[sustran] greenwash justifications

[K. Tsourlakis]

This is what I mean by "perverted way of justification":


Roads 'good for the environment', says study

EurActiv.com, 11 April 2007 - Bigger and better roads contribute to cutting pollution by removing bottlenecks, states a report commissioned by the EU Road Federation. The study follows criticism from green groups that investing in roads is contrary to Europe's sustainable development goals.

“More investment in road infrastructure is needed to remove bottlenecks, avoid city centres and complete missing links which together cost billions every year in lost fuel and undoubtedly contribute to the transport sector’s environmental footprint,” said the European Union Road Federation (ERF), in a paper published on 10 April 2007. 

..............................

http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=MjQwNTE



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

Some common ground then but not much, so we'll agree to differ.

Martin


>> --===============0727612186==
>>
>>
>> The mistake hidden in this rationalization is that it erroneously assumes
>> that traffic volume will remain constant after the intervention (in this
>> case, after traffic lights abolition). But actually any facilitation of
>> car use will increase car use and traffic. This kind of fallacy is
>> constantly used, not only as a justification, but also for greenwashing of
>> various motorized traffic projects, like parkings (they deter drivers to
>> burn fuel for searching park space), motorways (less congestion hence less
>> fuel use and pollution) even parks and pedestrian spaces destruction (they
>> are more efficiently used).
>>
>> In the case of traffic lights removal there is in addition the danger to
>> discourage walking and biking and thus to encourage even further car and
>> motorcycle use. I am very sceptical about the general friendliness of the
>> "naked streets" concept. It may indeed work in small Dutch or German
>> towns, but in the case of Indian (and lot of other places) cities, it
>> clearly creates an inhuman environment.
>>
>> However I think we can draw some very useful conclusions from these
>> experiments and the undoubtedly fact that less accidents happen there. For
>> instance when very often the corrupt and car use favouring administrations
>> (using the above described perverted way of justification) set up barriers
>> along the sidewalks, as a measure supposedly to protect pedestrians from
>> car "accidents". But it turns out from these "naked street" cases, that
>> this intervention creates a more dangerous environment (not only for
>> pedestrians, but also for car and motorcycle users), because it gives to
>> the drivers a false sense of security and encourages speeding.
>>
>> I am inclined to conclude that the best environment is created when
>> regulations are completeley stripped out for pedestrians, are minimal for
>> bikers and are strictly enforced to motorized traffic.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> In the interests of long-term survival, people need to find other ways
>> of getting about, work more from home, develop new energy sources. But
>> something can be done NOW to make an impact on climate change: scrap
>> traffic lights, the biggest gas-guzzlers of them all. From a Canadian
>> website: ?If every driver in Canada avoided idling for 5 minutes a day,
>> 1.6 million tonnes of CO2 would not enter the atmosphere. It is
>> estimated that idling and stop-go traffic costs motorists 753 million
>> gallons of gas a year, or $1,194 per driver in wasted fuel and time.?
>> But how do we avoid idling when traffic lights block progress in every
>> sense? (In haste again, sorry)
>>


_____________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.mailbox.gr ÁðïêôÞóôå äùñåÜí ôï ìïíáäéêü óáò e-mail.
http://www.superweb.gr ÏéêïíïìéêÜ êáé áîéüðéóôá ðáêÝôá web hosting ìå áóöáëÝò Åëëçíéêü controlpanel
http://wwww.domains24.gr Ôï üíïìÜ óáò óôï internet áðü 9.95 Åõñþ.