I'm Seeing Green

London Congestion Backlash

One of the reasons that, in spite of having obtained a Master's degree in Planning, I could never be a planner, is that I don't have the patience it seems to take. One works on a project for months, or years, and then it stalls forever in some bureaucratic/political quagmire, or its gets canceled for lack of funds, will or energy. I would be tearing my hair out.

The recent failure of congestion pricing to pass in the NY Assembly, seemingly as a result of Sheldon Silver's lukewarm or non-existent support, is more than a shame. It is an example of upstate legislators, with their narrow view of traffic and congestion, preventing New York City from trying something new and innovate (at least in the USA, congestion pricing is being implemented world-wide.) The current fall back is that maybe it can be renewed later, or in another,more palatable form. That's the way the planning cookie crumbles, to mix a metaphor, you have to pick up the pieces and try again.

And then begins the second-guessing.

Congestion pricing is considered a success in London, whose considerably more autocratic may, Ken Livingstone pushed it though with little opposition and much public support over a year ago...in fact, at the time, the chairman of the London Transport said they need to "tackle the (SUV's) coming into central London. They are damaging and unnecessary vehicles in a densely urbanised, twenty-first century city."Can you imagine that statement in the New York Assembly? Livingstone is also proposing that high-emission vehicles (SUV's, Porsches,) be charged $48 for entry!

There is now a backlash.

A report from King’s College never publicly released by Transport for London and only discovered following a specific request reveals that Mayor Ken Livingstone’s new emissions-related congestion charge is estimated by TfL’s own consultants to increase CO2 in Greater London by 182,000 tonnes.  This not only contradicts the Mayor’s claims that his charge will reduce CO2 but also directly contradicts claims made by Transport for London.

Porsche agrees (natch) and says: "What those facts reveal is that this new tax is predicted to increase the level of CO2 emitted in Greater London and to reduce levels of air quality.  While Porsche continues to provide Londoners with a range of vehicles with reduced CO2 emissions and other pollutants, the Mayor and TfL pursue policies that are not evidence-based."

The increase in emissions is based on the theory that drivers will drive more outside the congestion zone "to avoid the congestion fee," though exactly how this changes things is left unsaid.

To paraphrase a famous statement, don't confuse the issue with facts. Congestion pricing is not solely about reducing emissions, there's also the intangible quality-of-life issues; fewer vehicles mean a better public space, and increased used of public transit will (or should) lead to better transit. And, evidently, the emissions within the congestion zone will have decreased.

I think the jury is definitely  still out on this one.

 

Beyond Plastics

The town of Modbury, Devon, UK will have a permanent place in the pantheon of environmentalism. It was the first to ban the use of plastic bags in retail, a year ago Apr 10, 2007.

The official replacement is a bag made from cornstarch as shown from the supplier's website:

From the Guradian [image by Graham Turner]

...Modbury is an unlikely spot for a revolution. Nestled on the South Hams coast, 17 miles east of Plymouth, it is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it sort of place. With a population of around 1,600, it is the kind of community that considers you a newcomer unless you have several generations of family buried in the grounds of the local church. "It's fiercely rural and fiercely Devon," says Rebecca Hosking, wildlife documentary-maker and arguably Modbury's most - perhaps only - famous resident.

This time last year no one had heard of either Hosking or Modbury, but both have become synonymous worldwide with one thing: plastic bags. On May Day last year, the unassuming town rather grandly announced that it would be the first community in Europe to become "plastic shopping bag-free". Hosking, the leading force behind the ban, was horrified by the marine pollution she had seen while filming in the Pacific ocean. After seeing her film, local traders implemented a self-imposed ban on plastic carriers. Within a fortnight the whole town was behind the project.

Twelve months on, townsfolk are keen to paint the scheme as 100% successful. Request a plastic bag these days in Modbury and you will be asked politely if you really need one, and if you absolutely do, you will be charged 5p for a corn-starch alternative. The Co-op also sells string "turtle" bags and for around £3 you can pick up a specially designed canvas Modbury "bag for life" (ethically produced, of course).

But the good news is that the townspeople have gone far beyond just eschewing plastic bags. They have worked on all plastic packaging as well, replacing it with corn-starch cellophane or biodegradable cartons. And are replacing plastic water bottles with glass.

The comment that stands out is that the "few  (grocery) items that are still wrapped in plastic, such as grapes, salad bags and cucumbers, look out of place and unappetising because of it."

Good Food

Two for the Good Food News

In an historic move this Tuesday, the Maine House of Representatives took the final step on a controversial bill that would provide Maine's farmers with new protections and assurances when they choose to grow crops that have been genetically engineered. This groundbreaking effort on the part of the Maine Legislature comes after nearly a year and a half of dialogue and compromise amongst many of the key players in Maine's agricultural economy.

Originally brought forth by Rep. Jim Schatz of Blue Hill, working closely with the Protect Maine Farmers campaign, a statewide grassroots effort of Food for Maine's Future to defend and promote small diversified family farms, the final version of the bill is being lauded by all players as a significant step forward in genetic engineering policy at the state level. The Senate version of the bill which was accepted by the House of Representatives on Tuesday has three important components, but lacks a fourth that was added as an amendment by the House last week. The final version of the bill prevents lawsuits for patent infringement against farmers who unintentionally end up with genetically engineered material in their crops, ensures lawsuits that do occur will be held in the state of Maine, and directs the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources to develop and implement Best Management Practices for Genetically Engineered Crops.

And another No to the use of genetically engineered rice:

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) welcomes the decision by Cera Products, manufacturer of performance drinks for athletes and oral rehydration solutions, to reject use of Ventria’s rice-derived compounds in Cera’s products.  The Maryland-based company recently declared its position in a letter responding to a 2007 CFS report entitled “A Grain of Caution: A Critical Assessment of Pharmaceutical Rice.”

The CFS report assesses a range of concerns associated with Ventria’s development of rice genetically engineered as a “biofactory” for production of recombinant human proteins with putative pharmaceutical properties.  The report also stated that Cera Products, Inc. had displayed interest in marketing products containing Ventria’s compounds, based on public statements made by Dr. William Greenough, cofounder and scientific advisory board member of Cera Products.

In the letter sent to the Center for Food Safety on February 20, 2008, Cera Products President and CEO Charlene Riikonen affirmed: “Our company is not ‘a likely partner with Ventria,’ (as stated on page 22 of your paper), nor are we including or plan to include any GMO rice in our products.  We do not know enough about it for one thing, and certainly further research is needed to support any claims as well as issues and concerns regarding the GMO rice.”

“We welcome Cera Products’ rejection of Ventria’s genetically engineered pharmaceutical rice compounds,” said Bill Freese, CFS science policy analyst and author of the report.  “Ventria’s products have not been adequately tested, may pose risks to consumers, and have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  What’s more, use of these compounds has not been proven to offer any advantages over existing oral rehydration therapies.”

GM Bans Spreading Worldwide

Greenpeace UK has an excellent introduction to the hazards of genetically modified (GM) foods [image from Greenpeace.org]. 

A small town in Maine has joined the county of Mendocino, California in banning GM crops, making it one of the only two constituencies in the US which do so.

Voters at Montville’s annual town meeting on Saturday passed a binding ordinance banning the cultivation of genetically engineered crops in their community. This makes Montville the first town outside of California to pass a binding measure restricting genetically modified crops. The ordinance was developed after residents directed the town to include such a ban in the town’s comprehensive plan at town meeting in Spring of 2006. The ordinance passed overwhelmingly in a voice vote and requires town residents growing genetically modified crops to phase them out within two years. For the past two years residents have been working with farmers growing genetically engineered crops on phasing in new non genetically modified varieties.

GM foods are already under attack the world over. European rules are a  mixed bag, with the Swiss having banned it for five years in 2005, the French having  a provisional ban while waiting for the EU to make up its mind. Other countries from Rumania to Tasmania, and the  largest  state in Australia, have implemented bans as well.

In India, "Environmentalists and food security activists in India have renewed calls for a moratorium on genetically modified (GM) foods and crops after rats reportedly secretly tested with GM corn diets by the U.S. agribusiness and biotech giant Monsanto developed blood and organ abnormalities." (from Common Dreams). The Indian Supreme Court banned any new field trials of genetically modified crops in the country.

In the US, we not only have no controls on GM food, there are plenty of labeling laws that prevent full disclosure to the consumer. As a result, even organic corn is plentifully contaminated with GM corn, and this situation is unlikely to be reversed.

But Organic Consumers opines that, "With nations across Africa banning GM imports, and with counties and states in the US and Canada now acting to ban GM crops it increasingly looks as if a global ban might now be achievable."

 

All-Purpose Greed?

Sriram Khé will never run for public office, or if he does, it's doubtful that he can win any office above that of dogcatcher...he's too honest. In this excellent article from Planetizen entitled "The United States of Gordon Gekkos?," Dr.Khé ends with this memorable quote:

"Oh well! I suppose that unlike the famous movie line, "love means never having to say you’re sorry", greed, which is a necessary evil in the economic system, means that we often do say sorry—a lot.

Dr  Khé teaches at Western Oregon University, where his rating on RateMyProfessor includes the comment "cool accent," which may or may not be relevant in his capacity as teacher. However, the article speaks for itself, and tells it like it is. It takes its title from Gordon Gekko, the unrestrainedly greedy (but still fictional) character from the 1987 movie Wall Street, and his famous words "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed—for lack of a better word—is good. Greed is right. Greed works." Words that might be uttered by many a real-life banker, CEO or other financial master-of-the-Universe-wannabe. And certainly thought well of by many.

What makes  Khé's words memorable is that he is attributing greed not only to those in charge of the disastrous loans that have caused the mortgage crisis. He implies that greed is pervasive, and, in a parody of the conservative mantra of trickle-down, has done so to the average Joe. This is not a point of view that is widely espoused...not many examine the motivation of people who signed up for a free lunch in the form of too-good-to-be-true mortgages. He says:

It is simply amazing how much of an appetite American consumers have. In an earlier op-ed, I wrote about the paradoxical and simultaneous growth in the size of homes and the public storage industry. I referred to a report from the National Association of Home Builders, which showed that new homes in 1970 had a median finished area of 1,385 square feet. The report shows that by 2005 this had increased to 2,227 square feet. Think about all the additional stuff—from area rugs to sofas to gadgets—that will be needed to fill all this space.

It is not as if Americans are having many more children than before and, therefore, need all that additional space. Au contraire! At the same time, the consumption of extra living space is increasing, the average family size has been decreasing.

The frenzy may, however have ended. From the Atlantic's article that McMansion suburbs may become the "next slums," to the Wall Street Journal's article which notes that "McMansion may be shrinking," downsizing is the new Black. Or maybe it will result in the new Green.

But lost in all this is real tragedy of so many "folks" (to use the charming rubric that Mr. Bush so over-uses,) have really been hurt by this  situation. And, while the folks may have been greedy, they have been taught well by their masters, who are greedier still, and still greedy.

More on Wal-Mart

Wal_Mart has seriously attempted to go green, what with pledging to sell 100 million compact fluorescent bulbs, planning to halve its truck energy usage, using only renewable energy usage and generating net zero waste. Ambitous indeed.

It's beginning to sell organic foods and wild-caught seafood.

While Wal-Mart has hit many of its goals,  signs are not all that promising when it comes to influencing its suppliers, as noted in this article from the Arkansas Morning News:

Wal-Mart has vowed to achieve a 5 percent reduction in packaging by 2013 as it strives to meet its own ambitious goals to become more eco-friendly.

Half of the retailer's suppliers have ignored the Feb. 1 deadline, risking the business equivalent to being shot - having their products eliminated from the shelves of the world's biggest retailer.

"While we're not at 100 percent yet, we feel that we've made great progress," Wal-Mart said in an e-mail statement.An official with MARS Packaging Knowledge Group, a division of Southfield, Mich.-based Mars Advertising, which hosts scorecard training sessions for suppliers, said the retailer is "not even close" to getting products from 60,000 global suppliers entered into the system.

There are other scorecards as well; next year, suppliers must fill out information about the sustainability of electronic products ordered by Wal-Mart, including energy efficiency, durability, recycling at the end of the product's life and size of packaging.

Of course, much of this effort contributes to Wal-Mart's bottom line; the packaging reduction alone is estimated to save it $11 billion, of which Wal_Mart would save $3.4 billion...that's the advantage of being the largest retailer in the world, 5% represents significant amounts of money.

Environmental group have mixed feelings about supporting Wal-Mart in its efforts, but since it cannot be ignored, better to encourage the large corporations in its efforts, which are undeniably changing the ways of thousands of suppliers.

CEO Leo Scott says there's "no conflict" between maintaining a low-cost business model and embracing eco-friendly policies.

However, at least one right-wing think tank, the National Legal and Policy Center, called "Wal-Mart’s Earth Month sustainability campaign, touting its new lines of alleged environmentally-friendly products, a waste of time and resources," leading one to wonder exactly which universe they inhabit. The possibility of Wal-Mart working against its economic interests is so remote as to be laughable. 

Congestion Relief

How do you spell Relief: PRICING, as in Congestion Pricing, which will be the first step towards a more transit-oriented, less trafficky New York City. In case you don't remember, Transportation Alternatives defines it as:

Congestion pricing is the practice of charging motorists more to use a roadway, bridge or tunnel during periods of the heaviest use. Its purpose is to reduce automobile use during periods of peak congestion, thereby easing traffic and encouraging commuters to walk, bike or take mass transit as an alternative.

basically, it proposes a $8 charge for cars ($21 for trucks) which enter the lower half of Manhattan between the hours of 6am and 6pm. The money generated is promised for transit improvements.

The city council passed the measure 3/31, not overwhelmingly; to Brooklyn's shame, council members Diana Reyna, Charles Barron, Bill de Blasio, Erik Martin Dilan, Mathieu Eugene, Lewis A. Fidler, Vincent J. Gentile, Darlene Mealy, and Michael C. Nelson voted against. For a neat map showing who voted how, visit the Daily News site here.

If you are for this much-needed measure, please call in your support THIS WEEK; from Campaign For New York's Future, this message [and image:]

The April 7 deadline to pass congestion pricing and qualify for $350 million in federal funding for mass transit is coming up fast!

But momentum is on our side. Just days ago the New York City Council approved the plan! Now our state legislators in Albany will have the final say.

This is your last chance to be heard!  Call your state assembly member and senator right now:

1. For Assembly member Fred Thiele, call (518) 455-5997. Then, for Senator Kenneth LaValle, call (518) 455-3121.
2. Tell the staffer who answers:
   "As a constituent, I'm calling to ask the assembly member/senator to support congestion pricing and bring better transit and traffic relief to New York."
   Feel free to also talk about why you personally support congestion pricing!
3. Hit reply to this email to let us know how your calls went! Please don’t skip this step – this information is very valuable to us as we talk to your lawmakers in Albany!

Everyone expects this vote to be close. Your calls can help us make better transit and traffic relief a reality for New York before it’s too late!

Locavores Betrayed in Scotland!

The Oxford word of the year 2007 was "Locavore," that dedicated person that eats food as locally as possible, thereby both supporting local farmers as well as reducing their food-mile consumption (another neologism that would not have meant a thing two years ago, it is a measure of how far your food has traveled from farm to plate.)

Where there's a movement, the market follows. Supermarkets have started advertising local products, and some have an entire section devoted to such. Organic food generally falls into this category, though of course you could get organic beef from Australia.

And where there's  a market. scandal, however minimal, must follow [image from Daily Mail]

This story from the Daily Mail shows how difficult it can be to assess the "local-ness" of processed food:

Tesco, the British international grocery store, professes to focus on local goods and has several green initiatives. However,

Tesco came under attack from green campaigners last night after it was revealed that its "local" chicken goes on a 1,000-mile round trip before being put on sale.

Britain's biggest supermarket sends Scottish chickens 499 miles south to Essex to be packaged, then returns them to Scotland.

Environmental groups called the process crazy and said it involved thousands of unnecessary and wasteful "food miles".

Vicki Hird of Friends of the Earth said: "Consumers thinking they are buying greener, local and Scottish are actually buying pretty travel-sick chicken."