What would the USA be like if it was up there with the rest of the following nations?
Why introduce the idea of density with a graphic like this?
The United Kingdom (green line just below Switzerland above) has a national land use policy like most of the EU. The UK is a dense island nation represented by a core of residential, institutional and commercial urban centers in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Here the urgency of a sustainable energy, low waste world is well defined but the question of successful implementation remains unanswered. Yet, this might be the first place of significant size where it will offer some hope.
In the United States and EU, economic policy distributes energy resources to accomplish affordability while anticipating a period of increased scarcity extending through the 21st century. The increase in “green deals” and the promotion of tech-innovations focus on all levels of new development. Alternative bio-energy/hybrid systems, the design of materials based on re-use as the sustainable alternative addresses 10% to 20% of the problem. This is roughly equivalent to the rate of new products entering the market. The remaining 80% to 90% is represented by the world that is already built.
This problem is symbolized in the United States by the high speed train. Thousands of rail mass transit miles in older urban centers offer a century of trial and error development of enormous value to successful urbanization. For example, New York City’s MTA service area is just 321 square miles serving its 8 million residents who over the course of one year will travel nearly 12 billion miles. (See the National Transit Database for your region). Older mass transit systems are examples of how government absorbs private economic development in the public interest. Based on where and when the goal posts are set, “penny saved” and “payback” investment in the existing dense core should encourage the holders of real estate to invest mightily to save millions, but the capital moves elsewhere. As of the beginning of the 21st century nothing compels investors to “future-proof”. To do so will require new forms of public investment aimed at moving the dime off the zero-sum question. This can be done by limiting development outside of a preset urban core.
Similar limitations are outlined in vital areas of the social economy. The social security systems of European and American origin drew a safety line around everyone. These health, education, welfare and defense investments borrowed extensively on continuously advancing technologies. It is reasonable to project the high cost of a long life, a civil society, and sadly, a permanent state of global warfare in a variety of combat settings. The only threat, increased social and economic dysfunctions contained within “regions” against which progress is defined. The bet on technology, a reasoned quality of life contract, and a means to end the confrontational conditions caused by the poor allocation of energy resources requires a serious look at global urbanization with a similar lines of demarcation.