"Sustainability" has become something of a buzzword, and one sees it almost everywhere these days. Because of this, there is a lot of misunderstanding out there about what it actually means. Michael D. Lemonick, senior writer at the climate change think tank Climate Central has tackled this problem in the pages of the March 2009 issue of Scientific American, outlining (and debunking) what he believes are the Top Ten "myths' about sustainability. We here at the CST think there's a lot of merit to his arguments -- but that it would be worthwhile to take on these myths from a transportation perspective.
Myth 1: Nobody knows what sustainability really means.
Lemonick says that this is "nowhere close to being true" -- that the definition dates back to the 1987 Brundtland Report and has been widely adopted and integrated. He translates this to mean simply, “don’t take more than your share.”
This translates nicely for our purposes: Don't drive/fly/ship more than you need to; and travel by the least consumptive mode possible.
Myth 2: Sustainability is all about the environment.
Lemonick argues that sustainability initiatives not only make good economic sense, they can contribute to our overall psycho-social well-being.
Sustainable transportation, too, makes excellent economic sense: after all, the movement of people and goods is essential to our economy, and in an energy-poor future such movement will not be possible if modes, efficiencies and renewable technologies are not adjusted and advanced. And there are huge benefits to our health and well-being when we are able to walk and bicycle to our everyday destinations.
Myth 3: “Sustainable” is a synonym for “green.”
Lemonick points out that "green" generally denotes natural, organic and non-technological. By contrast, if we are to share a sustainable future, this will involve a heavy reliance on advanced technologies -- including, argue some, nuclear power.
This is certainly true when one considers sustainable transportation options. If the automobile is to have a future it will need to involve technologies far more advanced than the internal combustion engine. Even the humble bicycle, while the most efficient form of transport yet invented, is comprised of non-biodegradable parts and utilizes petroleum products.
Myth 4: It’s all about recycling.
That is, if you use a blue box, all is well. Think again, says Lemonick. The most significant areas that people need to examine are their energy use and transportation habits.
The equivalent here in terms of transportation might be the demonized SUV: that if you don't drive one -- or else traded one in for a smaller car -- then this would be sufficiently "green." Yet with the global automobile fleet estimated to reach 1 billion cars by 2010, it is certainly not only about switching to smaller cars. The absolute number of vehicles is also a problem.
Myth 5: Sustainability is too expensive.
Yes, admits Lemonick, transitioning to a more sustainable technology is often more expensive over the short term, but pays dividends in terms of efficiencies and long-term viability.
Sustainable transportation systems -- such as light rail -- do cost a considerable amount of public monies. But these costs need to be compared with the costs of business as usual, including the massive public subsidies for roads -- as well as gains in efficiencies and reduced pollution.
Myth 6: Sustainability means lowering our standard of living.
This isn't true, argues Lemonick, because the efficiencies gained through sustainable technologies will allow us to do more with less.
Advances in sustainable transportation will also allow us to move more using less energy. And when we re-consider what we mean by "standard of living" we can also see that modal shifts that see us reduce our driving and increase our walking and cycling have the potential bring about large improvements to our health and quality of life.
Myth 7: Consumer choices and grassroots activism, not government intervention, offer the fastest, most efficient routes to sustainability.
This is the preferred argument, says Lemonick, of "free market evangelicals" who loathe anything not left to the "free market." Yet the large-scale changes needed -- including correcting the erroneous assumption that emitting greenhouse gasses incurs no financial cost -- can only be undertaken (or at least led) by governments.
Consumer choices mean little if there is no provision to allow consumers to make more sustainable choices. That is why governments are needed to mandate, fund and regulate sustainable transportation infrastructure such as light rail, and to require that industry supply sustainable transport modes, such as hybrid and other low-emission vehicles.
Myth 8: New technology is always the answer.
Actually, Lemonick shows that using existing technology more appropriately (keeping your tires properly inflated) or adapting that technology (swapping car batteries rather than developing new ones) can be at least as effective as developing new technology.
However, technologies old or new are not always the answer. That's why the CST’s focus is on the relationship between society and its institutions, transportation technologies, policy options and environment. Our applied research provides pragmatic solutions that guide social policy, human behaviour and technology roadmaps. For example, the CST has developed guidelines for land use and transportation policies to support active transportation for children. We have used technology to research and develop outreach proposals to address driving behaviour and improving efficiency by changing behaviour, and we have deployed GPS technology to cyclists to assess and advance the development of cycling infrastructure with the OttoCYCLE project.
Myth 9: Sustainability is ultimately a population problem
Lemonick calls this a "false solution" rather than a myth. It is true that we are consuming far more resources than the planet can offer, and disposing more waste than it can absorb -- and billions more people are expected before population trends reverse. However, unless we are prepared to adopt draconian measures or mass suicide, the only option, he says, is to reduce our rates of consumption.
Since transportation represents such a 52% of global oil consumption, and is equally such a large producer of greenhouse gas emissions, then sustainability may be seen to a large extent as a transportation problem. Solutions must include a vast reduction in the amount of energy needed to move people and goods locally and globally.
Myth 10: Once you understand the concept, living sustainably is a breeze to figure out.
Au contraire, writes Lemonick,
"...You cannot really declare any practice 'sustainable' until you have done a complete life-cycle analysis of its environmental costs. Even then, technology and public policy keep evolving, and that evolution can lead to unforeseen and unintended consequences. The admirable goal of living sustainably requires plenty of thought on an ongoing basis."
We concur: It isn't easy being sustainable and transportation solutions are still evolving. The CST proposes a hierarchy of modes for sustainable transportation practices, and is certainly committed to engaging in "plenty of thought on an ongoing basis" to the problem of sustainable transportation in particular and sustainability generally.
Terry Zdan and Michael Dudley
Labels: Ottocycle, road pricing, Sustainable development, sustainable transportation
