A pro-business case for hugging trees

American Forests, Autumn, 1996 by Rick Casey

It is San Antonio's longest running and most vital political war. It's not Democrats versus Republicans or conservatives versus liberals. It is environmentalists versus developers.

And it is a shame.

The latest battle is over trees. A committee was appointed, roughly half developers and half environmentalists, and told to come to consensus on a proposal for an ordinance that would save trees without unduly hampering development.

There appears to be a stalemate, which likely means no tree ordinance will be enacted. This is a fight we don't need to have.

I don't say this because everybody ought to be a tree hugger. I say it because trees, like good environmental planning, are good for the economy. They are good for business, and they are good for the consumer.

Nationally, this is not a revelation. The National Association of Homebuilders got together with a national group called AMERICAN FORESTS and produced a book with the enlightening title: Building Greener Neighborhoods: Trees as Part of the Plan. The book presents powerful arguments for the preservation and planting of trees. If business leaders understood these arguments, they would join with environmentalists and create an ethic so strong that tree ordinances wouldn't be controversial.

The agreement between the homebuilders and AMERICAN FORESTS was based partly on scientific studies on the effects of the loss of trees. Especially instructive is a study AMERICAN FORESTS did on the city of Atlanta. The study tracked the city's development from 1972 through 1993. During that period, about 65 percent of what had been trees and forests was converted to a built environment. The result is a dramatic increase in what is known as the "urban heat island" effect.

In 1972, the temperatures at Hartsfield International Airport were 3 to 6 degrees higher than the surrounding countryside. Now those temperatures are 9 to 12 degrees higher. Anyone who thinks San Antonio doesn't suffer from a similar dynamic hasn't paid attention while driving from the city into the country. The economic and environmental implications are formidable:

* A hotter city makes for higher cooling costs. As a home owner, your utility bills are higher. In addition, electric plants burn more fuel, adding to air pollution, and use more water.

* Trees fight air pollution in more ways than one. By reducing temperatures, they slow chemical processes that raise the ozone level. Studies at California's Lawrence Berkely Laboratory indicate 30 percent of a city's air pollution is related to increased temperatures. The studies show that each degree above 72 degrees increases smog chances by 6 percent. San Antonio is near the level of air pollution at which federal law can start limiting the construction of new factories. So air pollution is very directly related to our economic development.

Trees also fight pollution by taking tons of carbon dioxide out of the air, holding on to the carbon and releasing oxygen.

* Trees play a major role in slowing stormwater runoff, together with the erosion and pollution that comes with it. Trees and other vegetation break the fall of the water and ease its impact on the ground below. And roots hold the soil in place. AMERICAN FORESTS' study of Atlanta indicated a 20 percent increase in stormwater runoff in areas where trees were replaced by development.

There is much more, but the bottom line is that this is not just an environmental issue. It is an issue of a city's long-term economic health opposed to short-term and sometimes chimerical profits for the irresponsible sector of the development industry.