl is at least partly to blame for the present derth of bowling leagues. But is it really?

Putnam's arguments (summarized at the end of Chapter 12) are threefold.

1. "Sprawl takes time": more time alone in a car and less for civic engagement.
2. "Sprawl is associated with increasing social segregation," and that segregation has led to less community participation.
3. "Sprawl disrupts community 'boundedness'," and that physical fragmentation reduces social involvement.

Although Putnam's claim -- that sprawl erodes social capital -- is widely referenced, my survey of the evidence makes me suspicious. My objections are threefold.

Carbon sequestration smells fishy.

In the midst of the recent climate pledging lovefest, it's easy to lose sight of the unhappy truth that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have already reached levels that effectively guarantee us at least several decades of global warming. While the Kyoto Protocol is worthwhile--to reduce global emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels--it is only a small first step toward putting brakes on climate change. To do that, scientists estimate that worldwide emissions must be reduced by at least 60 to 70 percent.   

Needless to say, achieving those levels of reductions will be a something of a challenge. We'll need to consume less, become more efficient, and develop alternative energy sources. We'll also need to figure out ways to capture greenhouse gas emissions--principally carbon--and prevent them from concentrating in the atmosphere and contributing to warming. The most talked-about way to do this is using carbon "sinks" such as forests and grasslands, which essentially soak up carbon by trapping it in living biological material.

Another possibility--one that is thick with possibility and contradiction--is sequestering carbon manually. The BBC reports on pioneering technology that the United Kingdom is exploring that will capture up to 85 percent of power-plant emissions and then trap them under the North Sea in geologic formations that were once occupied by petroleum or natural gas. Sounds good, right?

USA Today says the globe is warming!

Mark today in your calendars because USA Today's headline just made it official: "The debate's over: Globe is warming." My first reaction was astonishment. I kept scanning their website for other up-to-the-minute revelations. What's next? Are the Beatles really about to break-up? Is the Berlin Wall really going to come down?

But my second reaction was more optimistic -- and less sarcastic. I shouldn't scoff at USA Today's belated recognition as much as I should marvel that a tipping point is happening right before our eyes. The real news here is not that the debate is over -- it's been over, of course, for quite some time -- but that USA Today and other media like it have finally awarded a TKO to climate scientists and greens.

As it turns out, USA Today's conviction is because big corporations, utilities, Republican governors, and even religious groups are now demanding action on climate change. There really is increasingly broad-based recognition of the problem. Still, it's more than a little annoying that media evaluate critical issues based not on the overwhelming scientific evidence, but rather on the proclamations of Arnold and a few CEOs.

But on the other hand, if even USA Today says there's a consensus on climate change, then we're just about to arrive in a brave new world where we can actually begin to do something about it on a large and systemic level. Hold on to your hats: next week we'll find out that burning gasoline warms the atmosphere through something called the "greenhouse effect" ...

But the hispanic portion is growing like gangbusters.

U.S. population grew by slightly less than 1 percent from 2003 to 2004, according to new Census Bureau figures. In both 2003 and 2004, annual U.S. population growth was slower than it was from 1990 to 2002, when the annual rate averaged more than 1.2 percent. (In the big scheme of things, 1 percent may not sound like much, but it's enough to double the population every 70 years. If the U.S. continues to grow at 1 percent per year, the country will number almost 600 million people by 2076.)

But none of that stuff made headlines like the news that Hispanics comprised half of the nation's growth. People who identify themselves as being of Hispanic origin now make up about 14 percent of U.S. residents -- about one in seven.