Will 'going green' work?

peter_j

There is an interesting post today on the Age blogs about whether Australia can afford to go green, followed by some very spirited comments, 51 at last count including some by yours truly.

CAN WE AFFORD THE GREEN CARPET? THE AGE 26.02.07
http://blogs.theage.com.au/managementline/archives/2007/02/signs_that_more.html

beatriz

Very important discussion Peter, thanks. I couldn't resist adding my bit to the Age's comments, here it goes:

If we take into consideration that vehicles are the major producers of greenhouse emissions 49% as compared with 12% used in water heating, (the Australian Greenhouse Office, http://www.ptua.org.au/images/ttm_emissions.gif), our efforts by purchasing water tanks and solar panels, while can assist, will never have the necessary impact that addressing our car dependency can have.

Demanding appropriate public transport requires political will from all parts, from us as citizens and from our politicians – this is a difficult task and one we must take if we are serious about addressing global warming.

We don’t have to be experts to know that our train service is unreliable, infrequent and underdeveloped in all sense. Trams are ok if you live in the city or can afford a 1-hour trip for less than a 20km ride from Box Hill to the city. Buses, well, we can go all the way to the city in a car (20km) and not see one bus on the way. This is certainly not the case in most developed cities. Our transport is a sad joke.

Below are some figures I have collected from various cities, some with comparative populations, some with lower and higher incomes per capita.

Lisbon: pop 2.8 million approx., transport service: buses, trams, metro (efficient), waiting time approx. 5 min.
Stockholm: pop 1.9 million approx., transport service: buses (excellent), trams (some), metro (modern and efficient), waiting time approx. between 2 to 6 min. Fully accessible
Barcelona: pop 5.2 million approx., transport service: buses (excellent), trams (some), metro (modern and efficient), waiting time approx. 2 to 6 min. Mostly accessible
Santiago Chile: pop 4.8 million approx., transport service: buses, metro (excellent, modern and efficient), waiting time approx. between 2 to 6 min. Mostly accessible
Melbourne: pop 3.7 million approx.

The justification - often used by our politicians and bureaucrats - that Melbourne’s population is too small for real forms of public transport is not correct. Neither is the excuse that we cannot afford to spend on major transport infrastructure.
It is true that Melbourne has a low-density population, and this situation adds to our environmental problem. However, as you can find out in the following comparison by the PTUA (http://www.ptua.org.au/melbourne/better-service), Melbourne has a higher population density as compared to Vancouver and similar to that of Toronto - both cities with much better public transport systems and much cheaper than ours. However, density is another issue that we must address and public transport should assist in this regard.

Cities (in that order): Melbourne (Keysborough), Toronto (New York), and Vancouver (Surrey)
Distance from the city: 25k, 25k, 30k
Population density per hectare: 32, 43, 11
Bus service frequency (peak, in minutes): 60 min, 2.5 min, 15 min
Bus service frequency (peak, in minutes): 60 min, 6 min, 15 min
Evening: no service, 7.5 min, 15 min.
Fare (bus+ train): $9.2, $3, $6
Source: Public Transport Users Association, http://www.ptua.org.au/melbourne/better-service

N

I had a look at that Age blog and found it very interesting. I wasn't sure if I liked the tone of the writer because the question shouldn't really be "can we afford to go green?" but rather "how can we not afford to go green" (but with better grammar)

The comments seem to be typical (present company excluded, of course) of the two camps for and against moving towards a greener, sustainable future. Not there really is a watershed to be had because frankly, Global warming affects everybody. Why big business is being placed on a pedestal for advice is beyond me. Last I checked corporations are still being run by humans and not computers (...well...Bill Gates...could be...) and Global warming affects everybody. Including those who have 5 homes across the world and fly in private jets. What's the point in having a private jet if you can't land/take off because we're all knee deep in water.

There was one commentor in there, "Global Warming Scam" who had missed the point completely. Or perhaps he's on the mark and I'm off the mark. But, yes, Global Warming is an issue. It's been an issue for years now. I've not been blessed with many years on this planet but I remember reading about it back when I was in primary school. So that is more than 10 years ago. And I suspect, global warming has been a concern for longer than 15 years. I believe it's a little bit tricky to pin an entire change of lifestyle/economy/culture on a scientific concern. Yes, it should be publicised. Yes it should be taught...I'm not a naysayer, but rather that it's going to be a tough debate to win if everyone is on the defense because most industries/ways of life are unsustainable. People aren't going to pick up these huge changes if they think it jeapoardises their livelihood. I don't care much for this airy fairy term called "way of life" because as Beatriz had pointed out, there are cities across the world with smaller populations who are at least travelling more sustainably. And I don't think people regard Portugal as a crap place to live.

The data on Global warming is somewhat overwhelming and there are conflicting sides to it, but it doesnt change the fact that the global population is growing and we cannot expect the environment to be able to support us. That is the fact. If we remove the global warming talk, and the talk of climate change, the fact that the population is growing will not change. Now, Earth is not going to suddenly pop up an island with bountiful soil and animals which we can plunder over and over to meet our needs.

It's one thing to recycle, use rainwater tanks etc...but it's still not enough. I'm a little bit wide eyed and truly believe that there will be change in my lifetime that will shift the way we live and consume. There is still a little bit of time to change our ways and now is better than ever with the debate in full swing to start getting legislation put through and also setting examples to people that going green is not reducing your house to a grass hut. Material assets seem to be the clincher with people saying that they deserve the right to be materialistic, what, with all the hours that they've worked. But is life really about chasing another 4WD and another flat screen TV?

On a finishing note, this entire debate of going green reminds me of a Family Guy where Peter takes out the local satellite and the TV doesn't work for a week or so and everyone is forced to go outside and hey, they actually enjoy themselves. Although going green isnt switching off the TV I think that alot of it is about just going outside of your own home. Even if campling isn't your schtick people can still appreciate a green outdoor environment to the point where there is a sense of ownership. When people feel a sense of ownership with the environment, naturally you would want to protect what is yours and suddenly the "sacrifice" isnt in the TV/4WD/etc its the environment, something that is completely irreplaceable.

beatriz

N, good point, it makes me think of cities where people have ownership of their public space - I think it works in a similar fashion as to your comment about taking ownership of the natural environment.

In cities with good public spaces, cities that are connected (pedestrian and by public transport) – like Barcelona, Santiago and Stockholm among many others – people tend to make good use of their public spaces, so their private space (mostly apartment living) can be much smaller.

In connected cities, while having excellent public transport options, people also tend to walk more – this is because, as the streets are less car oriented, in cities like these walking can be a pleasure. They value their cities, so to even think of destroying it by placing a surface carpark lot is completely unthinkable. As a result, this life-style contributes to reduce their ecological footprint.

N

I was just reading The Age Online and there is a very interesting article by a columnist named Leon Gettler:

Why should I give up my SUV?

LEON GETTLER If we stopped all our carbon emissions, the Chinese would replace them, and it would take them only six months.

Of course the article isn't as completely ignorant as it sounds in the title, but this would have to be the second article questioning the economic benefits of going "green". Gettler cites the example of a "friend"

"If we stopped all our carbon emissions, the Chinese would replace them and it would take them only six months. So why should I give up driving my SUV?"

This seems to sum up the blame game that is now associated with the debate about going green/living sustainabily/carbon emissions.

I suppose it is an easy path to take because yes, China does use alot of resources but I'm not sure if the Chinese are really to blame? After all, they are striving to be percieved as modernised and an economic powerhouse...and the lifestyles which are being projected are that of the affluent western culture. I don't want to flip the blame back onto the west but I find it a little disingenuous to blame China and then still invest in it...after all, the money that you invest into the country is going to go towards this accelerated development --> consumption. On the bright side, at least if you didn't invest too much in China you wouldn't have been hit by last weeks drop in the stock markets! :roll:

It seems like Australians are at a turning point in our attitude towards the environment, and as change goes, there will be some who resist it. The attitude of "if they can, why can't I?" simply doesn't cut it. If everyone thought that way we can expect 1 billion chinese wanting the 1/4 acre block with two cars and a swimming pool. After all, if that's our "way of life" why should we think others do not deserve it?

Anonymous

The argument that "If we stopped all our carbon emissions, the Chinese would replace them, and it would take them only six months" is based on population comparisons and is as ignorant as it sounds. If we compare emissions on population figures, we should also compare ourselves (for argument sake) to Vanuatu, - well, we would then be environmental terrorists!

Of course China has a larger population therefore their emissions will be greater than ours. What we should be comparing is the emissions per capita, this provides a true picture as to where we stand in terms of environmental abuse - and this is bad news for Australia.

In 1999, only Luxembourg and the United States (emitting 17.2 metric tons and 20.5 metric tons respectively) exceeded Australia's 16.95 metric tons per person. According to the Australian Institute, if statistics included total greenhouse gas emissions, as opposed to only energy-related emissions, then Australia would have the highest per capita carbon emissions in the developed world.
Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/ausenv.html

By the way, currently as a country, China is not the country producing the highest emissions, it is the US. China produces 1446777 and US 1446777, per capita China produces 0.76 ton/cap against 5.37 ton/cap produced by the US citizens (source: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html).

N

Yikes...the two totals of carbon emissions are a little unnerving.

I know that cars and generally wasteful habits are the reason for such high emissions from the USA but I wonder if anyone has any sort of data that shows what it is exactly that Americans are consuming/using.