The Housing Blind Spot That Undermines Climate Strategy
Housing policies influence 53 percent of climate pollution from the average American household by determining whether people can choose to live near jobs and shops in smaller homes or are limited to driving everywhere from bigger, energy-hungry houses. Yet federal and state climate programs focus almost entirely on electric vehicles and renewable energy instead.
In “Housing + Climate Policy: Building Equitable Pathways to Sustainability and Affordability,” Carolina Reid, Zack Subin, and Jon McCall reviewed research on how land use decisions influence climate pollution.
Key Takeaways:
- Climate funding overlooks housing’s 53% climate impact: Housing policies influence 53% of household climate pollution through location and building choices, but are often ignored by climate policy focused on technology solutions.
- Where you live can double your climate impact: Bay Area suburban residents drive twice as many daily miles as urban residents because destinations are spread farther apart – and all that extra driving creates much more climate pollution.
- Townhomes, apartments, and multifamily housing naturally uses less energy: Residents use 41% less energy than single-unit detached homeowners due to shared walls and smaller spaces, regardless of appliance efficiency.
The researchers conducted a comprehensive literature review, analyzing existing studies on residential energy consumption, transportation patterns, and land-use policies across metropolitan areas. They examined research using Census Bureau housing data from 1973 to 2022, the 2020 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, which covers millions of homes, and transportation studies, including Bay Area vehicle miles traveled data.
The research reveals why current climate strategies fall short.
Climate funding overlooks the largest source of pollution. Housing policies influence 53% of climate pollution because of building types and neighborhood layouts, yet federal programs like the Inflation Reduction Act prioritized electric vehicle rebates and solar panel incentives, which address much smaller pollution sources. This backwards approach means billions flow toward technology fixes while ignoring the housing decisions that shape energy and transportation patterns for generations.
Neighborhood layout creates permanent lifestyle patterns as suburban residents drive twice as many daily miles as urban residents, not by choice, but because suburban design spreads destinations miles apart while urban areas cluster jobs, stores, and services within walking distance. Since roads and buildings typically last 50-100 years, these layout decisions can lock families and their children into high- or low-pollution lifestyles.
Basic building design outperforms expensive green technology. Multifamily residents use 41% less energy than single-family homeowners. This is simply because shared walls reduce heat loss and smaller spaces require less power. Yet all states now require costly green building features in affordable housing programs, creating a perverse outcome where environmental mandates reduce the supply of climate-friendly housing types by making development more expensive.
Federal agencies could redirect more climate funding toward housing policies that influence 53% of climate pollution, as current programs focus heavily on individual technologies, such as electric vehicles. States could balance green building requirements with housing supply goals, as research shows that simple building types, such as apartments, naturally use 41% less energy than single-family homes. Local governments could prioritize compact development that reduces driving, given that suburban residents drive twice as many daily miles as urban residents.
Achieving climate goals means providing families with housing options near jobs and transit, rather than limiting them to car-dependent subdivisions.
Photo by Mikhail Nilov