We won’t be able to stop the worst of climate change without big, sweeping, systemic change.

Is it good if we all compost and recycle? That we turn off the lights when we leave the room? That we plant some trees? Yes.

But we’re kidding ourselves by pretending that will get us to net zero emissions without systemic change.

Fossil fuels are a drug and our nation is an addict.

We use it to transport us, heat our buildings, and run our power grids.

We’re such an addict we literally fight wars over it. We drill in pristine arctic areas for it. We prop up and enrich petro-state governments with no interest in human rights for it.

To get over our addiction, we need sweeping, structural changes. We need to rethink how we live and move. We need big ideas.

I’ve got some.

None of these are original. Yet, I don’t think they’re in the mainstream either. You won’t hear anything about solar panels or electric cars here.

Since I’m trying to push beyond the typical, I encourage pushback and refinement.

As long as we’re in agreement that we have the same GOALS — sweeping systemic changes to get us off the drug of fossil fuels — I’m open to any methods to get us there.

I write this as a way to encourage conversation, idea generation, and meaningful action.

These are just 5 of hundreds of changes we need to make.

Let’s get into it.

1) Stop New Suburban-Style Development in Favor of Denser Housing NOW

My first two points I would like to frame by explaining a chapter from one of the best books on urban planning ever written: The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs. In the book, she has a chapter titled “Erosion of cities by automobiles, or attrition of automobiles by cities.”

The thesis of this chapter is simple: we either build cities for people or for cars. They don’t go together and every action puts us towards one or the other.

These actions create feedback loops which encourage more of those same actions.

More cars require the widening of roads or the shortening of sidewalks, making the roads and crosswalks more dangerous and less practical for pedestrians. This leads pedestrians to turn to cars. This leads to the creation of wider roads, more highways, and more parking lots, all of which further push people towards using an automobile. Who wants to walk around in a world made for cars? Nobody. So they buy cars.

With regards to housing, you see this extend out. It means the creation of sprawled housing with garages and space for cars. This is a chicken and egg situation where the answer is they both come first.

More cars lead to suburban housing and more suburban housing leads to more cars.

Then, you end up with the hellhole of traffic and smog that is Los Angeles.

This car dependence is part (among many other causes) of what has led us to suburban housing development. This suburban housing development is what has led to car dependence. It’s a cycle.

This further creates a cycle of car dependence, as the vast majority of homes in and outside of urban areas in the US require a car.

Further, it encourages more sprawl. I have written about the environmental nightmare that is sprawl in this article.

7 Reasons Urban Sprawl is an Environmental Disaster

It’s Also Better For Our Health

Those who live in walkable, dense areas, well, walk more. They also socialize more, which is a key indicator of overall happiness. It’s often easier to form a community. Finally, they have better access to healthcare.

These are three huge health benefits.

I’m not demanding everybody move to areas with walkable urban fabric, but if the outrageous rents in our biggest major cities are any indication, there’s a big demand for a car-free life in the United States, we just need to provide it for those who want it.

Let’s stop making the problem worse before we make it better. This is why one my big ideas here is to immediately STOP developing more suburban-style houses. This leads to a cycle of car dependence and more deforestation.

Instead, we need to build true urban fabric throughout the country.

Build Infrastructure That Encourages Car-Free Living

Note: this isn’t the place to talk about gentrification, but this new housing should NOT replace too many old buildings, which are typically more affordable. It should be instead of new suburban-style homes. In many places, this should also be coupled with a set of this new housing to be affordable and/or rent-controlled.

Note on my note: Dense living is typically associated with expensive city rents, but it doesn’t have to be partially because you save on transit. Car ownership on average costs $1000/month (according to AAA research on car ownership costs) in the US. That’s bonkers.

This is a big idea, so I’d like to concretize with a real-world potential example in an already dense “city” that’s almost all suburban.

Example: Old Towne Orange, California

Since I began working at Kaged in November 2022, I’ve flown out every few months to our offices in Irvine, just a few “cities” away from Orange in Southern California.

One of my best friends from high school lives in Orange, so I always stay with him and commute, by public bus, to Irvine.

Within Orange, there’s a part called “Old Towne Orange.” At its center is the Orange Circle, and surrounding it are lively, walkable streets with restaurants, coffee shops, and shopping. Of course, it is the walkable part of town that people are drawn to. A big “duh” moment for urbanism nerds like me.

Any new housing within a 15-minute walk of Old Towne Orange should be dense, urban housing. Orange is a “city” after all, and this is its most city-like area. These people could get all their daily needs met within walking distance, and be within walking distance to the MetroLink train that goes to Los Angeles and other towns in Orange County.

In other words, this area should be a candidate for car-free or car-light living.

In these types of places, perhaps my call to stop suburban-style housing will go noticed because there isn’t really much space left for suburban housing.

As another example, I look at how this can work in rural communities too. This deserves its own article, so you can read about it here.

The Vermont Housing Crisis and My Idea to Solve It

2) Stop All New Highway Construction NOW

Related to housing, if we’re working on taking cars off the roads, then we should also work on halting all new highways.

Remember, new roads cause a cycle of “erosion of cities.” Highways are even worse for cities than traditional roads.

When highways cut through cities, it means those once walkable areas are now highways. It means more people will turn to cars. This creates a need for more highways. Suddenly they’re 8 lanes wide and the traffic problems don’t get solved. It’s because of this obvious observation that more and wider highways don’t solve traffic problems. Yet, the US trudges along like the blind man building more and more.

Halting new highway construction will also save us billions which we can allocate elsewhere. In particular, to other forms of transit, like rail and bike lanes, as well as widening our sidewalks and creating more green spaces.

If we pair this with the moratorium on suburb-style homes, then in the worst case traffic won’t get worse. If we build dense housing that accommodates car-free or car-light living, then traffic may even improve.

Follow New York’s lead: Tear Down Horribly Planned Highways

In retrospect, I believe much of the interstate system was a terrible mistake. It tore cities and communities apart, and it was one of the leading steps in our transformation to car dependence.

One such example of a highway that should never have been built is the Cross Bronx Expressway.

As Robert Caro writes in The Power Broker, a biography of the man who built New York’s highways, it went through the Bronx, “Disemboweling a dozen communities along the route.”

Today, those communities suffer, if they exist at all. The area around the highway is stuffed with traffic, noise pollution, and dirty air. In fact, asthma rates around the highway are higher as discussed in this study.

New York City recently approved plans to begin to tear down sections of the highway.

3) We Need Climate Victory Gardens NOW

I got this idea from the essay “Water is a Verb” by Judith D. Schwartz in the excellent anthology book All We Can Save: Truth, Courage, and Solutions for the Climate Crisis.

One of my favorite parts of growing up in Vermont was the abundance of local food. We’ve been a part of a CSA (community-supported agriculture) group for as long as I can remember.

This means every week we go to our local vegetable farmer (shout out to Michael!) and he gives us a basket of fresh veggies.

The veggies are 100% organic, nutritious, and taste amazing.

But could local food be a key climate solution? With enough collective action, I think it can. For those who say we can’t act collectively, I have a historical example to believe we can.

The “Victory Gardens” of The World Wars

During both World Wars, the United States faced the challenge of figuring out how to feed its military and citizens.

In a wartime effort, the government called on people to grow much of their own food. This freed up agricultural resources for the war effort, while also offsetting agricultural staff shortages since so many people went to fight in the war.

According to Smithsonian statistics, in 1944 40% of America’s produce came from Victory Gardens and half of families had a Victory Garden.

From this, the idea of “Climate Victory Gardens” has emerged. The government could absolutely put out similar resources as they did during the World Wars to encourage people to do the same.

How will this help fight climate change?

First, it eliminates the vast shipping required to get from god-knows-where to your plate. This is often called “food miles.”

Second, local farming typically improves soil quality which pulls carbon out of the air (as we’ll talk about next.)

You can do this in cities too. Many city blocks or neighborhoods have community gardens. Find ways to garden there. If your city neighborhood doesn’t then you can spearhead its creation.

4) Subsidize and Incentivize Regenerative Farming NOW

Regenerative Farming is one of the absolute best ways to combat climate change.

What is regenerative farming?

There are lots of ways of defining it. In a sentence, it’s changing our farming practices to promote soil and ecosystem health, which will mean putting carbon going back into the soil. That’s right, putting carbon back into the soil from the air.

With all the talk of fancy technologies for “carbon sequestration,” nature has already figured it out.

It employs techniques like crop rotation, no-till farming, and organic methods to promote a sustainable and balanced environment.

Additionally, it enhances soil resilience against extreme weather, helping to mitigate the impacts of climate-related events on food production.

Switching many big farms across the country to regenerative farming is one of the most cost-effective and scalable ways to combat climate change.

It has a heap of other benefits too, as I just asked ChatGPT to list out for me.

1. Carbon Sequestration: It captures atmospheric carbon dioxide and stores it in the soil, helping to mitigate climate change.
2. Soil Health Improvement: Enhances soil fertility and structure, leading to more productive land.
3. Biodiversity Enhancement: Supports a wider range of plant and animal life, increasing ecosystem resilience.
4. Water Conservation: Improves water retention in the soil, reducing the need for irrigation and protecting water resources.
5. Reduced Chemical Use: Limits the need for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, promoting a healthier environment.
6. Resilience to Climate Change: Makes farms more resilient to extreme weather events like droughts and floods.
7. Improved Crop Yields: Healthier soils can lead to more robust and sustainable crop production over time.
8. Economic Benefits for Farmers: Can lead to lower costs and potentially higher profits due to improved efficiency and crop yields.
9. Enhanced Nutrient Density in Food: Healthier soils can produce more nutrient-rich crops.
10. Promotion of Local Wildlife: Creates habitats for beneficial insects and other wildlife, contributing to ecological balance.

So why aren’t we already doing this everywhere?

This is complicated, and I’m no expert, but here are a few reasons.

One is education. Farmers typically do what they’ve always done and don’t know about regenerative farming and how to do it. Awareness and education is a big step.

Two is subsidies. This is where we can make changes with policy. You see, farmers already get paid by the government to grow huge amounts of certain crops. Notably, corn, soybeans, and wheat. Some estimates put the federal subsidies of food at $30 billion a year.

That’s a lot of money.

For context, we spent 1.7 billion on highways in 2022. I’m not against getting rid of subsidies. We need to support our farmers who feed us all.

However, our current subsidies mainly incentivize farmers to grow unhealthy cash crops that ruin the soil.

Instead, we should shift some of this to subsidize regenerative farming practices that grow a wider variety of healthier foods, while restoring

The end result of this is the price of Big Macs will likely increase, and the price of kale will decrease.

Obviously, this has other societal benefits.

Healthy food should be affordable.

As an example of how this could change fast-food culture, let’s look at Sweetgreen, the fast-growing salad chain.

The Wall Street Journal made a video on how Sweetgreen is losing millions per month. This is despite charging $15-$20 for salads. Why do they lose money even at these prices? There are some financial reasons mentioned in the video, but they don’t mention even once our food subsidies. Sweetgreen sources their food locally from small farmers, who receive little to no subsidies for growing healthy food. This mean it costs WAY more than, for example, the ingredients of a Big Mac. We live in a world where that means the restaurant loses money on a $20 salad.

I also think reducing subsidies to these major crops is something many people across the political spectrum can get behind.

5) Build New Rail to Make Short Flights Extinct NOW

Of course, I want high-speed trains in the US. Taking the high-speed trains in Europe changed how I think about transportation. They’re so self-evidently better than taking flights less than two hours.

I asked ChatGPT to make a list of the benefits of high-speed rail compared to flights.

1. Time Efficiency: For short distances, the total travel time for high-speed rail can often be comparable to or even less than flying when considering the time spent on airport procedures like check-in, security, boarding, and potential delays.
2. Convenience and Accessibility: Train stations are often located in city centers, making them more accessible than airports, which are typically situated well outside the city. This reduces the time and cost of getting to and from the airport, and often makes the train station easier to reach for city dwellers and visitors staying in the city.
3. Environmental Benefits: High-speed trains are more environmentally friendly than planes. They produce significantly less CO2 emissions per passenger, contributing to reduced air pollution and a smaller carbon footprint.
4. Comfort and Space: Trains typically offer more legroom and space to move around, making the journey more comfortable. Passengers can walk freely, visit a dining car, or use spacious restrooms.
5. Reliability: Trains are less likely to be affected by weather conditions compared to planes, reducing the chances of delays or cancellations.
6. Cost-Effective: For certain routes and booking times, high-speed rail can be more cost-effective than flying, especially when considering additional costs like baggage fees.
7. Safety: Statistically, train travel is safer than air travel. The risk of accidents and fatalities is lower on rail networks.
8. No Turbulence: Train travel is free from the turbulence that can sometimes occur during flights, offering a smoother and more comfortable journey.
9. Scenic Views: Trains offer the opportunity to see the countryside and landscapes, making the journey more scenic and enjoyable.
10. Easier Boarding Process: Train boarding is typically less cumbersome than air travel, with fewer restrictions on liquids and no need for extensive security checks.
11. Connectivity: Many high-speed trains offer uninterrupted internet connectivity, allowing passengers to work or entertain themselves during the journey.
12. Reduced Stress: Without the need for early airport arrival, security checks, and the general stress of air travel, train journeys can be more relaxing.
13. Baggage Convenience: Trains often allow more generous baggage allowances without extra fees and the baggage remains accessible during the journey.
14. Urban Development: High-speed rail can stimulate economic and urban development in the cities it connects, contributing to regional growth.
15. Energy Efficiency: Trains are more energy-efficient per passenger mile compared to airplanes, making them a more sustainable choice for short-distance travel.

This list doesn’t touch on how bad flying is for the environment. If you didn’t guess, jet fuel is really terrible, and planes use a lot of it.

If you fly regularly, it’s almost without a doubt your biggest contribution to CO2 emissions. Plus, air travel will be very very hard to decarbonize. And the “carbon offset” option on the checkout page of your flight is questionable at best, as Jon Oliver ripped apart last year.

Most of what we hear about “sustainability” from the airlines is just greenwashing.

What We Need is Adequate Service Targetted At Reducing Short Flights

My experience tells me people will switch from flying to taking the train if it’s even only marginally better. The Amtrak Acela, which runs from Boston to DC, is often sold out and very expensive due to the demand. Why? Nobody wants to fly from New York to Boston.

I rode the Brightline Florida train and loved it.

Once Amtrak made a better New York to Burlington, Vermont train, I stopped flying.

In all of these cases, the train is slower than the plane, but more comfortable, more convenient, and often less expensive.

This is possible across so many communities, and is not just about an LA-SF or BOS-NYC high-speed rail.

These are the key points, so I’ll stop here, but I continue this discussion in this article:

12 Rail Routes We Should Build to Grow Rural Economies, Eliminate Short Flights, and Combat Climate Change

What Are Your Big Ideas?

My goal in 2024 is to get everybody in my life talking and thinking about climate change. I plan on being very annoying about it.

So I want to hear YOUR ideas too. I have no degree or specialty in anything I wrote about above. We all have good ideas. Share with me yours so we can save the world together.