[sustran] "the full range of sustainability criteria" to cross-check new technology against

[EcoPlan, Paris]

Fair question.

 

Answer: Has to be able to show palpable on-street in-lung results in less
than five or so years, max.  Months is preferred.  We call this Kyoto
Compliance.

 

Reason: We are facing an emergency situation and this is where we have
chosen to concentrate the New Mobility Agenda (call it what you will).
That's our choice, and others will make theirs.

 

Regards, Eric Britton

 

PS. Let's now cease posting this thread to all these people because I
believe have better things to do.  If they are here in Sustran and the New
Mobility Agenda, it's because they share this vision and sense of immediate
responsibility.

 

********************************************

PPS. Message to all: If you have not yet done your bit and provided some
kind of contribution for the post-Tsunami relief efforts, do the right
thing.  If you don't know how, we invite you to repair to
http://newmobility.org and click the relief organization of your choice.  I
am pleased to report that more than twenty of our compassionate colleagues
have already made us of this easy, wide open door and been so kind as to
inform of as much.  And you?

 ************************************************

 

 

 

>>-----Original Message-----

On Behalf Of Daryl Oster

Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 9:50 AM

 

-----Original Message-----From: Eric Britton

[CLIP]

>*         I have decided (unless pushed to the contrary) to omit from this 

>list all people with strong bureaucratic, institutional and economic ties 

>and interests, and specifically proponents of unproven technologies and 

>major infrastructure developments that are not fully and assiduously cross-

>checked with the full range of sustainability criteria).  

[CLIP]

 

 

Eric,

 

Where might one find the list of "the full range of sustainability criteria"

to cross-check new technology against? 

 

If there is not a defined process for this, how can one suggest that the New

Mobility Initiative is indeed new?

 

Why not instead, call the initiative "new ways to revive old mobility"?  Is

not that what one is left with if new technology is eliminated from

consideration?  

 

Anyone from the ARTA group(s) want to add to my "push" for truly new

technology to receive prudent consideration?

 

 

Daryl Oster

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050102/3f63699f/attachment-0001.html