Should there be carbon penalties for 'no growth' communities?

The Yurok tribe's carbon offset project
 encompasses thousands of acres of Douglas
fir and mixed hardwood forest near the
Klamath River in Northern California.

Imagine having to plant a few hundred trees near the Oregon border or handing over all the money in your wallet next time your city council votes down a housing project.

That is one of the ideas coming out of a new report from the California Apartment Assn., which represents residential property owners.

The report suggests rewarding communities that build housing near jobs and transportation, but penalizing suburban sprawl by linking it to California climate change legislation.

Communities that turn down housing projects would pay a fine for, presumably, making it harder for people who work in their community to live there. Climate change is factored in because, in most cases, commuting can harm the environment by releasing more carbon emissions.

Another suggestion in the report is to penalize the communities by linking failure to build new housing to carbon offsets, credits given in lieu of offsetting greenhouse gas emissions. One way the state allows for that is reforestation protocols, or planting trees under certain conditions.

Read The Los Angeles Times story - “Should there be carbon penalties for 'no growth' communities?”