[sustran] Re: The next WBCSD Mobility study: "Some Cognitive Dissonance direct from Third World Cities"

[pendakur]

My reading of the report confirms that it is full of generalities that can
be argued in any way they wish.  In addition, I am unable to capture the
main thrust of this report.

I am also not sure as to what the next steps are.

Where can we take this to?  Who are the main proponents of this study in the
WB or other agencies?  Is this John Flora and company again?  Richard
Scurfield is back with this group as coordinator for urban transport and
this could be a good thing.  Richard is accessible and willing to listen.

Best wishes.  setty.

Dr. V. Setty Pendakur
Professor Emeritus (Planning) & Adjunct Professor,
University of British Columbia; and
President
Pacific Policy and Planning Associates
1099 Marinaside Crescent--#702
Vancouver, BC, Canada  V6Z 2Z3
Phone:1-604-263-3576; Fax:1-604-263-6493

----- Original Message -----
From: "mobility" <mobility at igc.org>
To: <sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 8:36 AM
Subject: [sustran] Re: The next WBCSD Mobility study: "Some Cognitive
Dissonance direct from Third World Cities"


> thanks, John, Eric, others,
>
> for the various comments on the WBCSD report.  So far, very few of the
comments
> were actually on the report, but were focused on the 'process'.
>
> i take this as an indication that most of you, like me, found the report a
> pretty dull and muddled read, and difficult to sink one's teeth into.
>
> I do think we need to comment on how this document and the process of the
WBCSD
> Mobility 21 dialogs around the world fed into this report, and the purpose
of
> this report in the broader scheme of things..
>
> I doubt the WBCSD is going to go for a process that ceeds control over how
their
> donated money will be spent, ie. by reducing their influence on the
steering
> committee.  Furthermore, given the numerous other forums, (UN CSD 9,
Habitat II,
> Earth Summit, Global Road Safety Initiative, GITE, Shell's forums, Forums
> discussing the World Bank Urban Transport Policy, etc. etc. etc.) where
the
> influence of these corporations is more checked, do we really want to
suggest
> big auto and big oil initiate a broader dialog w/ stakeholders on this
topic,
> when such stakeholder dialogs have already been held through UN-based
> institutions, with prescious little effect?
>
> Given none of us were able to even read the document through, let alone
take
> from it any powerful or compelling message, i think their efforts'
greatest risk
> is irrelevance.
>
> I think we need to propose something that is appropriate for big auto and
big
> oil to do to reform themeselves to prepare for a post-auto and post-oil
> dominated economy, something that will really make these companies think
about
> how to use their massive investment capital in a way that brings about
this
> transition, while saving their bacon.
>
> They probably should have started with a hard headed analysis of the oil
and
> auto markets in the future, and given us some indication of where these
are
> really going.  They should have this data inside their corporations, and
it
> would have been interesting to know how these companies viewed the future.
>
> I'm drafting something to this effect but will look at your further
thoughts
> after the Thanksgiving holidays.
>
> best
> Walter Hook
>
> > Earlier references here: Walter Hook, Kisan Mehta, John Whitelegg,
Matthias
> > Mueth
> >
> > Dear Friends,
> >
> > Very very interesting.  I think that maybe we should put our heads
together
> > and see if we might offer these kind folks (the WBSC) not just a report
on
> > this or that, but rather get off and running with another, altogether
> > different PROCESS.
> >
> >
>