Choosing to Succeed

Cities shape climate outcomes more than most people realize. Local land use decisions influence how far we drive, how much energy our buildings use, and whether open space can continue to store carbon. In this conversation with Professor John Nolan, we unpack how municipal powers can touch roughly 75 percent of national CO2 emissions through transportation patterns, building performance, biological sequestration, and the siting of distributed and renewable energy. The message is clear and practical: the legal tools already exist, and communities can choose to deploy them. That choice hinges on planners, attorneys, and local leaders aligning plans, codes, and investment to deliver climate resilient development that protects people and property while strengthening local economies.

Listen Now

The history matters because it explains our path dependence. Zoning arrived before widespread planning practice, and early ordinances often stood in for comprehensive plans. Had comprehensive planning been institutionalized first, cities might have grown more compact, mixed-use, and transit oriented, with community-led plans guiding elected bodies. Today, we can still reset the course by updating comprehensive plans to center climate metrics and then hardwiring those goals into zoning, subdivision, and building codes. Practical steps include enabling infill and adaptive reuse, clustering development to save ecological resources, mandating tree canopies and green roofs, and linking development approval to heat, flood, and wildfire risk data. Each policy nudges the built environment toward lower emissions and higher resilience.

Nolan’s “land use wedge” reframes climate action as a local portfolio: buildings, transportation, sequestration, distributed energy, and renewables. Cities can require energy-ready homes, expedite rooftop solar and storage, reduce parking near frequent transit, and prioritize mixed-use density. They can preserve carbon sinks by steering growth away from intact habitats and reinforcing urban nature through permeable landscapes and biophilic design. These strategies rely on existing authority in most states, especially where home rule broadens municipal powers. Even in Dillon’s rule states, courts increasingly interpret enabling acts to allow climate-forward regulation aimed at the most appropriate use of land. The result is a practical map: use what you already have, then fill gaps with targeted state support.

Legal risk often stalls action, so we address the Lucas takings concern head-on. The lesson is not to ban development outright in high-risk zones, but to preserve viable use and require rigorous risk disclosure, site design that protects people and structures, and proof of financing that reflects long-term hazards. When projects cannot secure capital due to documented risks, market forces—not the regulation—drive outcomes. Pair that with comprehensive plan policies, clear hazard maps, and layered standards like elevated structures, managed retreat incentives, and transferable development rights. This approach advances safety and climate goals while respecting constitutional limits, and it aligns public interest with private risk assessment.

Governance structure can accelerate or stall progress. Collaborative subsidiarity puts cities at the center, with states and federal agencies providing funding, data, and technical assistance. Reflexive law strengthens the system by creating procedures that force coordination and learning: intermunicipal watershed councils, linked review schedules across boards, and regional data sharing. These process reforms reduce delay, improve consistency, and help neighboring communities solve shared problems like floods and fires. The payoff is cultural as much as legal—leaders focus less on ideology and more on outcomes as climate impacts become unavoidable and costly.

Finally, the economics are shifting. Insurance withdrawals, mortgage constraints, and repeated disaster losses are producing a reverse bubble in vulnerable areas. That reality is prompting pragmatic leadership training and student-led workshops that translate research into model ordinances and climate resilient development frameworks. The throughline is hopeful and direct: when local governments align planning, law, and finance with climate science, they cut emissions, protect lives, and safeguard long-term value. The tools are ready. The question is whether we choose to use them now, before the costs climb higher.