Climate Zoning by Christopher Serkin was selected as a top 20 article for the Environmental Law and Policy Annual Review (ELPAR) in 2025. Published annually in ELI's Environmental Law Reporter (ELR), in collaboration with Vanderbilt University Law School, ELPAR identifies some of the year’s best academic articles that present creative and feasible legal and policy solutions to pressing environmental problems.
Local governments possess a powerful tool for climate action: land use regulation. The built environment generates a significant share of greenhouse gas emissions and is governed by local zoning frameworks. Because local governments have the authority to shape development outcomes, they have emerged as central leaders in future mitigation efforts. As they pursue new reforms, a key question arises: how can land use regulation most effectively reduce carbon emissions?
In Climate Zoning, Professor Christopher Serkin of Vanderbilt Law School answers this question with situational zoning, a framework that tailors land use rules to local carbon intensity. In the article, Serkin argues that conventional approaches to reducing emissions overlook the need for place-specific regulation. To address this gap, he offers a set of regulatory prescriptions specifically for local governments aimed at producing density in low-carbon places and minimizing emissions in high carbon ones.
Serkin explains how the built environment drives emissions through housing size and location. Building operations and construction generate nearly 40% of global energy-related CO₂ emissions, with multifamily housing consuming far less energy per person than detached single-family homes. Location adds another 10% through transportation, since vehicle miles traveled (VMT) depend on where people live and work. Together, these factors show that compact housing near city centers produces far fewer emissions per household than sprawling suburban development. For example, in New York City, Manhattan residents have the nation’s smallest carbon footprint, while households in nearby suburbs rank among the highest.
Scholars have typically advanced two strategies to reduce GHG emissions through land use: loosening zoning restrictions to unlock greater density or imposing strict green building codes to curb emissions from new construction. The first treats zoning as a barrier to sustainable development and seeks to deregulate density limits. The second requires buildings to meet rigorous environmental standards that improve efficiency. Together, these approaches reflect the prevailing consensus that smaller, denser, and more efficient housing will reduce emissions by channeling growth into urban cores and enhancing building performance.
Serkin argues that while both approaches may work in some places, in others they can be inadequate and even self-defeating. Not all density is created equal. Multifamily housing at the urban fringe can increase emissions, and loosening zoning does not necessarily generate density where it is most needed. Green building codes can also raise housing costs in low-carbon urban areas, shifting development toward more carbon-intensive regions. Strategies intended to cut emissions can instead intensify them by diverting growth to less sustainable places.
To illustrate these risks, Serkin presents a parable of two fictional cities: Laissez Faire and Greenville. Laissez Faire eliminates zoning restrictions, expecting the market to deliver dense development. While some infill occurs in the urban core, most development shifts to the cheaper urban fringe, leaving the city "less dense and more sprawling than before." Greenville takes the opposite path, imposing strict green building rules that drive up construction costs and housing prices so sharply that residents relocate to places where per-unit carbon emissions are much higher. In both cities, strict efforts to address carbon emissions pushed people to more carbon-intensive places, perversely increasing overall emissions.
The key lesson is that context and place matter. Serkin calls for situational zoning reforms that respond to local conditions. Low-carbon urban centers should promote compact growth through mechanisms like relaxing height limits, streamlining approvals, and setting minimum density or maximum unit-size requirements. On the other hand, high-carbon suburbs should adopt stricter building codes, impose climate or energy impact fees, and preserve farmland or open space to limit sprawl. Across all jurisdictions, Serkin recommends eliminating parking minimums, expanding pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, supporting renewable energy projects, and allowing mixed-use and home-based businesses to reduce driving and lower emissions. Serkin also recognizes that fragmented regional governance poses challenges when neighboring jurisdictions adopt conflicting approaches. To address these risks, he calls for federal and state coordination, including updated carbon maps, targeted infrastructure investments, and streamlined environmental review for low-carbon infill development.
Serkin acknowledges that Climate Zoning has focused ambitions and urges policymakers to remain mindful of the many interests at stake when reforming land use regulations. The article pursues a single goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions without addressing zoning’s other social or economic functions. Even so, Serkin offers a pragmatic path forward. “We cannot deregulate our way out of the climate crisis,” he concludes. Situational zoning provides a practical, place-based framework for local climate governance.
When asked how best to balance competing interests in today’s shifting policy landscape, he responded: “With the federal government pulling back significantly from climate targets, the need and opportunity for local action is even more important. I hoped to provide a framework to help local officials think about how they can use land use regulations to address climate change. It requires more than just deregulating zoning.” These reflections capture the essence of Climate Zoning by showing how cities and counties can use existing land use authority to lead the next generation of climate mitigation from the ground up.
Co-authors Natalie Baldacci, Vanderbilt Law School and Linda K. Breggin, Senior Attorney; Director of the Center for State and Local Governance, Environmental Law Institute; Lecturer in Law, Vanderbilt Law School