23 July 2010

Germans Hold 60 Kilometres Long Party On Motorway



Reposted from Planet Ark's World Environment News, 23 July 2010

'About three million people turned a busy motorway into one of the biggest open-air festivals in Germany's history on Sunday.

A 60 km (36 mile)-long section of the A40 Autobahn between the western German cities of Dortmund and Duisburg was closed to motorists and turned over to pedestrians, cyclists, skaters and picnickers.

The event called "Still Life" was part of celebrations for the Ruhr region Cultural Capital of Europe 2010. The area, once Germany's industrial heartland, is home to 5.3 million people.

Some 20,000 tables were set up on the motorway for what organizers called "the longest banquet in the world." They said three million people had taken part.

Television pictures from the air showed crowds milling around on a road where cars usually race along at speeds of 160 kph (100 mph) or more.

Hannelore Kraft, state premier of North Rhine-Westphalia state, was among the revelers. She rode a bicycle and said the event should be repeated.
"This is fantastic," Kraft said. "I grew up right next to the A40 and still live close to it. It's great to see it now without cars but with so many people and so much cultural variety."'

The Bean Counters Strike Again!

At the core of the sustainability challenge is the dysfunction of a system of economics and how it measures value.

This is **JUST TYPICAL** of the myopic stupidity of bean counters and razor gangs!!

No doubt the SDC is being dismantled - it was too effective!!! It costs 3 million pounds to run, and its work has helped govt save 70 million pounds!! Being more resource efficient with water, energy and materials STOPS WASTE and FREES UP money for important things!!

I wonder if all the efforts to 'internalise externalities' will come to no avail, because even when an initiative is saving their highest priority, their precious dollars, and providing an exceptional ROI, its STILL killed off!!

Let's hope this decision is not carried out.

Reposted in full from The Guardian, 20 July 2010

'The coalition government will on Thursday announce plans to axe its sustainability watchdog in order to meet targets for public sector spending cuts, it emerged today.

Proponents of the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) argue that its remit to advise government on reducing its carbon emissions and other resource use saves far more money that it costs.

The plan to scrap the Sustainable Development Commission is – ironically – scheduled to be unveiled on the same day that the agency will release its annual report into green improvements to the government's operations. This lists tens of millions of pounds worth of savings from fuel costs, water, waste and other things. Many of the changes were prompted by advice from the SDC which has staff of around 60 and a budget of just under £3m, and which was set up by the then deputy prime minister John Prescott in June 2000 after persuasion from Michael Meacher MP.

The move will be seen by many environmentalists as directly counter to David Cameron's pledge to lead the "greenest government ever". When meeting civil servants a week after the election he said, "There is a fourth minister in this department [energy and climate change] who cares passionately about this agenda and that is me, the prime minister, right. I mean that from the bottom of my heart."

Tonight Caroline Lucas MP, the head of the Green party, called the move an "absolute disaster". "The Sustainable Development Commission has been a vital source of well-informed scrutiny of government policy. The commission has come out with very sensible proposals."

"If the current government is to really stand a chance of getting its head round sustainability, the urgency of the threats, and the huge opportunities to benefit this country's economy as well as its people through green policies, we need the Sustainable Development Commission and we need it to have a strong and independent voice." She said she had tabled a parliamentary question asking the government assess the SDC's value to date.

The decision to scrap the commission, which is jointly owned by the UK government and the devolved administrations, is likely to raise tensions between the Welsh assembly and Whitehall after the assembly's business minister Jane Hutt said she was "concerned" about the government's review of arms length bodies and added "we will make representations [to the UK government]". Speaking to the assembly, she praised the SDC for playing "an important part" in the assembly's plans to move Wales to a zero-carbon economy.

Her answer was prompted by a question last week from Plaid Cymru's sustainability spokesperson Leanne Wood AM.

Wood told the Guardian: "The Sustainable Development Commission was set up to advise government how to cut carbon emissions. To scrap this body now would suggest that the Conservatives are lukewarm when it comes to tackle climate change." She added that Plaid Cymru wanted the SDC to be retained in Wales.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs refused to confirm or deny whether the SDC would be cut. But a spokesperson said: "'In line with the coalition government's commitments, Defra is examining its large network of arms-length bodies ... No final decision has been made on other arms-length bodies and we are continuing to talk with them and with unions to ensure that essential policy and delivery areas are managed in the most efficient and cost-effective ways. Announcements on other arms-length bodies will be made in due course once this process has been completed."

On Wednesday, former energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband said: "The coalition has made some terrible decisions on the environment - scrapping the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters, shelving Labour's plan for the Green Investment Bank. They promised to be the greenest government ever but they're completely betraying that promise."

Will Day, the SDC's chairman, said: "Sustainable development is no peripheral, nice-to-have concept for prosperous times. It is the best way of delivering more for less, while ensuring that the drive for efficiencies doesn't cost more in the long run."

The SDC began as a tiny £350,000-a-year operation with a unique license to be a "critical friend" to the government, which could provoke and cajole ministers and civil servants into greener actions. Its first chair was the environmentalist Jonathan Porritt, the former director of Friends of the Earth. Porritt stepped down last year to make way for the current head Will Day. The SDC's current role involves independent advice to the prime minister, as well as the devolved administrations. Its brief is, through advocacy, advice and appraisal, to raise sustainability at the heart of government.'

22 July 2010

The Great Hunger Lottery

Excerpt from The Ecologist, 19 July 2010

''Risky and secretive' gambling on the price of coffee, cocoa and wheat is leading to unstable food prices and exacerbating poverty and malnutrition but creating billions of pounds for the banking sector.

Banks such Goldman Sachs are making huge profits by gambling on the prices of key commodity crops such as coffee, cocoa and wheat, according to the campaign group the World Development Movement (WDM).

By creating funds to allow investors to speculate on the price of food, in the same way they would invest in the shares of a company, banks are able to bet on the price of food.

However this is leading to higher and more volatile prices which make it more difficult for farmers to plan and invest and also lead to damaging price rises - such as those witnessed in 2007/8 - which hit the poorest families in less industrialised countries hardest.

Only last month, says WDM, the price of coffee jumped by 20 per cent in three days, after a trader called the bluff of hedge funds that had made millions by selling coffee contracts and betting on the price to fall. This left hedge funds scrambling to buy actual coffee beans, and the price shot up from the extra demand...

The biggest banks involved in the trading are Bank of America, Citibank, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan. Goldman Sachs alone is estimated to have made more than $1 billion from commodities trading in 2009.

WDM's new report, 'The great hunger lottery', calls for limits to be set on the amount that bankers can bet on food prices and for an end to secretive trading...'

20 July 2010

Eric Sun's Existential Lament

Reposted in full from The Age, 20 July 2010

'Eric Sun is not a happy little mobile phone. In fact, he's up to his aerial in the gloom of an existential crisis. After little more than 12 months, his owner has abandoned him for a sleek, sexy new model.

Perched uneasily on the edge of the couch in his psychologist's office, he pauses, gathers his thoughts, bottom lip quivering. ''I just feel really worthless,'' he stutters eventually. ''My career has only lasted for one year.

''I need a new life, doc, a new direction! There has to be more to life than being stuck in a drawer.''

Eric Sun is the chief protagonist of Life Psycle-ology, a short animated film to be launched on Thursday as part of the State of Design Festival broaching issues surrounding eco-design and the life cycle of consumer products. The difference being that the film, which is the first in the series The Secret Life of Things, does so with a smile.

''Eco-design has a PR problem and it's not being communicated very well,'' says Leyla Acaroglu, who developed and directed the film through her eco-design consultancy Eco Innovators. ''We're trying to use humour to engage people on another level.''

''A lot of the information that is around on sustainability and environmental stuff can be quite depressing and can be quite disempowering,'' continues the 27-year-old. ''Explaining all the facts and presenting all the doom and gloom side of things, on the one hand, is important, because we all need to get to a point of understanding about the issues, but we also wanted to empower people about what they can do.''

Originally conceived as an educational resource for design students, the film traces Eric Sun's emotional journey through past-life regression therapy. He learns of his source materials: gold from South Africa, palladium from Brazil, platinum from Russia, silver from Mexico and nickel from Australia. He recalls the joy of regular use and the dismay of failing memory and shortened battery life, only to learn of the possibilities of disassembly, resource recovery and reuse in other electronic products such as USB flash drives and digital cameras.

The mobile phone - something of a poster child for the new generation of high-turnover, comparatively disposable consumer technology - seemed the perfect hook through which to launch the film series. Indeed, according to a recent global consumer survey by Finnish telecommunications company Nokia, only 3 per cent of mobile users internationally recycle their mobile phones. Other studies have the figure even lower.

''The whole thing is based around the idea of product life cycles and trying to come up with a clever way to sort of portray that,'' says animator Nick Kallincos, who originally came up with the Eric Sun character. ''The mobile phone just felt right.''

''This is a thing that we all use all the time and are largely unaware of all the materials and all the hidden things beneath it.''

Acaroglu agrees. ''Here were all these quite complex issues, but when Nick came back with this idea of this sad little mobile phone going to his doctor's office having this existentialist crisis and past-life regression therapy, you just knew instantly that it was perfect,'' she says.

The Secret Life of Things launches at 6pm on Thursday at the EPA Offices, Carlton. Phone: 8669 2046.

Life Psychle-ology screens at 2pm and 6.30pm daily at the Federation Square Big Screen until July 25.'

19 July 2010

Africa Looks to Vast Forests for Carbon Credit

Reposted in full from Planet Ark, 19 July 2010

'They inhabit a polluted part of Ivory Coast's main city with few jobs and a swelling population, but residents of Abidjan's slums have a rare respite: a stretch of pristine rainforest.

From their wooden shacks and unpainted concrete houses by motorways on the edge of Banco National Park, the millions who live in north Abidjan need no lesson on its worth.

"This forest is a great thing," said textile worker Sebastien Coulibaly, 35, in front of the sky-scraping green mass of vines and broccoli-shaped trees.

"It helps us to breathe better - we live at ease because of it. Sometimes we walk our children there. We must protect it, because our planet will be nothing without forests."

Logging, farming and armed conflict still threaten Africa's jungles, which include the Congo Basin, the world's second largest after the Amazon, but analysts are hopeful.

A new global study on illegal logging by London's Chatham House think-tank on Wednesday found that it had halved in Cameroon, once one of the worst sources of illicit timber, since 2002, a decline of twice the global average.

Earlier this year the European Union signed deals with Ghana, Cameroon and Congo Republic to tighten restrictions on logging, ahead of an EU ban on illegally harvested timber that was passed this month and takes effect in 2012.

"We've dared to sanction firms, from withdrawing permits to big fines," said Cameroon Forest Minister Elvis Ngolle.

Logging bans don't directly address forest loss from other threats such as agriculture, but officials are hoping that a potential money spinner - carbon offsets - will.

A UN scheme to reduce emissions from deforestation or degradation (REDD) has enabled Indonesia, which houses the world's third biggest forest but is being deforested by palm oil and timber firms, to get $1 billion from Norway in May to revoke those firms' forestry licenses.
Deforestation makes up a fifth of world CO2 emissions and the REDD fund is worth a total of $4 billion so far.

Unlike Asia, African states have been slow to capitalize on climate aid - they account for 2 percent of developing nation carbon projects. But many hope to change that.

An African Development Bank fund was established in 2008 for the Congo basin, a forest of half a billion acres (200 million hectares) spanning nine countries and storing, the bank says, 25-30 billion tonnes of carbon, which currently trades at 14 euros per tonne in Europe.

The fund aims to harmonize forest tax, share ecological data, cooperate on policing and sponsor community projects that encourage forest protection, like honey-making.

"Expectations are extremely high that this will allow us to preserve the forest, restore what's been degraded and pay these countries for their ecological services," Patrice Wadja, the fund's operations officer, told Reuters.

Gabon's President Ali Bongo seeks to be first in line. He has banned raw wood exports and in May set up a climate council that must come up with a REDD plan for the 80 percent of its original forest that remains before December's climate talks in Cancun.

Despite the challenges, experts think Africa's forests have at least as good a chance as Brazil or Indonesia.

The rate of forest destruction is generally slower: 0.16 percent a year in the Congo Basin, compared with 11 percent in Indonesia, Wadja said, because Central Africa has been largely spared large-scale clearing for agriculture.

West Africa's deforestation is much higher, driven by logging and clearing to plant cash crops, especially cocoa, a topic so sensitive that Reuters could not get permission to visit some forests in top grower Ivory Coast.

"At independence, we had 16 million hectares of forest. We today have 6 million - the lost area is now all farms," said Ivorian forest and water technician Yamani Soro.

Improving yields with fertilizer and pesticides is key, although reforms have been blocked by Ivory Coast's post-civil war political crisis.

Drier nations in the semi-desert Sahel belt with scant forest are meanwhile planning to plant trees. Presidents from Senegal to Djibouti agreed in Chad last month to build a "green wall" thousands of miles long with IMF funds.

But even as Africa curbs illicit logging and plants trees, another threat looms: Asian palm oil companies are eyeing Africa's forests to feed their growing populations. Liberia has signed deals with two and China on Thursday proposed a vast project in Democratic Republic of Congo.

"The big unknown are the Chinese," said conservationist Terese Hart who has worked in DRC for decades. "They are looking at the interior for exploitation, including palm."'

Transformer Man!



Excerpt from Planet Ark, 19 July 2010

'A boy takes photos in front of a ten-metre-high (32 feet) Transformer-style statue constructed from recycled material, at the Green Dream Park near the Olympic Stadium in Beijing July 16, 2010.

The theme park features exhibits constructed out of recycled materials, and promotes environmental protection through sustainable lifestyles...'

The Food and Climate Connection

Reposted in full from Slow Food USA, 13 July 2010

[click the play button - the clip is there, the preview image is not showing for some reason]



'How we farm and eat is simultaneously one of the greatest contributors to climate change and one of its greatest potential solutions. The same global food system that is making us sick, increasing food insecurity, and polluting the environment is also contributing to climate change. Climate change, in turn, is contributing to rising rates of hunger and food insecurity. As much as 1/3 of greenhouse gas emissions come from the food system.

Want to know more about that?

WHY Hunger has released a brand new online film called “The Food and Climate Connection: From Heating the Planet to Healing It,” that highlights the impact of today’s global food system on the climate and how a community-based food movement around the world is bringing to life a way of farming and eating that’s better for our bodies and the planet. Featuring interviews with farmers, community leaders, and sustainability advocates, the film highlights how the industrial food system is among the greatest contributors to global warming and how sustainable farming practices can pose a powerful solution to the crisis.

The movie was done in collaboration with Anna Lappe, author of the recently released “Diet for a Hot Planet,” which also explores this crucial intersection between how we grow and transport our food and how that affects the planet—not to mention how the changes in our environment willl affect the way we grow and transport our food moving forward.'

Word Spy - apocalypse fatigue

Sourced from The Word Spy, 15 July 2010

'apocalypse fatigue n. Reduced interest in current or potential environmental problems due to frequent dire warnings about those problems.

Example Citations:
Heading into one of the most important climate-change summits ever, global warming has an image problem. For the first time in 25 years, a majority of Americans rank economic concerns above environmental ones, a major poll shows. People also are exhibiting signs of what some environmental experts call "apocalypse fatigue." —Mike Lee, "Climate-change skeptics getting warmed up," The San Diego Union-Tribune, December 6, 2009

The lingering question is whether the collapse of the climate campaign is also a sign of a broader collapse in public enthusiasm for environmentalism in general. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, two of the more thoughtful and independent-minded figures in the environmental movement, have been warning their green friends that the public has reached the point of "apocalypse fatigue." —Steven F. Hayward, "In Denial," The Weekly Standard, March 15, 2010

Earliest Citation:
I think the problem, Larry, is that we keep on seeing this science by press release with these apocalyptic pronouncements. If we were in California, we'd probably say the people are getting apocalypse fatigue and each one of the these things has to be hyped more and more and more, and you know that. —Pat Michaels, "Crossfire," CNN, February 10, 1992

Notes:
Although the phrase apocalypse fatigue as been around for a while, its recent popularity is thanks to a paper by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Schellenberger called Apocalypse Fatigue: Losing the Public on Climate Change (PDF document). Many thanks to Richard Dooling for passing along this phrase.

New UN Body To Put Value On Planet

All well and good, but I do wish we could find some way of making decisions and understanding values without having to reduce everything to dollars...

Reposted in full from Planet Ark, 16 July 2010

'The world relies on a range of services nature provides - water filtration by forests, pollination by bees and a supply of wild plant genes for new food crops or medicines.

If nature charged for these, how much would it cost?

Most such values are excluded from measures of national economies and from prices and markets which would force businesses and governments to recognize them, and the result has been a bias toward development over conservation.

UN states have proposed a new body, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), to advise on valuing nature and conservation targets.

An early priority should be measurement, said Pavan Sukhdev, study leader for The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) UN initiative, which published a business and biodiversity report this week.

"For a country to say 'let's increase biodiversity', it's quite difficult because it's not measuring biodiversity," Sukhdev said.

"That is a big challenge for the IPBES, to create a right set of metrics. The logical sequence is first establish what is biodiversity, what are you measuring, agree on it, so that countries are doing it pretty much the same way."

The UN General Assembly is expected officially to endorse IPBES later this year.

"It's bringing the world's best scientists together under an inter-governmental body, so governments can commission specific questions to that body, to provide them with guidance," said Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Program.

In a further political step, on the agenda at a UN meeting in October in Japan is an "access and benefit-sharing" regime for countries which are home to plants and other species valued by agriculture or the pharmaceutical industry.

The idea is to give such countries a share of profits from product development.

"It has major implications for the economic benefit of conserving biodiversity," said Steiner.

Damage to natural capital including forests, wetlands and grasslands is valued at $2-4.5 trillion annually, UN reports estimate, a figure excluded from measures of the global economy, or GDP.

Of 48,000 species assessed for extinction risk as of 2009, some 2 percent were already extinct or extinct in the wild, says the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

Part of the difficulty in recognizing nature is the problem of assessing its various services using economic markets.

In the fight against climate change, a pure market approach has been devised to put a value on carbon-free air in the European Union's emissions trading scheme, by generating tradable carbon permits.

While some of nature's services could be similarly traded as commodities, such as proposed "rainforest bonds" which would pay for forests' wildlife, fresh water and carbon storage, most biodiversity cannot be valued or traded directly.

"We should probably be thinking about biodiversity less like the carbon market and more like a real estate market, these are very distinctive, unique assets, they can be graded and valued but they're not interchangeable," said Joshua Bishop, chief economist at the IUCN.

"It's not a commodity like carbon dioxide."

Less direct, private sector opportunities indirectly tied to conservation are booming, such as eco-tourism and organic food, UNEP argued this week in its business and biodiversity report.

And forest markets were still on track, said Sukhdev, pointing to a deal to raise about $4 billion to pay tropical forested countries not to chop their trees.

"It is complex but at the same time I think there is a huge willingness," said Sukhdev. "It will take time."

18 July 2010

The Crises of Capitalism

Reposted from My Direct Democracy, 7 July 2010

'David Harvey, the British-born geographer and Professor of Anthropology at CUNY, spoke at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) in London recently on the Crises of Capitalism. The RSA, in turn, produced this short animated feature.

Dr. Harvey, who is perhaps best known for his critique of neo-liberalism, remains one of the leading exponents of Marxist socio-economic thought...

The principal question that he addresses is it time to look beyond capitalism towards a new social order that would allow us to live within a system that could be responsible, just and humane?'

16 July 2010

A Talking Head Dreams of a Perfect City

Talking Heads frontman David Byrne on the ideal city...

Reposted in full from the Wall Street Journal, 11 September 2009

'There’s an old joke that you know you're in heaven if the cooks are Italian and the engineering is German. If it's the other way around you're in hell. In an attempt to conjure up a perfect city, I imagine a place that is a mash-up of the best qualities of a host of cities. The permutations are endless. Maybe I'd take the nightlife of New York in a setting like Sydney's with bars like those in Barcelona and cuisine from Singapore served in outdoor restaurants like those in Mexico City. Or I could layer the sense of humor in Spain over the civic accommodation and elegance of Kyoto. Of course, it's not really possible to cherry pick like this—mainly because a city's qualities cannot thrive out of context. A place's cuisine and architecture and language are all somehow interwoven. But one can dream.

As someone who has used a bicycle to get around New York for about 30 years I've watched the city—mainly Manhattan, where I live—change for better and for worse. During this time I started to take a full-size folding bike with me when I traveled so I got to experience other cities as a cyclist as well. Seeing cities from on top of a bike is both pleasurable and instructive. On a bike one sees a lot more than from a freeway, and often it's just as fast as car traffic in many towns.

A "livable city" means vastly different things for many people. In Hong Kong it might mean that your family is in a comfortable apartment while you play in the exciting mercantile world in a glass tower overlooking the harbor. In Dallas livability might mean that you live near an expressway that isn't jammed up, at least not all the time, and your car runs most days. For some it might mean super fast Wi-Fi, the possibility of lucky and lucrative business opportunities and plenty of strip clubs. If that's what rocks your boat then try Houston, though to me that city, oil money made physically manifest, is my worst nightmare.

Here are some things that make a city livable for me:

Size
A city can't be too small. Size guarantees anonymity—if you make an embarrassing mistake in a large city, and it's not on the cover of the Post, you can probably try again. The generous attitude towards failure that big cities afford is invaluable—it's how things get created. In a small town everyone knows about your failures, so you are more careful about what you might attempt. Every time I visit San Francisco I ask out loud "Why don't I live here? Why do I choose to live in a place that is harder, tougher and, well, not as beautiful?" The locals often reply, "You don't want to live here. It looks like a city, but it's really a small village. Everyone knows what you're doing" Oh, OK. If you say so. It's still beautiful.

Density
If a city doesn't have sufficient density, as in L.A., then strange things happen. It's human nature for us to look at one another— we're social animals after all. But when the urban situation causes the distance between us to increase and our interactions to be less frequent we have to use novel means to attract attention: big hair, skimpy clothes and plastic surgery. We become walking billboards.

Sensibility and attitude
New Yorkers are viewed as being tough as nails, no-nonsense but with hearts of gold—or maybe just gold-plated. This might not be the sensibility I would choose if I had a choice. The people of Glasgow, where most of my relatives live, are working class, blunt and free of pretenses. (They see their sister city Edinburgh as putting on airs). Their sense of humor can be scathing, though I find it hilarious. There's a wicked sense of humor associated with Berlin as well—Ernst Lubitsch, Billy Wilder and Helmut Newton all shared this dark and sometimes transgressive sensibility. New Orleans is a city where people make eye contact. There's a more open sensuality there as well. I'd take that in my perfect city, minus some of the other aspects of that town, such as its tragic poverty, corruption, and crime.

Security
Travelers return from Japan with tales of someone having left their phone or bag on the subway or even on the street and then returning to find the phone or bag exactly where they left it, sometimes the next day. I'd like to live in a city where the citizens trust one another that much- though I suspect that's the result of Japan being a more or less homogenized society, which has its drawbacks as well. But security can exist in the West. For example in parts of New York's West Village, as author Jane Jacobs pointed out, the streets are rarely abandoned and there are almost always some locals hanging out, so everyone sees a little bit of what's going on. The community has eyes and ears, and everyone behaves accordingly. In my perfect city I'd feel that sense of neighborliness—that people weren't in my business, but that I would be a familiar sight, as they would be to me.

Chaos and danger
To some, security means rigid order and strict rules. I do believe we do need some laws and rules to guide and reign us in a bit, and I don't just mean traffic lights and pooper scooper mandates. But there's a certain attractiveness to New Orleans, Mexico City or Naples—where you get the sense that though some order exists, it's an order of a fluid and flexible nature. Sometimes too flexible, but a little bit of that sense of excitement and possibility is something I'd wish for in a city. A little touch of chaos and danger makes a city sexy.

Human scale
Scale is important. In London people hang out in Soho, Covent Garden, Mayfair and other areas of mostly low buildings packed closely together. The City (their financial district), like the downtown in many American cities, is full of tall offices and it empties out at night. It isn't that bustling in the daytime either. Some sort of compromise might be more ideal—the tall towers mixed in with the modest-sized shops and restaurants.

Parking
To be honest, available parking doesn't matter to me. Parking lots and structures are dead real estate—they bring no life into a city and I'd be happy if there were a lot fewer of them in New York. It would be a pain in the neck for a lot of drivers, but unless they can be hidden underground, as they are often in Japan, lots and parking structures are simply dead zones, which hurt the businesses around them. In Japan parking structures are skinny, no wider than a large car, and a robotic system files the cars away. The Italian cities of Florence, Modena, Ferrara, where parking is pretty much relegated to the fringes of the town, are vibrant, though their appeal to pedestrians has turned some of them into tourist hubs.

Boulevards
If boulevards aren't too wide, like 9 de Julio in Buenos Aires, they can serve to break the monotonous pattern of streets and blocks, let sunlight in, and function as a landmark (so you know where you are). And if they are lined with trees and beautiful buildings of different types, they can even be pleasant. Park Avenue, Manhattan's widest boulevard, doesn't cut it. The green in the middle is lovely but inaccessible, and the endless sameness of giant apartment or office buildings with little else to break the rhythm inspires the eye and mind to glaze over. Berlin has some great boulevards. Karl Marx Allee, a massive boulevard in former East Germany, has outdoor cafes, wide sidewalks and weird Soviet era fountains and movie theaters. It threatens to go beyond a comfortable scale, but the business in the little shops along the street helps hold that in check.

Mixed use
This is a Jane Jacobs phrase. A perfect city is where different things are going on, relatively close to each other, at different times of the day. A city isn't a strip of hotels and restaurants on a glorious beach; it's a place where there are restaurants and hotels, but also little stores, fashion boutiques, schools, houses, offices, temples and banks. The healthy neighborhood doesn't empty out at 6 p.m., as most of downtown L.A. does. In my perfect city there would always be something going on nearby.

Public spaces
In my perfect city there are ample public spaces—parks (not just vacant land, but common areas that people pass through and use), plazas (not just slabs in front of corporate towers) and, if possible, public access to the waterfront (if there is one). We don't necessarily need massive acreage in our parks. Bigger is not always better, but we do need periodic breaks from buildings. Industry abandoned the waterfronts over previous decades, and as the docks and the industry that went with them moved elsewhere our cities have begun to reclaim these areas—river walks (look how many people use Manhattan's Hudson River paths!), lakefronts (the beautiful Minneapolis lakefront paths eventually lead all the way to the Mississippi!), beaches and seashores. In some seaside towns there is no public access to the sea, which to me seems a self-injuring situation. In my perfect city there would be public access to all these areas.

The perfect city isn't static. It's evolving and ever changing, and its laws and structure allow that to happen. Neighborhoods change, clubs close and others open, yuppies move in and move out—as long as there is a mix of some sort, then business districts and neighborhoods stay healthy even if they're not what they once were. My perfect city isn't fixed, it doesn't actually exist, and I like it that way.'

We Need A New Science of Physical Economics

Reposted in full from Ecocity Builders newsletter, July 2010

'It's time we put economics into some sort of physical scientific context that makes sense. Economists have drifted off into a disconnected world where, blinded by massive amounts of money and mystery, they see themselves as a kind of high priesthood calling the shots for practically everything, then saying they were blindsided by the debacle in the real estate world and the up-trading in wildly irresponsible and, strictly honest to say, greedy derivatives. And now they are fumbling around trying to decide which theory to apply to address the world deficit situation and spreading underemployment - among a number of other deadly serious things. Meantime they seem to have no idea whatsoever what to actually build physically and thus they are not developing anything like a strategy for a recovery that actually fits the situation on our oh-so physical planet Earth at this time of its Great Recession.

Some of us, if not economists, knew something was profoundly wrong with overvalued real estate sometime around 2005 or 2006; it seemed utterly obvious. Meanwhile the economists kept pumping the bubble for higher returns to those with money to invest and for themselves in the Priesthood. From our supposedly naïve non-economist point of view, myself and my friends, it was simply a little common sense.

It has to be more scientific than that. But common sense is a good start. Get real in regard to physics, geology, chemistry, biology, ecology and psychology: "Hello Science. People calling. Is anyone listening?"

From Ecological Economics to Just Plain Physical Economics

We already have environmental economists, ecological economists, bioecological economists and so on, described in various places as "fields of academic research." Why then have they failed to focus clearly on what we need to build just plain physically and why have they failed to identify the largest thing humans build - cities - as the foundation for solving many of our most intractable environmental and societal problems? Why has concern for "sustainable development" barely scratched the surface of ecocity design, planning and development, much less identified urban layout and design as the key factors in facilitating or working against a wide range of technologies and lifestyles?

Perhaps the entire enterprise to date has been a little too academic and separate from the world of real steel, stone and mortar, energy, food and transport. Perhaps even ecologically conscientious economics needs a good dose not just of math, physics and ecology but also engineering, architecture, industrial design, technological development and business administration and, not to leave out, the development incentives and disincentives of zoning and codes, taxes and politics. Physicists and students of aerodynamics are not enough to build airplanes - you need those other guys too.

Where it starts in terms of the conditions we find ourselves in, on this planet at least, is with the massive flow of solar energy into our physical economy, mainly through plants, chlorophyll and soil at about 2.5% energy conversion efficiency, through 80% efficient passive heating and about 20% efficient solar electricity, all available with some serious investment. The sun's been with us a long time so we have two basic energy resources of enormous scale, one is the energy flow of solar income and the other is solar energy savings in the form of the fossil fuels. Solar income energy is a pretty benign source and fossil fuels are tricky as we are beginning to see with the Gulf Oil Spill, climate change and other disasters that range from the catastrophic to apocalyptic. There's a big hint here for a transition in thinking starting with physical economics: invest in solar and its derivative: wind; begin disinvesting in fossil fuels at the same time.

Another very large consideration is the mineral and metals savings account of the planet. If we don't recycle these they will become ever more scarce through rusting and frittering away in small item dispersion lost to any economically viable recovery in the longer range future. In practical terms that means we need to build a physical environment, mainly our cities, to run on about 1/10th the energy and 1/5th the land, which is proposed by a discipline closer to science than today's economics, that of ecological city and town design and planning. A super efficient built environment, the collective home the vast majority of us live in, also makes assiduous recycling possible.

The largest physical thing to consider is the built environment. What is it we actually build and what does that determine in terms of technologies and lifestyles? We should know we are in trouble when Brazil plows under virgin forests for ethanol road fuel, when India manufactures and promotes the cheap car called the Nano for its 1.2 billion people hurtling about enclosed in false security while 100,000 are killed in car accidents every year there as the Nano leaves the starting gate, when the Russian Government announces it has purchased 2.5 million acres of land to turn into car-dependent scattered development and when a Chinese gentleman sharing a cab with me in Beijing in his country of almost 1.4 billion people said, "Well if I can't have a car how can I get a wife?" Those four countries together represent 2.7 billion people hankering to live the car-city lifestyle of Americans when there are 9 times as many of them on the Earth as Americans. And Americans are trying to figure out how to have better cars rather than figure out that the car is part of a whole system like any other living complex organism and better cars promote more sprawl and dependence on cheap energy - which is going away as we begin pursuing this new idea of an economics rooted in physical realities.

Another very large factor passed over by the nervous is graduated income and property taxes. It is scientifically obvious that you have to go where the ore is to get copper, where the sun, wind or fossil fuels are to get energy in serious quantity. Similarly, following recent courageous suggestions by Jeffrey Sachs in the July 2010 Scientific American and recent comments by Hillary Clinton of all people, not known as a major economics theorist, you have to turn to taxing the rich - seriously. Not the middle class and the poor but the rich. The rich have convinced the poor and middle class to think "more taxes" means them. Smart trick, but that's not the idea here: graduated income tax with the rich paying their share of what society and environment helped them make. That's where the stored wealth to build a better world is and physical economics, if not today's mainstream economists, would identify and prioritize that very genuine resource instantly.

What would the tax money be invested in? As placed in high priority above, befitting the enormous scale of the enterprise, reshaping cities as ecocities, cities for people not cars, and getting on with renewable energy development along with the radical energy conservation of ecocities.

Limits and Hard Work

Let's not forget the two big ones this articles' physical economics* zeros in on as highest priorities of all: the reality of limits and the value of hard work. In the face of all the other supposedly "hard science," a grand compliment macroeconomists quest most passionately since they are true believers seeking their own version of Einstein's elusive General Field Theory, and with it, should they attain it, thinking themselves absolutely certain, economics promotes the wildly off base and destructive notion that constant growth is the only healthy state of the economy. It is finally time for economists to join the crowd in the real "hard sciences" that recognize the infinite growth in a limited environment is as dreamy as lead to gold and the perpetual motion machine. I won't even try to defend that statement.

And finally how do you think it is the Chinese went from famine and poverty in one generation to a stunningly productive, gigantic economy passing the United States in a number of ways? They work like demons, typically two to four hours more a day than Americans, they earn less money per hour outcompeting their competition, there are many more of them and they work on savings and investments instead of borrowing and betting on infinite growth like the real estate derivatives gamblers. Some might say its because they have a centrally planned economy but they also have some of the wildest of capitalism's enclaves as big as whole countries. All those things are not rocket science or the latest fad in macro economic's byzantine and ever changing formulas. They are pretty simple, standard old school, straight forward economics and represent very physical work. They also represent an excellent example of limits as the country is drawing down its soils, water and minerals and wiping out its biodiversity at a withering rate, transforming all that into pollution generated where the products are made and launched toward the United States and other debtor, high consumption nations.

I recently attended the Second International Degrowth Conference in Barcelona, Spain. I agreed completely with their consensus belief that constant growth is doomed or we are. I agreed that GDP, with it's destructive activities recorded on the positive side of the economic ledger - neglecting damage to the Earth, people and biosphere, even climate system of the planet - is a truly dumb, dated and destructive measure. And it is even intriguing that, as a number of their speakers advocated, if we worked four days a week instead of five or more, we would have far less unemployment and we'd be consuming less, giving the earth just a small amount more breathing room. But listening to the "relax our way into the future growing our own vegetables, renouncing specialization, and having much more time just to enjoy life" I just had to say, "Is this the way to save a planet in real distress?" Who ever faced a crisis, from escaping a sinking ship or burning house, fighting a war or struggling for survival in an environment of real poverty...by taking it easy?

Are climate change, species extinctions and eroding energy and mineral resource a real condition loose in the world today or not? So I think it is time to gird our loins for a real race to the finish and take hard work serious for survival reasons as well as in recognition of some sort of economics that makes sense. I believe that the threats confirmed by practically all legitimate scientists these days is a physical reality and I believe we need an economics based firmly in that ever-so physical conviction.

Put all the above together with reasonably prudent money management in basically traditional ways and you have the outlines of a new science we might call physical economics.

*We are aware Lyndon LaRouche and others use the term "physical economics" in similar critiques of economic policies but note many differences as well including the typical economists' omission of city design and layout and relevant policy.'

Richard Register is Founder and President of Ecocity Builders and author of Ecocities, Rebuilding Cities in Balance With Nature.

14 July 2010

Australia's National Waste Policy Implementation Plan Adopted

Excerpt from Warmer Bulletin e-news, 9 July 2010

'On July 5, 2010 the National Waste Policy Implementation Plan was endorsed by the Environment Protection and Heritage Council (EPHC)...

On 5 November 2009 Australia's environment ministers through the Environment Protection and Heritage Council endorsed the National Waste Policy: Less Waste, More Resources (the National Waste Policy).

The National Waste Policy aims to avoid the generation of waste; reduce the amount of waste (including hazardous waste) for disposal, manage waste as a resource and ensure that waste treatment, disposal, recovery and re-use is undertaken in a safe, scientific and environmentally-sound manner.

In acknowledgement of the potential to achieve wider community objectives, the National Waste Policy also aims to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy conservation, raise water efficiency and enhance productivity of the land.

The National Waste Policy establishes Australia's waste management and resource recovery agenda across six key directions for the period to 2020:

Taking responsibility - shared responsibility for reducing the environmental, health and safety footprint of products and materials across the manufacture-supply-consumption chain and at end-of-life.

Improving the market - efficient and effective Australian markets operate for waste and recovered resources, with local technology and innovation being sought after internationally.

Pursuing sustainability - less waste and improved use of waste to achieve broader environmental, social and economic benefits.

Reducing hazard and risk - reduction of potentially hazardous content of wastes with consistent, safe and accountable waste recovery, handling and disposal.

Tailoring solutions - increased capacity in regional, remote and Indigenous communities to manage waste and recover and re-use resources.

Providing the evidence - access by decision makers to meaningful, accurate and current national waste and resource recovery data and information to measure progress, educate and inform the behaviour and the choices of the community.

The 16 National Waste Policy strategies have been clustered into seven EPHC working groups...

Proposed National Waste Policy EPHC Working Groups
Product stewardship - Australian Government (Chair) - strategies 1 & 3
Markets and standards - NSW/Victoria (Co-chairs) -strategies 2,4,5 & 6
Landfill management - Victoria (Chair) - strategies 7,8 & 9
Commercial & industrial, construction & demolition and governments - Qld (Chair) - strategies 10 & 11
Reducing hazard - Australian Government (Chair) - strategies 12 & 13
Rural and regional Australia - WA (Chair) - strategies 14 & 15
Data - Australian Government/NSW (Co-chairs) - strategy 16
Implementation - Australian Government (Chair)'

UNEP Green Passport

Reposted from Warmer Bulletin e-news, 9 July 2010

'The Green Passport is an initiative of the International Task Force on Sustainable Tourism Development coordinated by UNEP.

It aims to raise tourists' awareness of their potential to contribute towards sustainable development by making responsible holiday choices. The Green Passport introduces simple ways for travellers to make tourism a sustainable activity. It promotes tourism that respects the environment and cultures while triggering economic benefits and social development for the host communities.

We go on holidays for pleasure, to discover new horizons, to relax, to meet people and to learn about different cultures. Most of the time, we are not aware that the choices we make for our holiday can have an impact on our destination and on the people that live there. We are often equally unaware of the implications of our travel for global environmental issues, especially climate change.

The aim of the Green Passport website is to introduce potential travelers to some of the things they can do to help make tourism a sustainable activity, by which we mean an activity that is not only respectful of the environment but that is also good for the economic and social development of the host communities.'

Working to Bring 'Hippos' to Haiti



Reposted in full from CNN, 12 July 2010

'Like so many people, Grant Gibbs watched the news unfolding in Haiti and thought to himself that he wanted to help the people of the earthquake-ravaged nation.

Unlike many, Gibbs is in a unique position to aid the Haitians in a big way.

Gibbs, a South African, is the man behind the Hippo Water Roller, a 90-liter plastic barrel with a sturdy handle that can be rolled on its side from a river or lake back to a home desperately in need of water.Gibbs' Hippo Water Roller Project has been selling the innovative devices in southern Africa for nearly 20 years.

But trying to send hundreds of barrels from South Africa to Haiti would be very expensive.

"Getting Hippo Rollers into Haiti would buy government a lot more time in terms of rebuilding proper infrastructure," Gibbs said by mobile phone from South Africa on Monday. "But paying shipping costs from South Africa would be prohibitive."

For that reason, Haiti may be a good place to try out Gibbs' new invention, a mobile Hippo Roller production plant set inside a used shipping container. The mobile plant costs $150,000 - mostly for the tool that makes the plastic molds - and can make 650 rollers a month, he said.

Two or three people could work the plant, he said.

Gibbs hopes to send mobile plants to Haiti and Uganda later this year, he said.

Hippo rollers have proved to be life-changing in Africa. By using them, poor villagers cut down on the number of trips to their water sources. Going for water is women's work, most African men think, so many young girls miss school to help their mothers make multiple trips to rivers or lakes, Gibbs said.

"We have enough money to buy them for about 100 households, but we could do with thousands," said Felicity Gibbs, national manager of Operation Hunger in South Africa. "I was in a village with a thousand households just last week, and though the government is planning to give them [a water pipeline], it won't be until 2014. So until then they will have to collect the water from the rivers [which are 3 miles away]."

The problem is financial. A Hippo Water Roller costs $100 plus shipping costs. That's a pretty steep price for a South African or for a charity that wants to buy a large amount. Most use donated money to buy them. In other cases, corporations will buy some and donate them to a nongovernmental organization or a village.

More than 31,000 Hippo Water Rollers have been distributed in Burkina Faso, Mozambique, Namibia, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan and Zimbabwe.

"We think nothing of turning on the tap and pouring a glass of water," Felicity Gibbs said. "These people don't have any of those kind of luxuries. Even with a Hippo Roller, a majority of the people still have to fetch water twice a day."

Grant Gibbs said shipping costs are high because his group is charged for the volume of air inside the barrels and not by the weight.

Gibbs and his organization have worked with Engineers Without Borders and Project H, a nonprofit design group, on a two-piece design that would allow for easier shipping. The design would increase by five-fold the number of products that could be put in one shipping van.
But Gibbs said real-world use showed that single-piece construction was crucial to withstanding the stresses placed on the drums while rolling heavy loads of water (a full Hippo carries about 200 pounds) on uneven surfaces.

Anne Torres, co-leader of the Engineers Without Borders team, said her team also brainstormed with Project H a way to use the cap of the Hippo to include a water filter.

Felicity Gibbs said that now, villagers pour a capful of household bleach into the water and the rolling action mixes the cleaner in the water, killing much of the bacteria.

Grant Gibbs laments the fact that he's never had the budget to market the Hippo Water Roller. But he's excited about some new projects, including the help of Global Change, a U.S.-based charity that tries to bring drinkable water to impoverished people by funding different projects.
One of those projects would be getting a mobile plant to Haiti.

Gibbs said he stays busy trying to design improvements to the Hippo Roller. That includes the Hippo Hawker, a rack system that sets up as shelves for villagers to market their goods.
"They use it almost like a wheelbarrow," Felicity Gibbs said. "They put their fruits and vegetables [on the rack] and go into town where they set up a little stand."

Grant Gibbs said he also designed the rack to be able to carry a person to the doctor or infirmary.

But his immediate concern, he said, is getting the mobile labs out to nations that can really use the help.'

06 July 2010

40 Years of Earth Day: The Planet Then and Now

...due to my absence, posting a bit late for the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, but better late than never!

Reposted in full from the Global Footprint Network newsletter, April 2010

'On April 22, 1970, the first observation of Earth Day took place, a massive series of gatherings, demonstrations and discussions across the U.S. that many credit as the birth of the modern environmental movement. An oil spill off the California coast was the event that triggered U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson to launch Earth Day – but concerns about environmental health and the detrimental effects of industrialization were growing, over issues such as pesticide use, oil spills, poor air quality, pollution, loss of wilderness to development and declining biodiversity.

Heralded as a resounding success, the first Earth Day resulted in the implementation of a number of U.S. environmental policies, and the movement quickly went global.

Yet today, the environmental challenges we face dwarf those that touched off that first celebration. And the planet we honor on Earth Day is a far different place from that of just four decades ago.

World population has almost doubled, from 3.7 billion to 6.9 billion. The amount of land paved over to build houses, cities and roads has increased 75 percent, from 228 million global hectares to 400 million global hectares, according to Global Footprint Network’s 2009 National Footprint Accounts. The amount of productive forest land required for fuelwood, paper and timber products, has gone up 53 percent to close to 2 billion global hectares. The productive land and sea area we need for food – for fishing, crops and grazing our livestock – has increased 69 percent, to 5.6 billion global hectares.

But the most staggering increase is reflected in our carbon Footprint: the amount of productive land area that would be needed to absorb our carbon emissions. Since 1970, our total carbon Footprint has more than tripled, from 2.9 to 9 billion global hectares. Carbon has also gone from being a smaller part of humanity’s total Footprint than cropland, to outstripping every other area of demand by a significant margin.

The result of this ecological overspending is clear from the crises we are confronting now – most prominently climate change, but also biodiversity loss, deforestation, fisheries collapse, soil erosion and other problems. Earth has changed from a place where we could operate as if resources were limitless, to one in which resource constraints are becoming a pressing and increasingly decisive concern.

Growing Footprints on a Small Planet

In 1970, the world still had significant ecological reserves. Humanity used resources and produced carbon emissions at a rate that the planet’s ecosystems could keep up with. By the time Earth Day was 15 years old, however, humanity was in ecological overshoot: using resources and producing CO2 at a rate that exceeded what the Earth could regenerate and reabsorb.

Today, it would take the resources of 1.4 Earths to renewably produce all the resources we consume and absorb the carbon dioxide emissions we create. Global Footprint Network research shows that if we continue at the current rate, by the time we celebrate Earth Day’s 60th anniversary, we will require the resources of two Earths to sustainably meet human demands. Reaching this level of demand may well be impossible.

(Use our newly expanded personal calculator and determine your own Ecological Footprint.)

The good news is, we can change our trajectory.

Infrastructure, because of its long life, will play an especially important role in determining whether the sustainability challenge will be successfully met.

Just as the choices we made in 1970 still shape the way we live today, the energy, transportation, housing and manufacturing systems we build today will chart the course for our future.

If we invest in systems that can operate on a small Footprint, that do not have negative impacts on biocapacity, and that are flexible and resilient in the face of changing resource constraints, they will provide lasting benefits. If, on the other hand, we design infrastructure that is dependent on a high level of resource throughput, or that damages or depletes the ecological services that make its operation possible, any benefits gained will be at best short-lived.

Similarly, the way we manage agricultural, water and forestry systems will determine whether they will be able to provide an ongoing stream of renewable resources and carbon sequestration services.

In countries with rapidly expanding populations, education—especially of women— along with improved health care and access to family planning options, can help mitigate the contribution of population growth to local and global overshoot.

(Download our recent report: The Ecological Wealth of Nations: The Earth’s biocapacity as a new framework for international cooperation.)

Confronting the FutureThe first Earth Day showed that major public movements can have significant effects in shifting policies and values.

As we note its 40th anniversary, we have a choice. Do we continue with business as usual, careening toward critical limits not just in atmospheric carbon build-up, but in biodiversity, freshwater, fisheries, soil quality and other systems? Or do we begin the rethinking and retooling we need to change the arc of human demand, and bend it toward living within nature’s means?'

From Greenwash to Whitewash



...more from 'the world's gone mad' files...

Reposted in full from The Age, 30 June 2010

'In a remote corner of the Peruvian Andes, men in paint-daubed overalls diligently coat a mountain summit with whitewash in an experimental bid to recuperate the country's melting glaciers.

It's a rather bizarre sight at 4756 metres above sea level.

The man behind the idea is not a glaciologist but an inventor, Eduardo Gold, who hopes to regrow a glacier with the right climatic conditions.

His non-governmental organisation, Glaciares de Peru, was one of 26 winners of the World Bank's ''100 Ideas to Save the Planet'' competition in November last year.

His plan is to paint a total of 70 hectares on three peaks in the Andean region of Ayacucho, in southern Peru.

The workers use jugs - rather than paintbrushes - to splash the whitewash onto loose rocks around the summit.

''A white surface reflects the sun's rays back through the atmosphere and into space. In doing so, it cools the area around it too,'' explains Mr Gold.

''In effect, it creates a micro-climate. So we can say that the cold generates more cold, just as heat generates more heat.''

The idea is based on the simple scientific principle that changing the albedo (a measure of how strongly an object reflects light) of a surface by whitening it means that it does not absorb so much heat and emit infra-red radiation which takes time to leave the earth's atmosphere and warms trapped greenhouse gases.'

05 July 2010

Imagining Ecocities

Reposted in full from Ecocity Builders newsletter, June 2010

'In many ways, cities are the main things we human beings build: the homes, offices, factories, schools, streets and parks gather there, as do the vast supply lines pumping in water, food, lumber, gasoline - and pumping out waste. And yet, the way cities are built, the logic of their internal functions and their connections with resources and natural environment are virtually ignored - they are not seen as potentially whole, living organisms. We can see houses as homes, and so it should be with cities, but even more so.

Yet even many conscientious environmentalists, reacting to the negative impacts of our present cities, fail to see the great creative, social, cultural, even spiritual good that cities can facilitate.

Perhaps most people give up on building the good city before they even consider it seriously because of the sheer scale of the task, perhaps because technology and "Progress" have failed to give us a secure, humane world and we have lost confidence in the idea that we can shape our own destiny. In any case, with the exception of war, there is no issue more important for the future of our species than making cities ecologically healthy.

The City Past And Present

Imagine yourself five hundred years ago standing on a hill overlooking town - almost any town, anywhere. In Europe you see a cluster of buildings two to five stories high: houses, apartments over stores, small handicrafts shops. There's a walled section in the middle of town and surmounting it all is the church or cathedral spire, a symbol of the community's heaven-oriented religious cosmology. Overlooking the Indian pueblo in the American Southwest there is again the clustered pattern of mixed living and working habitats - this time revealing an earth-focused and seasons-conscious religious bent: kivas spotted around the communal dance floor, openings in the architecture facing south to receive - even celebrate - the warmth of the winter sun.

Now imagine looking over a good-sized present-day city or large town. There's almost no comprehensible form at all, save the tangle of streets and freeways we all know go somewhere and link some things (while also separating and dividing). The whole scattered amalgam is probably cast in a yellow-brown haze of auto emissions over which rise a few scattered, sometimes clustered tall buildings, most of them banks and insurance companies.

Towering above even the symbols of money and security, transmission antennas flash sci-fi red lights to ward off giant buzzing aluminum gnats full of jet powered people. The antennas, we all know, are beaming images directly into the houses sprinkled widely in almost random patches about the landscape. Therein people worship at the altar of diversion from nature and diversion from deeper confrontation with themselves. The altar, of course, is television, which constantly implores them in their isolation to make offerings to the giant companies, financed through the tall buildings (nobody else can afford television time). Looking over this town we again see the values and cosmology revealed in the city structure, or lack thereof, in this case.

For those few that are students of both ecology and city planning and design, standing on these fictitious hills viewing these cities reveals something way beyond, say, the benefits of solar energy, or the value of scrupulous recycling. The lessons run deeper than the significance of life- styles based on minimizing consumption and maximizing conservation. What comes to the mind of the urban ecologist looks more like this:

Lesson #1. The city must gather people for some worthwhile reasons or it would not persevere these hundreds, even thousands, of years.

Lesson #2. But the shape of the city looks connected in some way to the disastrous condition of the air, farm lands, nature in the modern city; that is, flat and sprawled seems to be a problem.

Lesson #3. If we can build cities with millions of acres of concrete and asphalt, 100 story buildings, giant metallic insects and mysterious remote control communications, then we can build anything - even a healthy, exciting, vital future replete with cities that serve both people and nature.

The City Future

Walk back up that imaginary hill again and try to picture a city that selects the best of what we have learned from science and art, a city that regains consciousness of place and conscience toward nature.

Each city according to its location and climate is unique, but many patterns are similar to each other and similar to the older towns we looked down upon earlier in this article. In radically de-emphasizing the automobile and bringing together again a cluster of many different functions - urban planners call it "mixed uses" - the city begins again to take on a more comprehensible form, more three-dimensional than the sprawled flat city. The gigantic megalopolises have broken up into smaller cities linked by speedy public transit, though far more people work and live in the same town rather than commute from one to another. Where the giant city used to cover the countryside like a one- story thick carpet with a few areas of tall buildings, now nature and agriculture has crept back in and pushed the city into a spot pattern of development, rather than a sprawled two-dimensional or strip one-dimensional pattern.

Ernest Callenbach in ECOTOPIA portrays the San Francisco Bay Area megalopolis (which includes Oakland, San Jose, Berkeley, Palo Alto, Richmond and dozens of smaller, physically contiguous towns) as breaking up into a necklace of separate towns linked by very high speed public transportation, each town with its own particular economy, products and character.

Something like our view from the hill top. If we zero in with binoculars we begin to see the details. We notice creeks and small rivers removed from their underground culverts, restored to their earlier state between the inhabited "spots" and running open through cities, their courses bounded by parks and orchards, gardens and playgrounds, foot and bicycle paths. The intimate human scale is everywhere in evidence with great diversity of detail, but the human scale also includes tall buildings. But these buildings are radically different in form and environmental and social effect. The severe simple boxes of an earlier era are broken up with terraces and design features that permit the sun to warm in winter and prevent winds from becoming excessively difficult.

Most large buildings are mixed use, many apartments and condos, many work places. People live here. The kinds of places that need little natural light: theaters, photo labs, warehouses, etc., are located in the lower stories, lifting the downtown activities higher into the sun. The views are breathtaking. Occasional covered streets have the grandeur of cathedrals. Unlike their predecessors, the larger buildings of the ecocity's downtown, provide workplaces for non-commuters mainly. The hundreds of thousands who once poured into downtowns over billions of dollars of freeway in hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cars, now quietly zip in and out by foot or bicycle from nearby, with a minority coming in by bus and rail. No car parking downtown except for emergency delivery and construction/maintenance vehicles.

The larger buildings sport multi-story solar greenhouses and rooftop gardens that compete with local private and communal gardens for food production and horticulture. Solar collectors and windmills glint and twinkle in the sun. The streets hum with human activity - rather than rumble and scream with mechanical noise. No air pollution or soot, and no deaths under rubber tires. Bridges link many buildings and make the rooftop cafes as lively as those below on the streets and along the water courses. Arcades, awnings and covered walkways make downtown streets negotiable in all kinds of weather. Transit shelters and posted schedules make easy work of bus, trolley and street car travel.

Night time is a great time to be outside moving about and socializing in the many lively spots - TV looks too passive and dull to these people who can barely believe that in 1983 the average American family watched more than seven hours a day. At night the sky is absent of pollution and almost all glare - stars are everywhere, astronomical observatories have begun to function properly again. In the day, song birds and hummingbirds fill the fragrant air of the "carfree zones" and neighborhoods.

In the lower-density areas that remain, streets are made narrower - almost no parking is needed since these neighborhoods are within bicycling distance of employment and walking distances from transit. The streets are generally narrowed from the north side so that gardens can be planted with minimal shading from the buildings on the south side of the street. South-facing houses frequently have retro-fitted greenhouses, north-facing ones are often peeking out from fruit trees - many of these homes have backyard greenhouses and vegetable gardens. Some streets in low density areas are removed entirely, replaced by foot paths and bicycle routes. The local "fruit and nut brigade" cares for, plants and harvests many of the street trees, making the city almost as productive as straight-forward conventional orchards, but here the distribution costs are exceptionally low.

Some lower density areas have also been transformed by the integral neighborhood idea, in which village scale arrangements function for most practical matters: workspaces approximately balance adult residential space, considerable food is produced, recycling approaches 100%, stores for everyday merchandise and handicrafts are on hand - and the rest of the city, its colleges, hospitals, movie houses, street theater, art galleries, larger employers and specialized markets are a short bicycle or transit ride away.

From the top of the hill, television and radio towers are less conspicuous. But knowing something of what goes on in town, we also know more about the quality and style of communication. Information storage and retrieval technology, once worshipped in the declining years of the industrial age, is now seen as a useful filing system in certain circumstances, but information per se isgiven no particular status. People have learned to select far more carefully the information that helps preserve and explore life. There is more discretion, less tolerance for irrelevant and degrading information and images. The whole society in deciding to build ecocities, made a commitment to bringing lifestyle into harmony with the biosphere - the process of making meaningful choices has rubbed off on everyone.

Ecocity Principles

The ecocity functions according to certain principles, which, if understood by many people, could begin influencing cities in positive directions immediately.

Small Scale - Highly Qualified

Equal population areas of Los Angeles and New York are radically different in physical size. Despite its large buildings, New York covers a much smaller amount of land, uses about 1/3 the energy per capita (despite its far more extreme weather), and has very few cars and much smaller square footage per person in asphalt and concrete streets, freeways, interchanges, parking structures, vehicles. The issue of optimum or maximum size of an ecocity has hardly been broached because most thinking on ecologically healthy alternative communities has focused on villages and small towns, while people contemplating future cities have generally not dared to believe they could be radically reformed.

The key question in issues of scale: what is the final cultural and ecological impact? If it is possible to have a high population, say one million people in a city or cluster of cities, and use considerably less resources than conventional small towns of the same population total, then that's not such a bad arrangement. But at whatever population, the scale of material consumption and waste should be much smaller than in today's cities and villages.

Paolo Soleri takes the idea of the small city to its paradoxical conclusion. This architect who is building Arcosanti in Arizona, is promoting the building of whole towns in a single structure or a tightly interlinked cluster of stylistically consistent tall buildings. In these structures, land area for human society would reach its absolute smallest with cities of 100,000 or 1,000,000 covering only tens or hundreds of acres, using almost no energy at all once built (save solar energy and human waste heat energy) and producing virtually no pollution - almost all wastes would be recycled as new resources. It would be very informative to learn how such a city would work - or why it would not, and in which ways. Unfortunately this smallest of all cities (and potentially largest of all buildings) is so enveloped in narrow criticism and so plagued with operational problems and lack of money at the one location it is being attempted, it's unlikely to be actually built within the decade or so. The price for a town-sized "arcology" as Paolo calls his ultra- compact cities, would be less than an aircraft carrier.

Access by Proximity

[This] is an important principle of ecological city building. If enough diversity is close enough, you don't need to travel a lot for life's basics: residence, job, school... The idea is to design maximum access right into the city structure. Mixed use zoning again, but the principle goes further than this. Proximity access policies could also include local hiring practices, renting apartments to people who don't own cars and who work nearby, making bank loans available in the neighborhoods from which the savings come (very often low income urban areas have accumulated savings in great excess of the loans made in those same areas, while suburban developers use those funds for anti- ecological construction). Another proximity policy: ordinances permitting increased residential construction in activity centers and prohibiting it in farther-out areas. Land trusts and public bond issues, as in Stockholm, could purchase structures in car-dependent areas and convert suburbia back to nature, agriculture, or ecologically stable villages.

Small Scale Recentralization

We hear a great deal about decentralization - but it has to be thought out well or it quickly falls into serious contradictions. Suburbia is perhaps the most decentralized form of human development behind scattered farms and ranches. But suburbia supports the most centralized establishments conceivable: giant automobile manufacturers and oil companies. The suburbanite sits decentralized in his or her little home watching a communications medium so big and centralized only a handful of companies in the whole country can afford to advertise (and decide what goes) on it. From the ecocity point of view, cities, towns and even villages should be recentralized physically and decentralized in terms of participation in community life and politics.

Diversity is Healthy

This is perhaps the largest, broadest principle of all. In cities, as in agriculture and most natural ecological areas, diversity is healthy. Some call diversity complexity and shy away from it in many aspects of life. Some are fatigued by life in today's cities and think it's because the environment is complex. but how complex is sitting in one position driving to work in a car hours each week, doing a repetitive job or conforming to dress codes and social expectations? It's far more complex to be deeply involved in your neighborhood or tending a large garden than doing most of the tiring things of life in the present city. With a closer look, the simple life isn't so simple either and the most complex activities of all are probably the choices people have to make about important moral issues. If we look toward ecology and evolution we see that the tendency toward complexity, toward environments and situations involving great diversity, are precisely those environments and situations that cause individuals and species to survive, grow and diversify. War is exactly the opposite: a convulsion that wipes the slate clean of its messy little details and leaves the ravaged place simplified. The implication of all this is that cities built with the mixed use notion are on the right track.'

Love Food, Hate Waste Launches in Australia


Reposted in full from Warmer Bulletin e-news, 2 July 2010

'The Government of the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) has teamed up with retailer Woolworths, households, businesses and local councils to slash food waste - under a programme called Love Food Hate Waste, based on the original UK concept.

Council waste audits show that each year, NSW households generate 800,000 tonnes of food waste and businesses generate 300,000 tonnes. This means A$2.5 billion worth of food a year is thrown away or about A$1,000 a household.

Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, Frank Sartor, has launched Love Food Hate Waste - an internationally successful campaign to help thousands of households and businesses reduce growing amounts of food waste.

"Food waste makes up a massive 40 per cent of the total rubbish in our household bins; that is 315 kilograms a home," Mr Sartor said.

"It is a tragedy that we are wasting so much food - when others around the world are starving or struggling to buy the food needed to survive. There are also major consequences for the environment when we throw away food - it goes directly into landfill where it turns into methane - a gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. There are simple things we can all do to waste less food, including buying only what we need, preparing and cooking correct amounts, and storing food items properly".

Love Food Hate Waste is a partnership programme based on a successful campaign in the United Kingdom which supports households to adopt simple and easy behaviours that work to reduce food waste.

The three year campaign includes an awareness program and a partnership with business to help change behaviours. Woolworths is involved because it has more than 20 million consumers pass through its stores each week in Australia.

The NSW Government is also partnering with the Australian Food and Grocery Council and the Local Government and Shires Association.

Under the programme business and households can access:

  • a portion calculator to help them to decide on the best amounts of food to buy for their families to minimise waste
  • tips on what to buy and when
  • how best to store food
  • tools and resources to help raise awareness and adopt new behaviours to better manage food
  • nutritional recipes
  • a dedicated website www.lovefoodhatewaste.nsw.gov.au
Mr Sartor said the programme will help NSW meet its municipal waste reduction target of 66 per cent and commercial and industrial waste reduction target of 63 per cent by 2014. This target is equivalent to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in NSW by about 640,000 tonnes of CO2 per year - that's the same as permanently removing 159,000 cars off the road.

For every tonne of food waste prevented from going to landfill, 0.9 tonnes of carbon dioxide can be saved.

To better understand community knowledge, attitudes and behaviours about household food waste 1,200 NSW households were surveyed as part of the Food Waste Avoidance Benchmark Study 2009.

The survey was delivered online in December 2009 and was completed by NSW residents, aged 16 and older, who were mainly or equally responsible for buying and managing food in their household.

The Food Waste Avoidance Benchmark Study 2009 represents the most comprehensive and up to date analysis of community knowledge, attitudes and behaviours conducted about food waste in NSW.

Who wastes the most food?

While we all waste some food, the top three food wasting groups in NSW are young consumers (aged 18-24), higher income households (incomes more than $100,000 per year) and families with children. On average these groups waste $24.90-$26 worth of food per week.

Young consumers are:

  • more likely to feel that a busy lifestyle makes it hard to avoid wasting food
  • more likely to throw away food that has passed its 'best before' date (regardless of quality)
  • less likely to consider whether food will be eaten (at time of purchase)
  • less likely to shop to a set budget

Households with incomes more than A$100,000 per year are:

  • more likely to make extra just in case
  • more likely to use leftover food for other meals
  • less likely to have members of the household eat the same meal
  • less likely to consider portion sizes when cooking
Families with children are:

  • more likely to do one large shop
  • more likely to buy items on special and in bulk
  • less likely to check 'best before' and 'use by' dates when shopping
  • less likely to make meals from assorted ingredients that need using up