Hi Dawie >... the nature of walkability is not yet adequately understood...
I'd appreciate it if you'd expound a bit on the nature of walkability, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. Previous refs here: Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability Dawie Coetzee Sun, 12 Jun 2011 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg76045.html Re: [Biofuel] NEWS - Clean transportation alternative 2011/04/20 Dawie Coetzee http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg75873.html Re: [Biofuel] NEWS - Clean transportation alternative 2011/04/22 Dawie Coetzee http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg75885.html Also this: [biofuel] The Green Bandwagon 2004/08/11 Keith Addison http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg37245.html All best Keith >I also wonder what exactly is meant by "emissions increasing", and how it was >measured. > >However, being no great fan of EVs and having a positive abhorrence of robotic >and abstruse hybrids, I am more concerned that statistics that do not surprise >me in the least are indeed genuine. I should, for instance, like to have some >supporting statistics on Swedish roads development, on Swedish vehicle-buying >patterns, on Swedish vehicle use patterns. For I am convinced that >the tendency >to opaqueness and passivity in automotive technology is a primary factor that >drives vehicle-dependence. > >Perhaps not immediately related, but I have feared a "suburban >backlash" in the >urban design profession for some time. The primary motivation would be a >dialectical sense of fashion, i.e. "everyone has been advocating >walkable cities >forever; let's be really radical and propose Los Angeles c. 1958" - and there >the idea that electric vehicles make everything OK might be an >enabling factor. >That would be a tragedy, as the nature of walkability is not yet adequately >understood; but it sits all too well with the aesthetic approach to >urban design >according to which the unwalkable city is undesirable not from any >consideration >of practical ecology but because it is quintessentially American and, as >everyone knows, Americans have atrocious taste ... > >Best regards > >Dawie Coetzee > >________________________________ >From: Darryl McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org >Sent: Sun, 12 June, 2011 15:20:42 >Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's >Lesson for Real >Sustainability > >Something is rotten in the state of Sweden. Or not. But I do smell a >dead rat in here somewhere. > >We have studies from the U.S. that switching from petro-fuel to >electricity for transportation reduces emissions, including greenhouse >gases, even when the electricity comes entirely from coal-fired plants. > >However, in Sweden, the primary energy sources are hydro and nuclear >(over 90% of the generation from those two sources). Fossil sources >produce considerably less than 10% of the electricity mix. (This >document is a bit dated, but presents the information nicely in a graph >on page 2. >http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_se_en.pdf) > >So, Sweden is switching from conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles >to electric and plug-in hybrids, charging from a grid that is over 90% >supplied from essentially zero-GHG sources, but the emissions are going >up? And, the actual market penetration is still trivially small - I'm >guessing well below 1% of the total road-going fleet in the country. >Doesn't pass the smell test. Unfortunately, the article doesn't bother >to cite the evidence used to support it's conclusion. My suspicion: >the Swedish 'transportation sector' includes something other than >private cars that might be driving the numbers up (e.g., ships burning >bunker C crude). > >Actually, after a very limited Web search, I could not find anything >credible that looked like the 'evidence' for the article - just lots of >copy-cat items that also did not provide citations for the desired data. > >I did find this, dated January 2011: >http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/change-in-total-ghg-emissions, >which shows Sweden's transportation GHG emissions going up 9% from 1990 >to 2008. The catch is that Sweden did not get serious about EV >incentives until about 2008-2009, a time period not covered by the data >for this report. > >Here's someone else's response (found while searching for the 'evidence'). > >http://dagblog.com/link/what-if-green-products-make-us-pollute-more-10581 >(check > >the comments by "quinn") > >Darryl > >On 11/06/2011 1:10 PM, Keith Addison wrote: >> http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/10-3 >> >> Published on Friday, June 10, 2011 by CommonDreams.org >> >> The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability >> >> by Firmin DeBrabander >> >> What if electric cars made pollution worse, not better? What if they >> increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of decreasing them? >> Preposterous you say? Well, consider what's happened in Sweden. >> >> Through generous subsidies, Sweden aggressively pushed its citizens >> to trade in their cars for energy efficient replacements (hybrids, >> clean diesel vehicles, cars that run on ethanol). Sweden has been so >> successful in this initiative that it leads the world in per capita >> sales of 'green cars.' To everyone's surprise, however, greenhouse >> gas emissions from Sweden's transportation sector are up. >> >> Or perhaps we should not be so surprised after all. What do you >> expect when you put people in cars they feel good about driving (or >> at least less guilty), which are also cheap to buy and run? >> Naturally, they drive them more. So much more, in fact, that they >> obliterate energy gains made by increased fuel efficiency. >> >> We need to pay attention to this as GM and Nissan roll out their new >> green cars to great fanfare. The Chevy Volt, a hybrid with a >> lithium-ion battery, can go 35 miles on electric power alone (after >> charging over night, for example), and GM brags on its website that >> if you limit your daily driving to that distance, you can "commute >> gas-free for an average of $1.50 a day." The Volt's price is listed >> at a very reasonable $33K (if you qualify for the maximum $7500 in >> tax credits). The fully electric Nissan Leaf is advertized for an >> even more reasonable $26K (with qualifying tax credits, naturally). >> What a deal-and it's good for you, too, the carmakers want you to >> know. As GM helpfully points out on its website, "Electricity is a >> cleaner source of power." >> >> Sweden is a model of sustainability innovation, while the US is the >> most voracious consumer on the planet. Based on Sweden's experience >> with green cars, it's daunting to imagine their possible impact here. >> Who can doubt that they'll likely inspire Americans to make longer >> commutes to work, live even further out in the exurbs, bringing >> development, blacktop and increased emissions with them? > > >> In its current state, the green revolution is largely devoted to the >> effort to provide consumers with the products they have always loved, >> but now in affordable energy efficient versions. The thinking seems >> to be that through this gradual exchange, we can reduce our >> collective carbon footprint. Clearly, however, this approach is >> doomed if we don't reform our absurd consumption habits, which are so >> out-of-whack that they risk undoing any environmental gains we might >> make. Indeed, we are such ardent, addicted consumers that we take >> efficiency gains as license to consume even more! >> >> We need to address consumption fast because-news alert-the current >> consumer class on earth barely amounts to 1 billion people (if that), >> but 2 billion and counting eagerly wait in the wings. >> >> American industry hungrily targets the rising Chinese consumer class. >> For the sake of the planet, we better hope it doesn't get its way. >> Consider: China currently has a car ownership rate approximately >> one-sixth that of the US. If China achieves car ownership rates >> comparable to the US, that would put an additional 800 million cars > > on the road. And that's just China. Even if we somehow succeeded in >> making China's fleet super efficient, it would still be more than the >> planet can handle. >> >> Of course, cars are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to >> Chinese consumer dreams. They will also want more electronics, > > clothes, meat, processed foods-bigger houses. In short, we can bet >> that the rising Chinese middle class will want something close to >> what we have. And why shouldn't they? We have been showcasing our >> middle class comfort worldwide for years through our vast media >> exports. Everyone is betting, hoping-assuming?-that technology will >> eventually help us deliver the American dream worldwide with no >> environmental impact. But clearly, we may run out of planet by the >> time that day comes. Even the American dream in an 'energy efficient >> format' is likely too much for the earth to handle. >> >> If this is chilling-and it should be-you might wonder, what are our >> options? Justice demands that we cannot prevent, much less discourage >> the growing global consumer class from having the consumer goods we >> currently enjoy. Real change starts with us then, and I'm afraid to >> say, radical change is in order. We must figure out a way to consume >> less, which means driving less, shopping less, eating less meat >> (which the UN estimates is responsible for a fifth of all greenhouse >> gases), and conserving food and energy. This means essentially >> rethinking our suburban-sprawling, fast-food-gorging, shopaholic >> society. We must model for the world the changes we hope everyone >> will make to ensure a sustainable future. >> >> It's time to be courageous and think big about altering our >> lifestyle, values and future. The powers that be are reluctant to >> rock the boat with consumers, and have decided that leaving >> consumption habits intact as much as possible is the preferable >> option. They'd rather get us into electric cars, rather than out of >> our cars altogether. Well, we need more than half measures at this >> point. As Sweden proves, unless other more fundamental changes are >> made to our engrained consumption habits, half measures only dig us >> deeper in the hole. >> >> Firmin DeBrabander is Chair of Humanistic Studies and Associate >> Professor of Philosophy at the Maryland Institute College of Art. >> > > >-- >Darryl McMahon >Project Manager, >Common Assessment and Referral for Enhanced Support Services (CARESS) > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
