1. The Ecological Limits on Transportation Sustainability Norman W. Garrick Lecture 7 Sustainable Transportation

2. E NVIRONMENT S OCIETY E CONOMY (LOW AND GLEESON 2003, HART 2006) The Nested Box Model of Sustainability

3. Understanding the Limits What goes on in society and the economy is subjected to the natural environment which supplies the inputs and absorbs the waste. And similarly, what goes on in the economy is subjected to the fairness, integrity and stability of society. If, according to Low, both human society and economic systems are subject to the limits of the natural environment – we need to develop mechanisms to accounting for these limits. Environmental sustainability can be considered from two perspectives: local and global.

4. Local Environmental Impacts Negative local environmental impacts of transportation are generally associated with the mass use of private vehicles on public roads Good reminded us this is not a new phenomenon - in the past cities suffered from having to deal with horse manure and dead horses in the roads. The modern toll according to Low includes Injuries and Fatalities Damage to Health and Life from Pollutants Indirect Health Effects from Motor Vehicle Use Degradation of Urban Public Spaces Loss of Habitat and Farmland

5. Global Environmental Impacts According to Low, with the right sort of climate to dissipate the pollutants, auto dependent cities can provide acceptable (but not livable and socially just) urban environments for humans. However, acceptable cities are far from environmentally sustainable. Even cities that have a high local environmental quality might still not be sustainable. For true environmental sustainability, we must consider the global dimensions of this issue. Low breaks down the global issues affected by urban transportation into three areas: fuel biodiversity and food atmosphere (or climate change).

6. The Dimensions of the Local Environmental Impacts The local issues affected by urban transportation include: Injuries and Fatalities Damage to Health and Life from Pollutants Indirect Health Effects from Motor Vehicle Use Degradation of Urban Public Spaces Loss of Habitat and Farmland

7. Local Environmental Impacts Injuries and Fatalities Low wonders at how readily we accommodate and live with what to him is an astonishing toll in terms of the number of people killed and injured in motor vehicle accidents. He attributes this acceptance to some idea in society that these incidents are self-inflicted. However, he points out that those who die have no choice in the matter.

8. Local Environmental Impacts Damage to Health and Life from Pollutions Low claims that modern societies are less tolerant of the impact to health brought on by atmospheric pollutants. He does not mention other pollutants such as those affecting water since presumably the impact on health is less obvious. The atmospheric pollutants affect everyone living in a city in a general sense, but there are also very local effects. For example, people sitting in their cars on a busy roadway breathe in the un-dispersed pollution from hundred of other cars. Recently there have been a number of studies in the USA showing that kids living near freeways are more likely to suffer from asthma. Low points out that pollutants do not have an immediate effect and we do not fully understand the long-term impact of small doses of pollutants on human health. He suggest that the cost to human health of air borne pollution might be even greater than the toll from motor vehicle accidents.

9. Local Environmental Impacts Indirect Health Effects from Motor Vehicle Use Problems under this category include the so-called obesity crisis in the US and other countries. Some research suggests that one of the contributing factors is the decrease in walking as transportation. As Lows puts it, cars spread out land use, making it impractical to walk to most destinations. So we travel further but get less exercise doing it.

10. Local Environmental Impacts Degradation of Urban Public Spaces Low suggests that the use of cars has resulted in our devaluing urban public spaces. Public space is now treated as leftover space filling the gap between the private realm and the motor vehicle. He points to the importance placed on public squares and boulevards in walking cities. He says that public space occupied by large numbers of motor vehicles suffers from a loss of environmental quality. This I think is similar to Good’s concept of us being domesticated by cars. Low points to efforts over the last 40 years in many cities to reclaim public space from cars. Notable examples include Copenhagen and Zurich, where the effort is well advanced, and London and Paris (and now New York City) where the effort is just starting (see my article on the Paris Trams).Paris Trams

11. Local Environmental Impacts Loss of Habitat and Farmland Loss of habitat and farmland results from cities spreading out into the surrounding countryside. The spatial expansion of cities is typically associated with a move to a more auto-oriented transportation system. The lost of land reduces habitat for some species and also encroaches on farmland. Interestingly, Low list this as a local problem here, but later in the article speaks about it as having global significance. It is in fact both a local and a global issue.

12. The Dimensions of the Global Environmental Impacts The global issues affected by urban transportation include: fuel biodiversity and food atmosphere (or climate change)

13. Global Environmental Impacts Fuel The world’s transportation system largely depends on the burning of oil, which is a finite resource. Low sees us moving to an era in which oil will become increasingly scarce. The problem is that there is no farsighted effort underway to restructure the transportation system away from this dependence on fossil fuel. He says that technological advances in vehicle engines hold some promise but that there are many technical and institutional barriers to overcome which will require huge investments before full implementation is possible.

14. Global Environmental Impacts Fuel (continued) Political and economic leaders seem to be relying entirely on rising oil prices to be the impetus for the restructuring. The problem with this approach is that rising oil prices are likely to lead to a global economic depression - which according to Low will make the inevitable restructuring more painful and difficult. Good also points out that the outcome of this restructuring will be different in different places, depending on how they have positioned themselves. So, for example, Singapore and Dubai (or Boston and Las Vegas) might feel the pain of the restructuring to different extents.

15. Global Environmental Impacts Biodiversity and Food Low links the two issues because they both result from the same cause: the explosive spread of urban places into species habitat and onto cropland. He argues that all species have a right to continue to exist, and that species extinction is an “unfortunate global crime”. He sees it as a global issue because the earth’s species do not belong to the nation in which they happen to be found but are part of our global heritage.

16. Global Environmental Impacts Biodiversity and Food (continued) The issue of the loss of cropland is becoming severe, especially in countries with huge populations, such as China and India, where there is a diminishing supply of productive land due to the growth of the cities. He observes that the scarcity of cropland is so serious in some countries that it could alter transportation policy in favor of more efficient bicycle-rail system over motorcars. A recent crisis in Mexico, with the rapid run-up in the price of corn and tortilla flour shows how these global issues of food and fuel are interconnected. The price increase has been attributed to the growing demand for ethanol from corn in the USA and elsewhere.

17. Global Environmental Impacts Atmosphere and Climate Change Low argues that the issue of climate change is the most serious global environmental problem that we are faced with. He also says that it is the least likely to be resolved peacefully or justly. He feels that this is the most critical issue to be resolved for environmental sustainability. Global climate change is caused by the increase in CO 2 (and other greenhouse gases – at the National Academy of Sciences exhibit they remind us of this fact by having a cow in the exhibit) in the atmosphere due to the growth of the carbon-based economy over the last 200 years. He points out that there is very little dissent in the scientific community on this issue. The consensus is that i) the world is warming; ii) the warming is dues to man’s activities. This warming will have dire consequences for both human and non-human species. We can expect species extinction due to habitat destruction by climate changes, which will be too rapid to allow for any possibility of adaptation. We can also expect that coastal cities will be threatened by raising sea levels.

18. Global Environmental Impacts Atmosphere and Climate Change He sees global climate change as the first truly global problem of environmental sustainability that humans will have to face. Quoting figures from the International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he points out that in 1999 we burned over 6000 billion tons of fossil fuel. However, to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a sustainable level of 450 parts per million-volume we need to reduce the amount of fossil fuel that we burn by 60%, to 2500 billion tons per year. The problem is that under a business as usual scenario, the amount of fossil fuel burned could be 92,000 billion tons per year by 2050. The task is daunting. The increase is expected to come from continued growth in North American and European cities but also explosive growth in India and China. Low emphasizes that North American and European cities are currently the biggest contributors to carbon emission, but that a big part of the problem in the future is what he refers to as the ‘transfer of the “developed” way of life to cities in the developing world’.

19. The Path to Sustainability? Low goes back to the theme that the projection could be altered by the rising costs of oil, but argues that it is bad to depend on global depression to bring about transportation sustainability. He says that local environmental quality in the mega-cities, including a shortage of land for agriculture, might also serve to short circuit the pursuit of a car/road solution for transportation in these cities. But this is not a certainty, since there are growing signs of a boom in motorization (especially in China) that will lead to both local environmental degradation and global climate changes.

20. Talking Sustainability, Funding Roads Low claims that in the USA the rhetoric of sustainability is increasing at all levels and there is a significant grassroots movement towards more sustainable values. But spending continues unabated for more infrastructure, especially roads. DOTs are set up to enlarge and upgrade the state highway systems and there is great momentum behind this (including road lobbies like the American Highway Users Alliance). He fails to mention explicitly the huge financial interests that would suffer from a shift in course. These include some of the biggest political contributors to election for governor in most states.

21. Fast Trains and Sustainability He also critiqued the movement in Europe for fast trains between cities, which he claims escalates dramatically travel between cities and regions. He acknowledges that public transportation is necessary to improve local environmental quality but states that high-speed trains do nothing for environmental sustainability on the global level. I am not sure I totally agree with this perspective, given the inter-related nature of local and regional travel but it does show that we should not take any action for granted when it comes to sustainability.

22. The Brown and the Green Agendas McGranahan and Satterthwaite use a different a slightly different framework for considering urban environmental problem. Like Low, they divide them into two sets of issue or agendas. The first is the ‘Brown’ agenda, which addresses issues associated with environmental health – this prospective is often championed by urbanists. The relevant issues include unsanitary living conditions, hazardous pollutants in the air and water, and the accumulations of solid waste. These are problems that have immediate environmental impacts and tend to burden mostly lower income groups in society. The ‘Green’ agenda on the other hand is generally championed by environmentalists (often from high income countries). The green agenda focuses on how urban-based production, consumption and waste generation contribute to ecosystem disruption, resource depletion and global climate change. These issues are problems that have more long term impacts that are dispersed and delayed – in other words, they threaten long-term ecological sustainability. From an article by McGranahan and Satterthwaite in Pugh, Sustainable Cities in Developing Countries, Earthscan, pg. 73-87

23. The Brown versus the Green Agenda According to McGranahan and Satterthwaite one reason that it is important to distinguish between the Brown and Green agendas is that conflicts sometimes arise between proponents of each of these agendas about which one should be accorded priority. According to the authors, these problems are especially acute in the developing world but they also arise in the developed world. The only way to address these potential conflicts is to understand and acknowledge their existence. The authors state that those conflicts can best be minimized if both agendas are taken seriously.

24. The Equity Perspective The authors state that there are real conflicts between the proponents of the brown and the green agendas as to which problems should receive priority and what are the strategies for tackling the problems. However, they point out that it is important not to create a false dichotomy since environmental improvements often serve both agendas. Furthermore, the concept of ‘equity’ is at the heart of both agendas. The conflict then boils down to the question of equity for whom?

25. Conceptualizing Sustainability Haughton’s Five Equity Principles The authors use Graham Haughton’s five interconnected equity principles to try to understand the differences between the brown and the green agendas. Haughton’s Five Equity Principles are 1. Intragenerational equity 2. Procedural equity 3. Intergenerational equity 4. Transfrontier equity 5. Interspecies equity

26. Brown Agenda based on Haughton’s Equity Principles The brown agenda focuses on the following two principles of equity: intragenerational equity, and procedural equity. Intragenerational Equity addresses the need for all urban dwellers to have healthy and safe living and working conditions and the corresponding infrastructure and services. Procedural Equity addresses the legal rights for all persons to have safe and healthy living, and working environment, that they are treated fairly and that they can engage in a democratic decision making process about the management of the urban centers in which they live.

27. Green Agenda based on Haughton’s Five Equity Principles The green agenda on the other hand is described as focusing on three of the principles of equity: intergenerational equity, transfrontier equity, interspecies equity. Intergenerational Equity promotes the idea that urban development should not draw on finite resource bases and degrade ecological systems in ways that compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Transfrontier Equity prevents urban consumer and producers from transferring environmental costs to other people and ecosystems. Interspecies Equity recognizes the rights of other species