I'm not making an ideological argument here or manufacturing an excuse for American super-consumers, with our Hummers and McMansions. I'm not offering a proper answer to the puzzle proffered above either, unfortunately, but just stating the rarely acknowledged facts: Probably there should be an emissions-free car available for $2,500 (or an organic granola bar for 52 cents), but, at the moment, there isn't. There must be a way to reconcile mass car ownership with global warming, but, at the moment, we haven't found it. There is no profound reason that good environmental policies have to come into conflict with economic growth, but they often do. In many countries, the desire not to be poor is stronger than the desire to breathe clean air. Look at photographs of Beijing's smog if you don't believe me.
If we want to consume it, make it, eat it, drive it, there must be a way to do so. There must be a way we can keep living oblivious lives without guilt that those lives depend on other people not being able to do those things. Right?
Bleh.
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Growing up green: How to shop for a green baby
Comments
View as Flat
greentiger Posted 8:26 pm
19 Jan 2008
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:41 pm
19 Jan 2008
I wonder what in the hell smog in Beijing has to do with American MacMansions and SUVs?? Is he/she suggesting that because poor people in the developing world don't want to starve, that SUVs and MacMansions are justifiable??
The write reminds me of a group, The Insane Clown Posse (actually, a lovely funny group), in terms of the name at least.
There is a difference between considering an SUV or a MacMansion as "not being poor" and considering having enough to eat, being able to educate your kid as "not being poor". The standard desired is not the same in every place.
Bleh!!! Indeed!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 11:03 pm
19 Jan 2008
Perhaps we can choose to consume less, produce less and propagate less.
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, est. 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:37 am
20 Jan 2008
But it's basically an article about the Nano, which Applebaum thinks should be a major subject of conversation at the next Bali-like conference. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, except apparently it's all up to underfunded environmentalists to come up with these answers.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:19 am
20 Jan 2008
Or are you just picking the facts that make your point? What is your point?
"There must be a way to reconcile mass car ownership with global warming, but, at the moment, we haven't found it."
There must be a way to give the massive number of humans on planet earth access to transportation, without destroying the human friendly climate of spaceship earth. There is.
Electric assisted bikes for rural people without bus service. Electric buses and electric trains for city and near city residents. Plugin hybrid cars for the well enough off to afford them. And a renewable electric source to power these devices. It behooves the most affluent to lead the way.
Instead we spend over half our economic might on "defense". Don't pretend we "haven't found" the solutions. Main stream media hasn't found it, because it ignores it. To remain in your job you have to ignore it too.
Drop food, not bombs. Food costs 5% of what bombs cost by weight. Manufacture and sell the devices that will make this energy revolution happen. Instead of munitions to provide armies with the means to battle over resources, like oil, that are destroying the planet.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreenOx Posted 2:37 am
20 Jan 2008
The first is American overconsumption ("McMansions and Hummers"). The second is the potential for decoupling economic and transportation growth.
In reference to the first issue, there are ways for Americans to grow economically without decreasing economic growth. The easiest way to do this is with demand-side reductions. Problems of leakage aside, decreasing energy use (both in power production through improved thermal envelopes in homes, etc. and the transport sector via greater fuel economy and/or use of hybrids and biofuels) increases bottom lines. By saving energy, Americans can save money. And saving money will be important as our economy continues to hover in dark waters.
As for the second issue, I don't think it is appropriate for the developed world to stop someone in India from owning a car because of its emissions. We created this mess, and - you're right, JMG - it is more important to most (if not all) in the developing world to not be poor than to not emit. Technologically (and hypothetically), it would be possible to create a cheaper car with greater fuel economy; however, it still will not be as cheap as something that relies on traditional internal combustion engines running on petroleum. Until the hydrogen economy comes (if it ever does), I think the best things we can do for the transportation sector in the developing world is help create effective and affordable mass transit systems and reduce our consumption in the developed world.
I know there are studies out there that have examined decoupling economic growth in the developing world from growth in car ownership, but I won't have those reports until tomorrow (I'm in a group researching this on the periphery of a major project at the moment, and we meet tomorrow morning). So, I know they exist - it's just a matter of doing some searches for them. Check the Tranport Studies Unit at the Oxford University Centre for the Environment - I know they've done a couple.
-GreenOx
http://www.greenox.blogspot.com
-GreenOx
http://www.greenox.blogspot.com
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:47 am
20 Jan 2008
"There must be a way to reconcile mass car ownership with global warming, but, at the moment, we haven't found it."
If I remember correctly, this is one of those cases where Paul Hawken might rephrase the question. Some things to explore on the Grist website, inspired by thoughful contributions by folks such as JMG, might be...
Why do people really want cars?
Why do people move to suburban areas?
Why do people -- like myself -- move beyond suburbia?
Why do people who want cars decide to buy SUVs?
It is possible that the answers to these questions -- the reasons people want cars or move beyond urban areas -- might be compatible with preserving and restoring Earth's ecological systems. Right now, environmentalist seem -- I say "seem" because I realize I'm not familiar with the literature on the topic -- focused on ending car culture, but not addressing the humans needs supported by car culture.
Quite honestly, I'm not sure I can answer the questions that apply to my own situation. But inspired by JMG bringing this up again, I'll ponder this today. Each person who feels they need a car or and SUV should really ask themselves exactly why they want one. They are not cheap, certainly not as cheap as a bicycle and a yearly mass transit pass!
Just food for thought. No need to for hostility here.
Peace.
Permalink
LegumeSam Posted 3:04 am
20 Jan 2008
I pick it up from the farmer's market:
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/LegumeSam/farmersmarket1.jpg">
stash it in the truck until the food bank is open:
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/LegumeSam/vegetabletruck.jpg">
and give it away at the food bank:
<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v734/LegumeSam/mondayfoodbank.jpg">
So that's why I keep my truck.
http://www.dailykos.com/User/Cassiodorus
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:39 am
20 Jan 2008
In developing countries, the car can be a sign of prestige -- as it certainly can be here as well. I don't think environmentalists are generally not, I repeat not "focused on ending the car culture", as you say -- there are tons more posts here about cars than mass transit or bikes. But anyway, if environmentalism really sought that, in a consensus type manner, then I think that the term would be that environmentalists would want a "public transit-centered" culture, just being against something is not very useful.
GreenOx, speaking of which, and I hope I'm not being nitpicky, I'm wondering why you don't include public transit as an alternative for developed countries.
Permalink
C4nier Posted 6:13 am
20 Jan 2008
Permalink
Martha Hagood Posted 6:59 am
20 Jan 2008
Permalink
JohnMashey Posted 7:27 am
20 Jan 2008
I haven't looked much at the Nano. Does anybody know enough about it to say whether or not it's a useful step towards PHEVs and then EVs? Either would be a heck of lot more useful driving around Mumbai or Bangalore, even given the traffic that was there in the mid-90s, and it must ber worse now.
2) To me, the real issue is investment patterns that may get stranded. For example, if there are more Nanos around, will there get to be a lot of free parking? (and thus attendant hidden subsidies).
I recommend UCLA Prof. Donald Shoup's "The High Cost of Free Parking" as the classic study of the investment skew and deoptimized resource allocation caused by it.
-John Mashey
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:28 am
20 Jan 2008
I have asked in forums "if there was a perfectly environmentally neutral car, would you still reject it?" A few do, on the grounds that it leads to sprawl which itself is evil.
I have asked why we identify "car culture" as American when it takes root in every nation wealthy enough to support it? I didn't get a good answer on that one, but there seems to be a reluctance to recognize a human trait here. Perhaps labeling it as "American" makes it seem easier to defeat.
No, of course not, there need not "be a way." Either we'll find a way to do what we want, or we'll change what we want. It's been that way for as long as there have been people. Neither technology nor culture are static.
Permalink
kmp Posted 7:33 am
20 Jan 2008
Consider this:
What does feed the masses, at least at the moment, is no secret: high-tech farming, chemical fertilizers, genetically engineered crops. Modern means of communication and transport -- cars, telephones, computers -- will eventually make the poor richer, too. Though there are many fans of "environmentally sustainable development" who believe we can have less poverty, less pollution and lower carbon emissions at the same time, that's not happening in the real world, as the unveiling of the Nano well demonstrates.
I don't believe that "technology" is truly feeding the masses; I believe that political machinations are twisting the system such that food produced by agribiz giants is subsidized to the point of being ludicrously cheap and the true cost of producing that food is buried in taxes paid by everyone (at least in this country). Also, the analogy between a Hershey bar and an organic granola bar is more than silly, it is pointless; the produce will charge whatever they think the market will support, and right now the organic market supports a higher price point.
There is no profound reason that good environmental policies have to come into conflict with economic growth, but they often do.
Yes, there is - economic growth tends to mean exponential growth, and no living system can support exponential growth without eventual self-destruction. The examples are many; a virus, mold, a plague of locusts - all with eventually use up their host and then move on or die. When they run out of hosts, they die. Our host is the Earth and we have only one; although not, perhaps, profound, this is a simple enough reason why economic growth cannot continue forever in concert with a healthy environment.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:13 am
20 Jan 2008
Which means people will starve. Actually some time before they starve several kinds of unrest show up as rioting and civil war. This will compound the problem of getting food, fuel, and medical supplies to the areas affected and disease will take hold in the populace.
Also as fossil fuel's are purchased by the Indian and Chinese middle classes the poorest people the world over will lose access to kerosene for kitchen stoves. This will result in the desertification of any unguarded land near towns and cities as desperate people strip every growing thing off landscapes in order to fuel their kitchen fires.
All of this made worse by the foundation of Global Warming and fossil fuel depletion laid down by the US. It never helped that the leaders of most developing nations refused to deal with their exploding population growth over the last 50 years.
Until the wealthy decision makers of the world realize that a certain degree of socialism is required to maintain a peaceful world. Until then, stupid ideas like this will prevail and multiply.
India's transportation problems will no more likely be fulfilled by cheap cars than US transportation problems were. We build freeways and we build cars and we sit in traffic going more slowly than bicycles travel.
This is just another nail in the coffin of the human race.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 9:32 am
20 Jan 2008
How we do that can definantly be up for debate, but I think we can all agree on that basic point.
Until the wealthy decision makers of the world realize that a certain degree of socialism is required
Or to scale that back to kindergarten obviousness.
"We're going to need to learn how to share, and cooperate."
Permalink
mihan Posted 4:21 am
21 Jan 2008
Personally, I'd be happy if noone had a car for transporting their body and groceries around. I got hit by a Jeep on Saturday driven by a woman who wasn't looking for not-cars. Fortunately, she braked just before she hit me and there were plenty of witnesses, so I'm fine except for two gigantic bruises on my leg. The bike needs a tune-up, though.
Besides, cars allow for suburbia to exist (maybe good, maybe bad), but they also allow for segregation. What's to like?
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:41 am
21 Jan 2008
One car gets 46 miles per gallon, features fancy accessories, and sports two engines with a combined 145 horsepower. The other car reportedly gets 54 miles per gallon, runs on a diminutive 30-horsepower engine, and is positively spartan in its interior trimmings. The first is a darling of the environmentally conscious. The latter is reviled as a climate wrecker. These two vehicles are the Toyota Prius and the newly unveiled Tata Nano, dubbed "the people's car." Is there a double standard?
As the article concludes, "The change needed is more than a matter of technology. It requires questioning shortsighted personal choices by consumers who buy unnecessarily large or powerful vehicles, as well as confronting the auto and oil companies that derive enormous profit from the status quo."
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:01 am
21 Jan 2008
There is no profound reason that good environmental policies have to come into conflict with economic growth, but they often do.
Um, actually there is (unless a finite world is not a profound reason).
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:47 pm
21 Jan 2008
What's not clear, intentionally or not, is what the author of this statement means by "economic growth". I think different readers interpret is from different perspectives.
It could mean... sustained development until everyone on the planet has a huge McMansion on a 10-acre manicured lot, drives an FUV 45 minutes to work every day, returning home to chow down on a pound of factory-farmed meat every evening.
OR
It could mean... ensuring everyone has adequate food, clothing, shelter, education, and some free time to spend with their family, pursue hobbies, or otherwise improve the quality of their life in an environmentally friendly manner.
The first case is obviously NOT compatible with preserving and restoring our environment. As JMG points out, infinite growth is not possible on finite world. Pretty damn obvious, but the fools in charge apparently can't comprehend this..
The second case might actually be compatible with preserving and restoring our environment. As lives improve, birth rates go down and concerned for the natural world goes up. A lot of jobs could be created by reducing our consumption of resources, restoring and expanding natural areas, replacing toxic chemicals, growing safe food, presuading people to find pleasure in less destructive leisure activity, et cetera.
Whenever the environment and economic growth are being discussed in an article, editorial, blog, it might be important for all involved to clarify whether someone is (1) under the illusion that there can be be sustained economic growth forever and ever, (2) the participants in the discussion are talking about raising people out of deadly poverty, or (3) somewhere in between.
I realize that there are folks that say we can't raise people out of deadly poverty. That there are just too many human beings. And while we enjoy luxuries like automobiles, reliable mass transit, vaccinations, schools, the internet, books, flower gardens, filling a bird feeder with seed, walking down the street without someone on horseback gunning you down with an AK47 and selling your child... others must be left to die.
I can't accept that. There MUST be a way to protect the environment and create some economic growth for those human beings currently or soon to be alive on Earth. We can't sustain that growth forever and ever. But we should be able to sustain it long enough to lift people out of poverty.
There are plenty of examples of efforts to preserve or restore the the biosphere creating jobs and improving people's lives.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:55 pm
21 Jan 2008
Perhaps a relatively small investment by an NGO could encourage people to acquire a habit of using mass transit. Once people start using and, hopefully, realizing the advantages of mass transit, they will not be interested in wasting money on the purchase and feeding of a personal automobile. Furthermore, new development might become dependent on mass transit. The automobile will not be able to take root.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:44 pm
21 Jan 2008
They HAVE the habit of using mass transit; if only we had the habit to the same extent.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:28 pm
21 Jan 2008
I was sort of looking at the automobile as a global issue, not just a problem emerging in areas that already have some form of mass transit. What's wrong with this? What's wrong with anticipating and trying to prevent a problem long before it might arrive?
Furthermore, I asked whether "anyone" had tried to create a transportation cooperative. I doubt you believe me, but I was not writing under the assumption that Americans know everything there is to know about everything! Perhaps there is someone in India trying to improve mass transit and make it more appealing by establishing a cooperative. Or someone from India is helping communities in Africa. Or someone from South America is advising someone in Southeast Asia. I don't know why you would assume I thought Americans had something to teach others about mass transit.
I suppose, since the original article was about the new car in Inida, this thread covers only India, Sorry. I'll try to focus my remarks from this point on on India. I assume others will do the same.
I know mass transit exists in India, but I don't know what mass transit is like in India. And you are correct.. they could probably help us solve some of our problems, though I suspect the French, Germans, or Japanese might provide a better model... not from some sort of racist perspective, but because of cultural similarities! Back to India... perhaps there are some deficiencies that prevent people from using it for economic advancement. Or perhaps areas with limited financial resources do not have as much access to reliable transportation, so people cannot get around enough to be flexible when it comes to finding jobs or acquiring basic necessities. There is no reason to assume it is already state-of-the-art and that there is no room for improvement. A non-profit cooperative, perhaps even, God forbid, an American one, might be able to help.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:02 pm
21 Jan 2008
Five minutes of Googling reveals that India is not a role model for mass transit and that cooperatives might play a role in repairing the sytem.
The following quotes are from...
http://www.cseindia.org/AboutUs/press_releases/press_20070726.htm
"Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) is shocked and dismayed by the collapse of the public transport bus system in Delhi. The bus transport system has been one of Delhi's most effective strategies for combating pollution and congestion. But this has been grossly mismanaged as a mobility strategy."
"Number of passenger trips have increased manifold over the years, but pubic transport augmentation has not kept pace. At the same time, efficiency and quality of the present service has nose-dived."
"The government still has no plans to suggest how Delhi will cope as daily vehicle trips are estimated to grow from 12 million to nearly 25 million by 2021."
"Completely unplanned privatisation has, over time, attracted small time investors, who today run and operate the bulk of the city's bus service. Fifty-six per cent of the standard buses are owned and run by private bus owners -- approximately 80 per cent of who are single-bus owners. This presents a challenge for efficient and quality operations."
"This demands fundamental reforms, says Roychowdhury. The private-cooperative [A COOPERATIVE??!!!] or private-corporation model could be developed by which the existing private players could be grouped into a cooperative [A COOPERATIVE??!!!] or merged into larger corporations. This will also require rationalisation of routes so that each player is not competing within the route and creating chaos for commuters."
The home page for this organization is...
http://www.cseindia.org/index.html
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 6:26 am
26 Jan 2008
he had to go make roads safer
if not for mr nader, there would be no suburban sprawl
commuting would be a game of russian roulette
insurance would cost bazillions of dollars
those who could afford it would risk their lives driving a short distance
natural selection
no more alleles to motivate members of the human species to live apart from the rest of the tribe
problem solved
nader tossed a bundle of regulations into the natural order
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 12:56 pm
26 Jan 2008
I also have a quibble about the recurrent use of the phrase "non-profit cooperative". A cooperative is an enterprise which is collectively owned by the community which it serves. Like any other business, a cooperative operates at a modest profit or it has no buffer against adversity and no opportunity for the reinvestment necessary for sustainability, and can hence become dependent on handouts from external resources, belying the principle of self-responsibility which is a cornerstone value of the cooperative movement - http://www.ica.coop/coop/principles.html
Having said that I believe there is great value in the concept of collectively-owned public transportation cooperatives. I believe they offer great potential, not only in the developing world but also here in the US, as an enhancement to personal mobility that could be far less environmentally damaging than the ubiquitous reliance on the personal automobile. Thank you, Wiscidea for introducing this concept to the discussion.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:08 pm
26 Jan 2008
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:25 pm
26 Jan 2008
Thank you for the constructive criticism and support for the suggestion.
I apologize for not using the proper terms. I'm really out of my element here, more so than usual. I probably shouldn't offer such amateur suggestions around experts like JMG, but I can't resist if I think I might have a good idea... and I'm sure I'll do it again if I have an opportunity.
You are correct. I was thinking "public transporation" though foolishly using the term "mass transit". And I guess I was thinking "low profit" when I said non-profit. I don't know how cooperatives work. I figured they were non-profit because there shouldn't be cash left over after employees are paid and some money set aside for building the business and adding to a rainy-day fund, but that would be the profit wouldn't it? I should know better, since I get a year-end dividend from the cooperative I purchase propane from; I'm a member, but not an employee.
There should be more discussion about how cooperatives can be used to solve some of our problems and, perhaps, counter scorched-earth capitalism. My only experience with cooperatives is the credit union I joined over a decade ago and the folks who provide my propane; thumbs up for service provided. I'd like to learn more about this.
Thanks again.
Permalink