From here to there

For the record, the following will all become null and void once teleportation is perfected.

Transportation is a topic that piques my interest because every person every morning is faced with the decision of what we will do once we step outside the door. Unless we happen to be bed-ridden or have the luxury of living in a retirement community, this is an unavoidable process that has high costs associated with maintaining the status quo or choosing to use a different system - whether in time, energy, or money. But rather than operating with a system that reduces these costs (isn't this what we're all about in growthland?), we have opted for an automobile dependent society which seems to come with the high costs in all three of those categories. And rather than create a system that is more resilient to changing needs, habits, and desires -a resilient system- we have chosen one that requires massive inputs on (what feels like on commutes up the road through construction sites) a never-ending basis.

Unfortunately the transportation problem does not exist in a vacuum and has ramifications for other areas of our lives: our cities' infrastructures, our health, and our sanity. One obvious consideration few make when discussing transportation are the lives that are lost on a regular basis because this system has too much room for error. In 2005, there were over 43,000 deaths associated with traffic accidents and over 2,700,000 injuries (according to Aaron Golub, the transportation expert at Arizona State University). We have so much to lose from this system but we have invested so much into it already. So how do we move away from personal vehicles?  Given that we probably won't be pulling up this major infrastructure in the next few years (as much as I love getting to use my jackhammer) we must retrofit our systems to reduce automobile use and encourage alternatives.

When attempting to discourage automobile use, road pricing depending on current capacity has been used in Singapore since the 1970's to reduce automobile use as one leg of a comprehensive transportation plan. Roseland mentions a town in Germany that has banned automobiles altogether (and so does the New York Times). -Although this weekend I was told by a relative that he heard they were going to test this idea in a town in the U.S. I tried to contain my excitement as this was not alright by him. "What if I wanted to drive to Kentucky?" Fortunately for us, not many do. har har. Critical Mass is another movement with which I'm sure most are familiar. Bicycles turn out to overpower automobiles on the road.




Unfortunately, this also helps to raise animosity between bicyclists and drivers, and bicyclists and police officers. Residents in Portland are also trying to defeat the automobile by opposing freeway installments.

While all of these measures are helpful in striding toward the reduction of automobile use, it is important that educational measures are provided in tandem with these movements. Change is difficult for people, especially when asked to change something that affects their daily lives. A new lightrail was just installed in Phoenix and it was incredible how many were opposed to it for trivial, short-sighted reasons, yet many of these same people were outwardly excited when discussing their first time taking the rail downtown.

Whether in conversation, marketing, or presentations it is important to stress how much we are at a loss by depending on automobiles and how change needs to be demanded by those living in suburbs and on the outskirts if we want to see the system altered. Those dependent on automobiles aren't the enemy in this situation, but are also the victims and need to be treated as such if we expect them to come on board. They too are getting fat, have relatives who have died in car accidents, have increased rates of asthma, pay too much for insurance, repairs, and their lease, and are slowly going crazy from sitting in traffic all day. We need to direct them toward the realization that this doesn't have to be a necessary evil in their lives, but can be changed by demanding a new system or a series of systems that supports their needs and desires.

Science Friday

Good afternoon everyone,

I recently heard a story on NPR's Talk of the Nation: Science Friday that discussed students on college campuses voluntarily "going green". Given the prolific negative rhetoric of older generations criticizing the values and behaviors of the younger, it was refreshing to hear some praise for those in our peer group that are looking beyond themselves to reduce their footprints. Some of the initiatives mentioned would test my sanity, but they're pushing to do what's best despite their comfort levels. One house opted to keep their heat at 58 deg during the winter!

For those who don't follow the show I highly recommend poking through the archives on a regular basis. They have a lot of interesting topics that are frequently relevant to our work. You can easily download the files and load them onto your mp3 players or listen to them on your computer.

I'm your host, Ira Flato

Waste Not..

The Roseland and Reader pieces on waste reduction and recycling provided, once again, insights and guidance regarding the way we handle our materials as communities. Waste production is a topic that I find particularly interesting and compelling. Given the extent of our “growth mania” it surprises me how quickly this externality of our lifestyles is forgotten. Perhaps this is because we assume that when the garbage truck comes, all of our expendables are no longer our problem. We pay for our responsibility to be absolved when we pay our sewage and waste removal bills. But this concept that we can throw something “away” is one that resounds in this topic, along with our treatment of water that we discussed previously in class. We quickly forget that we are in a closed system, albeit a very large one, and the waste we produced goes somewhere. But what would the implications be if we dealt with our own waste? If our closed system was much closer to home – say our backyards, would we, as a society, be so quick to opt for the garbage can rather than compost bin? Would we alter our purchasing behavior knowing that we would have to live with the build up of non-degradable packaging and products on our property? Perhaps this would increase the practice of the two forgotten R's – reduce and reuse. I know that since I have had to drive to the recycle center, rather than suffer the luxury of curbside pickup, I have been more conscious about reusing items and opting for reduced-packaging items (thank you Amazon).

However, given the realities of our society and the buildup we've created there is a need to address the waste that has already been produced (in tandem with our reduction practices). One way to do this is to convert the waste into energy.... While incineration and methane produced during waste degradation are used to convert garbage into something of use to society, they are not the ideal solution to our trash woes. One company in Japan is venturing toward an interesting technology that converts plastic resin back into oil – one of many initiatives set on solving the problem of plastics.

The catchment and recycling of our sewage can also be used to convert the linear metabolism of the built environment into a closed loop system. Phosphorus stores are being rapidly depleted while we shift nitrogen and phosphorus out of the agricultural systems and into the sewage systems that go on to contaminate water supplies and feed algal blooms that destroy ecosystems and their biota. Treating sewage locally can restore these life-sustaining nutrients to the systems that are desperate for them.

Another topic within this arena that I find disconcerting is the fames Garbage Patch floating in the North Pacific Gyre, plaguing all the ecosystems with which it comes into contact. For further information see

Plague of Plastics Chokes the Seas

and

Stephen Colbert's interview with Captain Charles Moore, who discovered the gyre.