When I was rudely awoken from my afternoon nap on the weekend, I knew immediately what my next post would be about. Nothing earth-shattering, more ear-splitting. A testosterone-driven teenager living on our street has a motorised scooter. Not the kind that can actually get you from Point A to Point B, but the skateboard-on-steroids kind that does nothing more than impress the pre-teens and piss off anyone over the age of 18.
And as he careened around and around the block, spewing out carbon emissions more resolutely than an SUV, I recalled a news item from CP&DR about a recent report from the Urban Land Institute: Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change.
The report drives home the point that the greenhouse-gas emissions issue is really not very different from any other air pollution. The report concludes that any reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is likely to be offset by an increase in driving - pretty much the same thing that has happended, at least in California, with carbon monoxide emissions over the last 40 years.
So, apart from slapping a fine on my under-age neighbour for operating a vehicle without a catalytic converter, we're going to have to change the neighbourhood itself. If we can't walk or cycle to the local grocer, we'll never reverse the trend of increased driving. To do this, says the ULI report, we need to create a GHG emissions conformity provision for regional transportation plans. However, I suspect that something more radical than that will be needed to dramatically change transportation patterns, since transportation is a direct outcome of land use patterns that are essentially fixed for the short term.
Meanwhile, let's throw a carbon tax on all petrol-driven lawn mowers and leaf blowers - battery-operated machines are a no-brainer - and I can go back to my Sunday nap.
Comments