Not to invoke the old cliche of comparing the US to liberal European countries... or perhaps to do exactly that.
Vermonters like to consider themselves part of a hippy utopia that is more environmentally and socially aware than any other place in the country. They go as far as to half-joke about seceding from the US as if to demonstrate just how irreconcilable our differences are. Don't get me wrong, I fall into this category at times and I'm not really trying to contrast myself with this idea, because its probably true to some degree. We are certainly very different for instance from the fine people of Mississippi. We probably live slightly more environmentally friendly lives (note: I did NOT use the term "sustainable". More on that later.) on average than a person from Mississippi (although you could probably make the case that Vermont's higher per capita income would cancel out our increased environmental awareness in terms of our eco-footprint). However, I think it might have gotten to the point where we justify our moral (environmental) high ground relative to the rest of the country. In other words, we contrast ourselves with the rest of the US rather than figuring out exactly where we stand in terms of impact and adjusting our behavior accordingly.
A professor I had in college likes to say, "'Sustainability' is the most misused word in the English language!" His (and my) point is that sustainability is a point along a spectrum of activity rather than the spectrum itself. Put differently, there is no such thing as someone behaving more (or less) sustainably, there is merely sustainable behavior and unsustainable behavior (as defined by ecological footprint). For instance, driving a Prius is not a sustainable behavior, it is merely somewhat preferable to driving a less fuel efficient vehicle. This is where the environmental movement comes up short. Sustainability has become a marketing concept for companies to sell people things that are marginally more environmentally friendly than the alternative, under the guise that they're saving the planet. We avoid the hard decisions by appeasing ourselves. News flash: your highway miles/gallon don't make you a good person.
So now back to the title. I visited the Netherlands recently and (among other things) was struck by the amount of bicycles. Bikes completely dominate the cities. The bike racks next to train stations are as big as parking lots in the States. I saw double decker bike racks! Meanwhile, we in the States sit and brag about how great our gas mileage is (and then complain about how annoying it is when bikers clog up our roads) rather than actually reducing the amount we drive. We wonder why we're overweight and make resolutions to go to the gym more often, and then we get in our cars and drive everywhere. What is a gym really other than a place to burn the calories that our bodies once burned maintaining our own survival? Now that our survival is ensured in office chairs, we get fat, unless we simulate the lifestyle we evolved within by sitting on other chairs that allow us to burn calories. Of course, it goes without saying that we got there by sitting in chairs with wheels and motors.
I live in Burlington, VT, maybe the most compact small city in the country. You can ride from one side of the city to the other in 15 minutes flat, and yet it is completely dominated by cars. I wish I knew the ratio of bikes to cars on Burlington's roads, but I don't. My guess would be somewhere in the realm of 100 : 1. This, by the way, is in the largest city in the most liberal state in the country (or at least top 5). The same state that jokes about seceding from the Union because of how vast the ideological differences are, continues to drive cars and spew CO2 into an atmosphere that its inhabitants are extremely aware, is warming. So how are we different enough to justify seceding? I think that maybe the only difference is that we drive Subarus instead of Fords and are engaged in more cognitive dissonance.
Ride a fuckin' bike. They're completely carbon neutral, cheap to maintain, and they'll keep you fit.
Tansey, you know I agree with you most of the time. However, I would posit that a bike is not completely carbon neutral, and perhaps in the very long run is not sustainable. Even if we gave all 6.9 billion people on the planet a bike instead of a car, those bikes are made of metal components that must be mined, refined, formed and assembled. This process, while exceedingly less energy intensive than car manufacturing, still requires the oil infrastructure for its existence. Given, many cycles are restored and maintained instead of purchased new. While your post focuses on infrastructure and transport, population is a key driver for sustainability in the IPAT equation. I know this was likely a simple oversight, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention. -L
ReplyDeleteI don't know why i hadn't seen this before. I suppose in hindsight what I meant, and didn't convey all that well, was that post-production they're close to carbon neutral. However, I would like to point out that they are potentially sustainable given some sort of localized metal recycling program. i mean, one beat up Vermont Subaru could potentially be turned into a gaggle of steel framed bikes.
ReplyDelete