[sustran] Re: Guangzhou bans electric bicycles

[Zvi Leve]

Hello again,

Sunny wrote:
> ....
>
> And also I feel tht though automobile industry supports the economic 
> growth of a country, often calculated with GDP, i dont this it is a 
> socially beneficial industry as the technology increases less people are 
> required for operation and hence it is not a job providing sector. 
>   
I certainly do NOT think that development centered around the 
auto-industry is "beneficial" (certainly not in any sustainability 
sense)! But there are in fact a large number of multiplier effects in 
many sectors of the economy (steel, plastics, electronics, etc.) 
associated with this industry which make it very appealing decision 
makers. To say nothing of the massive investment in both road and rail 
infrastructure which is employing literally millions of people in China. 
In many ways, Growth itself has become the driving force behind the 
Chinese economy! At some point this growth will slow down, and then what?
> Secondly, GDP as far as i know does not account for the poverty in a 
> country so are countries with increasing GDP's are really developing 
> (socially and environmentally)??? Please comment
>   
Of course GDP is a very flawed measure of "development" - I 
intentionally did not refer to any specific method in my previous 
posting. There are many different ways of comparing aggregate measures 
of "development": there are the standard national income accounts 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Income_Accounting>, various green 
accounting measures 
<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/09/china_issues_wo.php>, 
indicators of sustainable development 
<http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/natlinfo/indicators/egmOct06/egm.htm>, of 
happiness <http://www.nber.org/digest/jan06/w11416.html>,of  well-being 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_life>, etc. and then there are 
measures which are more focused on sustainable urban transportation 
<http://www.tc.gc.ca/programs/environment/UTSP/monitoringsustainabletransp.htm>.

My point is just that there is a very strong correlation between energy 
consumption and "economic development" (no matter how this is measured). 
Presumably most of the people on the planet still want to improve their 
level of "development", so on current trends this implies huge increases 
in energy consumption (and everything associated with that). I think 
that it is safe to say that current levels of energy consumption per 
"unit of economic output" are not sustainable. The question is, how can 
we maintain (and improve) our level of development while decreasing our 
energy consumption?

Cheers,

Zvi