Gristmill

Shared space

Speaking of cool trends, here's one that's even cooler but, sadly, less likely to make it to our shores. Cities in Denmark, Scandinavia, and possibly in the near future, Britain [* see update] are dealing with traffic through what might be called creative chaos: They're removing signs, lights, and guardrails to create open public spaces, where cars and pedestrians mix freely, ungoverned by any rules. Sound crazy? Consider the results from Dutch towns where the approach has been tried:

Drivers start to behave in a very different way amid the new uncertainty, moving slowly, making eye contact with pedestrians, and becoming aware of much more than whether the lights have gone red. Or so the theory goes.

Evidence from Dutch towns is impressive. Safety records have improved, local officials report, and accidents, when they do happen are far less serious, because of the slow speeds.

Yet overall cross-town speeds are no slower than before, because intersections are far more fluid and snarl-ups are rare.

"We have fewer accidents and the accidents which do happen are less severe," says Koop Kerkstra, a senior official in the northern Dutch town of Drachten. "We see a better flowing of traffic than when everything was regulated. With the new infrastructure, they can flow through Drachten in much less time."

Why should environmentalists care? (I hope someday never to have to write that question again.) Consider first of all that cars idling in traffic jams are a major source of smog, and cars driving too fast are a major source of CO2, and this kind of approach addresses both those issues.

But more importantly, this approach creates shared spaces that encourage social interaction with neighbors, walking, and sense of a community and responsibility. (Remember all those?) It increases the quality of life of city-dwellers, and as every enviro should know, city-dwellers on average use less energy than their suburban counterparts. We need to get people into livable cities and out of their cars.

This would be, to say the least, a hard sell in the U.S., for a variety of cultural and geographical reasons. But still, why aren't enviros trumpeting this kind of stuff from the rooftops? Instead of telling people what's wrong with the way they live their lives, how about selling them on a different and better life? Rather than something to fear, give them something to want.

Update [2005-1-29 14:42:23 by Dave Roberts]: Gristmill contributor Geoff Dabelko, who's married to a Dane, writes to note that the list "Denmark, Scandinavia, and maybe Britain" is rather incoherent, as Denmark, along with Sweden and Norway, is part of Scandinavia. And of course the Dutch towns cited in the story are in the Netherlands, not Denmark. I apologize for passing along the confusion of the CSM reporter and for knowing deplorably little about geography.

Political pragmatism

Via Marshall Wittman, aka the Bull Moose, an NYT op-ed by Paul Starr:

Social Security, progressive taxation, affordable health care, the constitutional basis for environmental and labor regulation, separation of church and state -- these issues and more hang in the balance.

Under these circumstances, liberal Democrats ought to ask themselves a big question: are they better off as the dominant force in an ideologically pure minority party, or as one of several influences in an ideologically varied party that can win at the polls?

Perhaps environmentalists should ask themselves the same question. What do you think? Let me know in comments.

Local food

Here's a great AP story about colleges buying more food from local farmers. Students love it because it tastes better. School officials love it because it adds to the "quality of life" that attracts applicants. Cafeteria workers love it because they get to cook and prepare food again instead of just ripping open packages. Farmers with small- and medium-sized farms love it because it helps them stay above water. And environmentalists love it because it encourages the organic food industry and results in fewer miles of polluting transportation of food.

Consider what's holding this back from spreading and becoming common practice, not only for schools and other institutions but for the average consumer. It is not desire, I suspect -- even the totally eco-unconscious prefer better-tasting food. What's lacking is technology: The ability to closely track exactly what farmer has what and when, what consumer wants it and when, where they both are, and the most efficient way for them to connect. This kind of technology is being developed in bits and pieces all around us.

Enviros can help by publicizing and celebrating trends like this.

They met on the Prius showroom floor …

Environmentalists were there to lighten their ecological footprint. Neocons were there to lighten the fat Saudi pocketbook, full of petro dollars that fund terrorism. According to Robert Bryce, writing in Slate, the strange bedfellows have come together to advocate measures that would increase car fuel efficiency, lessen foreign oil dependence, and pump up renewables.

While Bryce pitches the "sleeping with the enemy" angle, the key point is there are multiple, compelling reasons to aggressively pursue (and for the government to subsidize) energy efficiency, renewables and alternatives to fossil fuels, and reduced dependence on overseas oil. Greens have often worked this issue with one hand tied behind their backs.

Packaging

Among the many assaults on our aesthetic and environmental sensibilities prosecuted by modern consumer culture, ugly and excessive packaging is among the most ... ugly and excessive. Luckily there are green alternatives and they are summarized aptly over at Treehugger.

Renewable, my ass

So say nearly 50 enviro, business, anti-nuclear, sustainable-energy, and energy-policy groups in response to Bush's recent claim that nuclear power is "a renewable source of energy."

Here, a letter these groups sent today to the Nuke Lobbyist in Chief:

Chlorine and mercury

The Oceana Network has a splashy (ha ha) new report out today revealing that chlorine plants are responsible for scads of mercury emissions, possibly as much as all U.S. power plants combined. To get the details on chlorine plants in your state and find out what you can do to help, start with this post on the Oceana blog. Scary stuff.

“America’s Providential History”

So I'm reading Harper's this morning, and they have an excerpt from America's Providential History, by Mark A. Beliles and Stephen K. McDowell, published by the Providence Foundation. Says Harper's, "the authors hold courses and seminars based on the book that were attended by more than 25,000 last year." Take it away, fellas:

A secular society lacks faith in God's Providence, and consequently men find fewer natural resources. The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie (there is only so much) that needs to be cut up so that everyone can have a piece. In contrast, the Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth.

While many secularists view the world as over-populated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large, with plenty of resources to accommodate all the people He knew would come into existence.

Kinda makes you think about this.

(Incidentally, God also hates the Federal Reserve and Social Security. FYI.)

More mort!

Speaking of the alleged death of environmentalism, ONE/Northwest has a few discussions thereof, introduced here, including some righteous umbrage from Tim Greyhavens, Executive Director of Wilburforce Foundation and Aron Thompson, ONE/Northwest board member. ONE'er Jon Stahl also links to this piece in the Tyee, which discusses the stuff from a Canadian perspective.

For various reasons, I find all the responses unsatisfying. A lot of it just amounts to, "No we're not!" and "We must redouble our efforts!" There's talk about a more positive, inclusive vision, but what is it?

It so happens I'm hard at work on an editorial on just that question, so all the questions will soon be answered and the debate will be called off. Ha ha.