[sustran] FW: WBCSD Mobility 2030 - International Peer Review

Barter, Paul paulbarter at nus.edu.sg
Mon Jul 19 16:43:16 JST 2004


This didn't get through from Eric yesterday (too long for poor old
sustran-discuss I think). So I am forwarding to the list now. 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: eric.britton at ecoplan.org [mailto:eric.britton at ecoplan.org] 
Sent: Monday, 19 July 2004 12:49 AM
To: Sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
Cc: Barter, Paul
Subject: WBCSD Mobility 2030 - International Peer Review 



 

Sunday, July 18, 2004, Paris, France, Europe

 

Subject: WBCSD Mobility 2030 report - International Peer Review 

Note 1: It will be good if possible to retain this subject heading for
future reference 

Note 2: ITDP is asking for our full feedback by 30 July (a bit tight for
an interactive review? Maybe one month from today?)

 

Dear Friends,

 

This cooperation with the ITDP and all of us in this cooperative venture
strikes me as an truly admirable example of a concrete way in which we
can put our long and carefully developed, highly knowledgeable and fully
independent world policy and practice network to work in the cause of
sustainable development and social justice.  I think we all agree that
the WBCSD report and its recommendations needs to be put into the proper
perspective of the real issues and choices that together constitute the
sustainability agenda.  And that as it stands this is a job which has
yet to be done.

 

Our ultimate goal is of course not to trash the WBCSD report - nobody's
perfect - but rather to see if we can seize this opportunity to set what
they have done in a much needed broader, true activist sustainability
perspective.  The sponsors offer it as a step in a process which has yet
to be engaged. There I think we are all in full agreement with them. So
let's engage.

 

I am sure that we are all pretty much agreed that when we want to do is
achieve useful positive results. Thus, rather than nag them, I propose
that we seize this deliberately as a rare opportunity to lay the base
for a real international coalition in favor of sustainable development -
and sustainable mobility - with a strong commitment to the real bottom
line.  Our view of sustainability is that the contrary conditions are
there, pressing terribly hard, and that all the trends are in the wrong
direction. Sustainability will not wait.  

 

But where, if this is so important, is this huge and one would hope
spirited public dialogue taking place? For my part, I have scanned for
critical articles that take an honest whack at the issues but thus far
have been unable to come up with any.  (See below for a quick summary of
articles identified in the process.)  Such an important problem area,
and such little honest informed discussion. Hmm. 

 

Let me not push this further for now, since my role here is not to blab
but to help as I can in simulating and facilitating the discussions and
process which we are now engaging. So, in addition to Lisa's three good
points below, along with those brought up by Eric Bruun and Lee Schipper
(also below), let me propose the following points and questions that it
may be worthwhile commenting:

 

1.	Sub-text: There is a huge hidden sub-text which I believe is
vital here. It is this: "Every day that the present transportation
paradigm continues without radical overhaul is money in the bank for the
report's auto and energy industry sponsors: BP, DaimlerChrysler, Ford,
General Motors, Honda, Michelin, Nissan, Norsk Hydro, Renault, Shell,
Toyota and Volkswagen". If this is true, it means that the level of both
urgency - and their responsibility at the major financial beneficiaries
of the present arrangements - becomes quite other than what we see in
those pages. 

2.	Missing issues? The report deals with a fairly long list of
issues, targets.  Good.  But what are the issues that it is failing to
address? Can we make a good list of these?  And what are the
consequences of this/these failures? 

3.	Surprising recommendations? Can we - can they? - point up any
surprising recommendations that might not have been anticipated, given
who they are, what they are doing, and where their interests lie. 

4.	Time horizon? What about the time horizon chosen?  Is 2030 the
right time horizon to focus on for issues such as these?  For the
decisions that need to be taken today - if the issues are indeed urgent.
What is the implication of this choice? The cost? 

5.	Gravitas and quieting: And what about the implications of the
report coming as it does from a respected international group like the
WBCSD whose announced mission is "To provide business leadership as a
catalyst for change toward sustainable development, and to promote the
role of eco-efficiency, innovation and corporate social responsibility."


*         I.e., does their report have the effect of "quieting
uncertainty about the dilemma of our present unsustainability and hence
via sub-text delaying action and encouraging passivity in the face of
challenges that need to have highest profile and be addressed with real
urgency starting today".

6.	The process: The sponsors indicate that they have put four years
of work with some two hundred participants in to this report, but as I
look over their process I for one cannot spot any surprises,. It looks
to me like the usual "managed outreach" approach which we see go0vts and
industry engaging in all too often. But is that right? (I invite comment
on this point, since we are in effect breaking their intended pattern,
and perhaps if anyone ever does this again, they should be using a
deeper and more opening critical model for pulling their information and
recommendations together). 

7.	$50 oil? What about $50 oil?  Does that make any difference? Can
it be harnessed as not so much part of the problem but an element of the
solution? 

8.	Slamming session? Should we in addition to the more measured
discussions have a wide open slamming and criticism session aimed at
somewhat cruelly commenting  (a) the current transportation paradigm and
(b) the sponsors' role in locking it in? And jokes (including black
humor). I think so because we need to open up the debate - something
which they appear to have rigorously avoided despite their claims to the
contrary - and even if most of this will never make it into our final
report and recommendations, it nonetheless scan be a source of energy
and new idea.  So let's have at it, without ever forgetting that we are
ladies and gentlemen. 

9.	Inviting sponsors and authors: I am asking Thorsten Arndt,
Online Communications Manager of the WBCSD to be so kind as to inform
all of those concerned within their network, including the authors and
participants in the report and the process behind it, to come into this
open international discussion and take active part.  The program officer
for the project is Miss. Claudia Schweizer.  I very much hope that they
will join in this important group venture. Indeed their report invites
just this, 

10.	Why are we doing this? Finally, what's our message and to whom
do we address it? I would suggest that there will be several eventual
audiences, each of whom/which need to be addressed briefly in a final
report.  Positive messages to which they can respond! Among them: 


*	The WBCSD itself 

*	The report's twelve auto and energy industry sponsors 

*	The world of industry and finance that constitutes the world
auto and energy sector. 

*	The international organizations and groups that are giving the
report generally uncritical acceptance and public notice.  Among them,
the OECD, IEA, EC, ECMT and others whom we can usefully identify and
target for our collective kind words and counsel. 

*	All those groups world wide that say they are working on the
sustainability agenda. 

*	And since we are above all talking about cities here, the
mayors, local government and the concerned citizens and groups who are
ready to take an active role in shaping their cities. That's where it
all has to begin. 

 

The only other thing that comes to mind to kick this off is the
importance of ensuring that once we have a solid piece of work with
creative recommendations, we need to ensure that it gets highest levels
of media coverage. Of course the ITDP team is well placed to do this,
but given the large number of us in this network and our wide
international presence, I vote that we all have a go at this when the
time comes.

 

Ladies, gentelmen. To your pens.

 

Eric Britton

 

Some background:

*         The full 180 report and various pieces of it asre avialble as
PDF files from
http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet
<http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&DocId=60
94> &DocId=6094

*         The 17 page Overview - minimum reading for comment? (The 7
page Ex Sum is less useful.)

*         Some press coverage: (Are they all saying basically the same
thing? Have they bought in? Without really thinking about it?   Hmm.)

o        http://www.euractiv.com/cgi-bin/cgint.exe?204
<http://www.euractiv.com/cgi-bin/cgint.exe?204&OIDN=1507979&-tt=in>
&OIDN=1507979&-tt=in

o        http://www.iht.com/articles/36023.html

o
http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/industry_news/news-55dojo070d

o        http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=2015

o
http://www.hydro.com/en/press_room/news/archive/2004_07/mobility2030_en.
html

o        http://www.greenconsumerguide.com/index.php?news=2015

o        http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_frame.html
<http://www.edie.net/gf.cfm?L=left_frame.html&R=http://www.edie.net/news
/Archive/8584.cfm> &R=http://www.edie.net/news/Archive/8584.cfm 

 

 

 

-----Original Messages -----


From: sustran-discuss-bounces+ecoplan.adsl=wanadoo.fr at list.jca.apc.org
Behalf Of Lisa Peterson
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 9:35 PM
To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport';
eric.britton at ecoplan.org
 WBCSD & the auto industry - part of the solution, but how?

 

Eric and all,

 

Thanks for raising this import issue.  As many of you have pointed out,
the Mobility 2030 report is disappointing at best, if not a dangerous
attempt to greenwash the industry's expansion into developing countries.

 

We'd like to develop a critique of the report, and invite any of you to
submit points for inclusion.  I can compile them and circulate a
combined critique to the list for comment and feedback.  

 

Some general points of criticism, to add to what you've all been saying:

 

- The intended audience and purpose of the report is unclear.  After 150
pages of discussing the current status of transport and putting forward
its proposed sustainability goals, the report spends less than two pages
discussing "how companies like ours can contribute to achieving the
goals we have identified."  Then, the focus is heavy on tailpipe
solutions to emissions problems.

 

- The report approaches "sustainable mobility" with the assumption that
expansion of private car use is inevitable and even desirable.  It
includes troubling recommendations - including the export of cheap cars
to developing countries as a solution to mobility constraints.  Public
transit, bicycling and walking are barely mentioned.

 

- The report either avoids taking a stance or comes out against anything
that might limit private automobile use, such as congestion pricing and
policies to limit urban sprawl.  

 

So, we welcome your comments and contributions, either off-list or on.
Please get back to us by Friday, July 30.  

 

Thanks and best,

 

Lisa Peterson, Communications Director

Institute for Transportation and Development Policy

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: sustran-discuss-bounces+lpeterson=itdp.org at list.jca.apc.org

Behalf Of Eric Bruun

Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2004 11:23 AM

To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport;
eric.britton at ecoplan.org;

WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com

Subject: [sustran] Re: WBCSD & the auto industry - part of the solution,
but how?

 

I think that Lee is on to something. Maybe the main reason for this
study

Is to be able to say that, thanks to efforts initiated by this study,
the

damage from growing car use will not be as bad as it would have been

otherwise.

 

I want to raise a few other points which I think are relevant:

 

1) There is massive overcapacity worldwide in the auto industry. There
is

intense pressure to increase car sales. The situation will only get
worse,

as China probably plans on trying to export huge numbers of cars and put

some of the higher wage countries out of the business.

 

2) Why should any developing country be asked to conserve when the US,

which has 4 percent of the world's population, consumes 25 percent of
the world's

gasoline? There isn't much hope of persuasion until the US starts to

conserve.

 

3) Technology oriented people like to focus on fuel efficiency of
vehicles.

But this is roughly half the story. The other half is containing sprawl
and

not building auto-dependent communities. The US is such a fuel glutton

because it has both very large vehicles AND weak land use planning.

 

4) Consuming land to accommodate autos is especially damaging near most
of

the great port/transportation hub cities. The reason they were located

there in the first place is because of the superior farm land nearby or
up river.

So, low-density development also eliminates some of the world's best

farmland. I give as an example Philadelphia, where I live. There are
tens

of thousands of empty lots and abandoned houses in the city proper,
while

McMansions are being built on rich farm land in the surrounding Delaware

River basin.

 

Eric Bruun

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Lee Schipper" <SCHIPPER at wri.org

To: <eric.britton at ecoplan.org; <WorldTransport at yahoogroups.com

Cc: <Sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org

Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 8:17 AM

 

 I was a strong supporter of the idea of the WBCSD, helping informally
to

 set it up when I was at the IEA and then Shell Int'l. Long
conversations

 with organizers at both auto and oil companies, potential consultants.

 Organized 1 of the expert forums (Mexico City, last year) and

 participated in a few others.

 

 I will read the material and report back here -- rumors fly that the

 final report is weak -- seems like the fuel companies are very
aggressive

 about clean fuels, which is the easy part, but the car makers are wont

 to say "less cars than otherwise", and that's really what all gazes
into

 the future are all about. But let me look carefully first.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From:  eric.britton at ecoplan.org 7/7/2004 6:30:24 AM 

 Wednesday, July 07, 2004, Paris, France, Europe

 

Our old friend and colleague, Ken Orski, formerly the original caretaker
of the urban transport environment of the OECD's environment unit  years
ago when it was just getting started, has just kindly shared  with us
an abstract of and commentary on the just published report of the WBCSD.

 His closing phrase caught my attention, and I would like to invite
commentary on it here.  He writes:

 

 "While it is too early to predict the report's longer term influence,
the sponsoring companies  clearly hope that their initiative will, at
the very least, help to establish the auto industry's sincerity and

 good faith in trying to come to grips with the impact of its activities
on  the environment."

 

 Now, I for one get no great pleasure in bashing the auto or energy
industry - indeed I think it's a pretty dumb and counter-productive
thing to do since one way or another they are also part of the  solution
(indeed they are important clients for my personal consulting work as  I
keep trying to edge them toward a more truly proactive approach in
helping create and advance the New Mobility Agenda - I am not that
reassured about either  (a) the usefulness or (b) the sincerity and
good  faith - precisely! - of their participation in this particular
exercise.

 

 I have my own thoughts on this as you can imagine, but I would be
interested to hear what others of you might have to say.  Indeed,  isn't
the main issue behind this from our shared perspectives here is that  we
need to make them part of the solution.  There can be no doubt about
that.  The question of course is: will they do it without firm
leadership from the public policy end.  And if so, what form should

 that take?  (I attach to this note our short  original 'mission
statement' for The Commons which goes back now to several decades.
Still  pretty  much the way it looks around here.)

 

 Eric Britton

 

 The Commons, Paris

"The Commons: Increasing the uncomfort zone for hesitant administrators
and politicians, pioneering new concepts for activists, community
groups, entrepreneurs and business, and through our joint efforts,
energy and personal choices,  placing them and ourselves firmly on the
path to a more sustainable and more just society."

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20040719/52f4e50f/attachment-0001.html


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list