Avenue de Bretueil in Paris |
Over 190
nations are now in Paris negotiating protocols to stem the slide toward
catastrophic climate change. At the same
time, entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates are in Paris pledging billions of dollars toward finding new technologies to limit the carbon
emissions from energy production.
I wish both
efforts success, a wish with which few would disagree.
But neither
effort quite aligns with the perspective that cities bring to the climate
change conversation. And that’s because
cities are looking at a different segment of the carbon reduction curve than
countries and entrepreneurs.
The nations
and philanthropists are looking for ways to continue generating energy to grow
economies, but with fewer or no carbon emissions. Conversely, cities are looking for ways to
live with less energy. Entrepreneurs are
looking for ways to power cars with fewer emissions. Cities are trying to have people live more of
their lives on bicycles.
Some may
argue that the two paths lead to the same destination, so why quibble about the
route? But there’s a downside to solving
problems with cutting edge technology.
We often fail to foresee unfortunate side effects. The rule of unintended consequences always bats
last.
Refining
crude oil into lamp oil to light more homes and to reduce the hunting pressure
on whales seemed a good plan. Surely it
couldn’t be a problem to drain the unusable fraction, now known as gasoline,
into the nearby Cuyahoga River?
Harnessing
the power of the atom to replace dangerous and earth scarring coal mining in feeding
energy grids seemed a good plan. Surely
we could agree on a safe way to store the spent fuel, right?
I’m not predicting
that the clean energy concepts to be brought forth by Gates and friends will
result in environmental harm such as burning rivers or mounds of spent uranium awaiting
a final home. But it might. Because stuff happens.
To the
extent we can, making do with less energy is the safer route, the route with
less potential for distressing surprises.
Thus, it’s worth observing the attention being given to cities and their
responses to climate change, most of which focus on reduced energy usage.
Writing in Next City, Feargus O’Sullivan describes the
efforts by host city Paris to reduce carbon emissions by limiting the use of
private cars while enhancing the transit, pedestrian, and bicycle opportunities.
Writing in CityLab, Laura Bliss provides a broader
overview of city initiatives around the world, with many of the same points of
emphasis as Paris along with better electrical grid management, improved
building energy performance, and energy efficient appliances.
Finally, Alex
Morales in Bloomberg Business describes some of the specific
goals set by cities. Morales also notes
that cities can more easily innovate than countries. He
quotes Shelley Poticha, Director of Urban Solutions at the Natural Resources
Defense Council, who offers “Cities are centers of adaptation and innovation,
and they don’t have to wait for international negotiations or congressional
action.”
However, the
Bloomberg article concludes with the note that not all municipal citizens may
yet be on board. From Salt Lake City
Mayor Ralph Becker, “The pushback comes when we make changes that disrupt
people’s everyday lives. There will
always be people who will say, ‘We like the idea of adjusting to the impacts on
the climate, but don’t change my world.”’
I’m not suggesting
the city route of reduced energy usage is the only option. Previous climate change negotiations have
stumbled over the suggestion that less developed countries cut energy usage
along with everyone else, which they perceived as forcing them to remain behind
in the fight for better standards of living.
Less developed countries deserve the opportunity to join more developed
countries, so the technological ideas put forth by Gates and other s are
important.
But as the
Paris gathering moves toward a conclusion, we should be paying attention to
what cities are saying about battling climate change. They may have the more pertinent message. And we should be willing to accept the logic
they put forth.
We should also
be looking to position all of our communities to follow the lead of the cutting
edge cities in creating land use patterns that can benefit from better transit,
bicycling routes, and pedestrian opportunities.
Which means we
should all be urbanists.
A young
planner with whom I chat regularly recently made a comment about the Petaluma
street on which he grew up. It was a
commonsensical, but nonetheless insightful, point that many would have missed
about the connection between street configuration and driving speed. I’ll dig more deeply into his observation in
my next post.
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment