The Human-Nature Relationship and the Social and Physical World

How do we reconcile the human-nature relationship to take into account both the social and physical world?

The relationship between nature and humans is such that it lets us arrive at no easy answers when attempting to analyse it. Instead it poses questions, and provides us with opposing viewpoints that attempt to define just exactly what that relationship is. Sociology generally has not given this relationship too much thought, until the 1970s when ‘environmental sociology’ began to emerge as a discipline in its own right.

Sociology, almost by definition is anthropocentric, in that it is the study of human society and solely interested in human relations. Nature and wilderness on the other hand have been seen as something outside of the human experience or realm. We see our world in terms of culture, the distinctive learned aspects of our society, involving both built culture, the material objects we create, and the more intangible examples like language and ceremony and law. Culture is the lens with which we use to interpret our world.

The role of sociology here then is to define perspectives of viewing and perceiving the environment which transcend cultural limitations of understanding. This is necessary because the extent of our culture and society is such that it leaves many individuals feeling dissociated from the natural world.

Following on from this comes interpretations of the nature of ‘wilderness’. Like all constructions, this too is subject to the cultural lens, and so conflict arises when different values and uses are ascribed to the environment. This has been influentially described by Peter Hay as “the ambivalence of the wilderness.”

This ambivalence is represented in sociological perspectives that seek to understand the human interpretation of the natural world. To be highlighted are the ‘mild social-constructionism’ and ‘critical realist’ approaches, as these are both useful, moderate perspectives that acknowledge their own fallibility.

Whatever the definitions or value placed upon wilderness and the environment, the reality that humans are a part of the natural world and require its resources for survival is undeniable. Perhaps the role which environmental sociology needs to play is that which will resolve the complacent construction that resources are endless so that it achieves some practical meaning in terms of changing human patterns of consumption. Here is the need to distinguish between natural capital and natural income, recognizing that the use of one is exploitive, and the other sustainable; in resolving this, perhaps it will finally reconcile the human-nature relationship and divide.

It is not hard to imagine or understand why many people feel dissociated from nature. But it is also a feeling which is hard to define. This dissociation can be attributed to our culture, both materially and immaterially, and its effect of insulating us from the natural world. Our clothing, housing, transport and all other conveniences and comforts all serve to limit the awareness we each have of being a physical organic body existing within an environment that is human independent and indifferent.

Pointed out by Simmons (1993: 66) is an emergent anthropological perspective of the 1960s that “humans were not behaviourally homogenous in the way of many animal species, and that an understanding of the ecological required a knowledge of the social.” What this means is humans can exhibit quite varied cultural practices as a result of their environment, and that a greater knowledge of our social needs is required to understand our ecological relationship; especially when this relationship becomes exploitative.

As societies made the early transition from hunter-gatherer to agrarian means of subsistence and economy there arose the basic principles that would underpin the fundamental conflict that now exists between industrial and post-industrial society, where the nature dissociation is greatest, and the environment. The hunter-gatherer society functioned with the aim of meeting the primary needs of its members of food and shelter. Any trading that occurred involved the exchange of goods directly related to the tools needed for clothing, hunting and food preparation. In contrast, the agrarian society required the creation of surplus so that members could be involved in activities not essential to individual society.

Here we see the beginnings of the human-nature dissociation, whereby one individual is not directly involved in meeting their own needs for survival. Borgmann suggests that in the days of hunter-gathering “the nature of realities and the reality of nature were divine. The world was full of divinities” (1995: 31). This understanding is the cultural construct of the time, and is considerably more benign in outcome considering low population density. Simmons highlights the suggestion that the “perceptual selectivity” made possible by low population and life expectancy could “ignore any longer term trends in the environment” (1993: 158). There is a sense that as a society we have inherited this complacency and tendency to ignore environmental problems so long as immediate needs are being met, whereas the difference may now be that management of the natural environment requires an intensely practical approach.

Perhaps somewhere in our psyche we retain an innate feeling of subservience to nature, both through being dependent on a wild landscape for survival, and this same landscape being a source of danger. For the majority of the population, this individual human-nature relationship has passed, and we live in almost completely man-made environments. When Peter Hay wrote of “the ambivalence of the wilderness” he was referring to the mixed and dual nature of the feelings and interpretations that humans hold toward the ‘wilderness’. It is seen as both a place and source of danger, and as a provider.

This has been born out in different ways, with on one hand people’s interaction with the land taking on a spiritual nature, and the opposite, where there is perceived a need to tame and conquer nature, so that it provides what humans need without any nasty surprises. This has resulted in two simplified perspectives on ‘wilderness’. Firstly that it has intrinsic value due to its lack of human interference, and that there is a need to preserve human-free spaces. And secondly, that ‘wilderness’ has no real value, because it serves no primary human needs, and thus has no cultural value or need of protection.

It must be recognised, however, that ‘wilderness’ itself, as an idea, is a cultural construct. It is what a society perceives it to be, thus the ‘ambivalence’. David Graber writes;

wilderness has taken on connotations, and mythology, that specifically reflect latter-twentieth-century values of a distinctive Anglo-American bent. It now functions to provide solitude and counterpoint to technological society in a landscape that is managed to reveal as few traces of the passage of other humans as possible. (1995: 124)

There is a resurgence being experienced in the idea of wilderness and nature having spiritual value. This is perhaps a perhaps an offshoot of idealization of aboriginal societies that are seen to have lived completely harmoniously with their environment. But “unlike the hunters and gatherers who preceded then on the land, moderns who enter wilderness do so not to live on the land, nor to use it, but rather to experience it spiritually” (1995: 124). Graber continues by discussing the general lack of awareness that these visitors have of land use practices of these aboriginal societies that resulted in change to the landscapes through hunting, clearing and agriculture.

There are many academic ways of thinking which seek to explain why humans see nature the way we do and why we interact with the non-human world in certain ways. There are of course many difficulties for doing this, not that least that we each are raised in very different cultures with different values. Simmons explains this as being because humans also inhabit a psychological world. Of our species he writes:

As well as its biophysical surroundings, it has an environment which we understand culturally. Hence, how we act towards the non-human is a consequence of our beliefs both about ourselves and what it is we are acting upon (Simmons 1993: 1).

What this illustrates is the fundamental cultural limitations of completely objective interpretation. From this it is hard to find any sociological point of view that will truly stand the test of time in its definition or understanding of the human-nature relationship because of the continually changing cultural factors which influence our way of seeing the world. Those points of view that seek to unequivocally sum up this relationship will always find themselves at odds with more liberal points of view which are more upfront about their own shortcomings.

To take for example, the extreme social constructionist approach, which sees nature and all reality as a pure social construct, although it does accept cultural differences, is to deny the idea that nature exists in its own right regardless of human interference. In contrast, the mild social constructionist approach recognises the intrinsic value of nature, and also its indifference to human activity. That we exist within it, but that it is by no means dependent upon humans.

The scientific method, careful collection of data and objective analysis of results that are themselves replicable through repeating the progression of the experiment can be seen as the way to achieve the greatest, and purest understanding of things we observe in both the human and non-human world. But there is an approach that sees even this most objective tools of arriving at human understanding as itself subject to the ‘cultural lens’. The critical realist would argue that the very hypotheses set out at the beginning of experiments is subject to our cultural and social values, and also the individual aims and aspirations of the scientist conducting them.

The position that this leaves us with is that the academic interpretation of nature will always be multi-faceted and continuously changing. There is no doubt that human activity has a deep, and more often than not, detrimental effect on the natural world. Even now there is no clear favour towards either the scientific and technical approaches, or the perspectives that wish the environment to assume a more spiritual role.

The economist and essayist E.F. Schumacher writes on the “proper use of land”. Anthropocentrically, this phrase seems to encompass everything to do with the ability of humans to sustain their lives on earth, and by default, the way we interpret and value nature. He accepts that it at first seems to be a question of achieving technical balance, but goes on to say that “the more I think about it the more I realise it is not; it is a highly philosophical subject and we are really deceiving ourselves if we think that it requires a special inventiveness of a technical kind” (Schumacher 1998: 172).

Herewith comes the realisation that the philosophical, the academic and the spiritual must all inform the practical. And that practical approach in our complex society must acknowledge the provision for succeeding generations. Here, to remain on economic terms, is the distinction between ‘natural capital’ and ‘natural income’. These terms acknowledge the reality that we gain subsistence from the natural world. Ideally, humans would live only from ‘natural income’, without exploiting or eroding ‘natural capital’, i.e. use of fossil fuels, unsustainable logging, practices which create air pollution.

It is a return to the “ambivalence of the wilderness,” where the choice may have to be made between the paradigm of human dominion to one of a role of stewardship of the environment. Essentially, a true reconciliation of the human-nature relationship would be one that recognises human dependency upon the natural world, and that, while we can influence and change it, even exploit it, that this really impacts upon the human world as much as it does the natural world.

References:

Simmons, I.G. (1993) Interpreting Nature: Cultural Constructions of the Environment. New York: Routledge.

Borgmann, A (1995) The Nature of Reality and the Reality of Nature. In Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction, ed. M. Soule and G. Lease. Washington, D.C: Island Press.

Graber, D (1995) Resolute Biocentrism: The Dilemma of Wilderness in National Parks. In Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstruction, ed. M. Soule and G. Lease. Washington, D.C: Island Press.

Schumacher, E.F. (1998) This I Believe. Devon: Resurgence.

Victorian Government and Sustainability 2008

Has the Victorian government developed a coherent approach to the question of sustainability? Are there any areas where its policies have appeared insensitive to sustainability, or inconsistent in addressing it?

The purpose of this essay is to examine the current Victorian Labor government’s approach and level of commitment to sustainability; and to highlight and explore any inconsistencies in its approach to – or disregard for – the principles of sustainability. This exploration occurs in the context of a Federal Labor government that has ratified the Kyoto protocol after years of recalcitrance by the Howard government, and which has committed to the establishment of a carbon-trading scheme.

I shall begin this essay with a sophisticated definition of sustainability and a discussion of how it differs from environmentalism. This will then be used as a frame of reference in assessing the policies and practices of the Victorian government. This assessment shall be conducted in two parts: firstly, an overview and synthesis of the Victorian Labor Party’s (VLP) policies on water from the 2006 election that relate to sustainability and a look at the VLP’s subsequent water management polices and projects.  And secondly, an overview of the Victorian Labor Party’s (VLP) policies on energy from the 2006 election and an examination of the VLP’s subsequent policy and approach to energy and power generation.

In focusing on these two major categories, it is hoped that this essay shall reveal any contradictions in a way that is both topical and relevant.

In considering the Victorian government’s approach to sustainability, it is important to understand how this concept differs from environmentalism. Victoria has long had a focus on protection of the environment, with the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) established through the Environment Protection Act of 1970. This Act preceded similarly named Acts passed in Western Australia in 1986, South Australia in 1993, and Queensland in 1994. Yet while these demonstrate a legislative commitment to protecting the health of the natural environment, inclusive of areas of human habitation and not simply confined to recreation areas perceived as ‘wilderness’, they do not broach the subject of sustainability beyond a recognition that the quality of the environment we live in is correlative to our quality of life.

Sustainability as a concept asks broader and much deeper questions. It places quality of life at the centre of its concerns and asks whether this can be maintained. In this context it “refer[s] to the capacity of human systems to provide for the full range of human concerns in the long term.”[1] That is, to achieve sustainability, human systems, insofar as we conceive them as separate, must be integrated into the natural systems of our planet in a way that does not outpace their ability to regenerate.

Most relevant to the two major issues of this essay, power-generation and water, is the commonly used phrase ‘sustainable development’. It is an acknowledgement our society has needs relating to population, infrastructure and consumption. Sustainable development has been defined most influentially by the Brundtland report in 1987 as that which “seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those in the future.”[2] Australia, including Victoria, in the 20 years since this statement was made has enjoyed a period of economic growth and what might be called an atmosphere of prosperity, where increasing aspirations were both desirable and acceptable. However, there is a growing consciousness that levels of consumption, fueled by aspiration rather than need, must be curtailed to help avert ecological crisis.

Therefore, there must be two aspects to the question of whether the Victorian government has a consistent approach to sustainability. Is the infrastructure and projects they are planning sustainable according to the above principles, and; is enough being done to encourage reduced consumption by individuals and business?

Much debate has changed since Premier Steve Bracks led the VLP to a second election victory in 2006. Bracks stepped down, and was succeeded as Premier by John Brumby. Australia is now governed at Federal level by the Labor Party. But despite these changes, it would be short-sighted to see the 2006 election promises made by the VLP under different leadership as old news or irrelevant. With these we can measure the consistency and focus of the VLP on the question of sustainability in relation to their water and energy policy.

On paper, the VLP’s water policy for the 2006 election seems comprehensive. It covers household efficiency in the form of rebates as well as regulations for new homes, reduction in industrial use, minimizing wastage from distribution system, upgrades to existing recycling plants, investment in storm-water projects, and funding for river health programs.[3] These appear consistent with sustainability principles, in that they are designed to reduce consumption, prevent waste, and protect natural systems. However, water management and policy will fall short on perhaps the most important criteria for a sustainable system, that is integration into natural systems. As the first article in The Age’s Watershed series points out, “it’s not that we’re exactly short of water – it’s just that water cannot be relied on always to be where it should.”[4]

The appropriate policy then should be one that does not remove water from natural systems beyond their capacity to provide. It is not the place of this essay to assess the quality or effectiveness of these policies, but rather their consistency.

A significant change since the 2006 election policy has been the Government’s plans to contract the building of a saltwater desalination plant to augment Melbourne’s water supplies. Another addition has been the continuing construction of the North-South pipeline linking the Goulburn River with Melbourne. But while opposition is still vocal against each, they also seem to have attracted the most favour.

Yet they are not the only schemes to have been championed and ridiculed in the debate. Suggestions and plan have been put forward for consideration of piping water across Bass Strait from northern Tasmania, and for damming the Mitchell River in the Gippsland region. Yet, as The Age report says, “the policies and philosophies that determine Australia’s water supplies are so complex, varied and competitive, they defy any sense of cogency or purpose.”[5]

The Victorian government sees desalination as the most secure method of guaranteeing Melbourne’s water needs in the coming decades. It is a technological solution that also brings employment opportunities. Additionally, it is an approach consistent with legislation which rules against any new dams being constructed.

However, one of the biggest concerns against the proposed Wonthaggi desalination plant is the amount of electricity required to power the process. It is estimated to require 90 megawatts of power to desalinate the proposed capacity of 150 billion litres of water. The government fact sheet on the project suggests that this power use is the equivalent of connected households operating a 4-star rated fridge per household per day.[6]

The problems with this provide a snapshot into the issue of energy. The VLP has promised to power the plant using renewable energy (which in reality would most likely mean purchasing the equivalent amount of power on the grid elsewhere in Australia), however, even supplying the plant with coal-fired electricity is problematic, with suggestion it may even require its own power plant.

Labor’s 2006 election policy approach to energy follows very similar principles to their water policy. It stresses efficiency and reduction in use through rebates and funding for better appliances and insulation, as well as continued concessions for those on low incomes. These principles were promised to be applied to government operations with 25% green power use, and a 20% drop below 2000 usage levels by 2010.[7]

But unlike water, for energy generation to be sustainable the most pressing concern is not its end use or supply, so much as the manner in which it is generated. Election promises of approximately $87 million related to investment in ‘clean coal’ infrastructure and regulation for the Latrobe Valley industry, compared with a $50 million investment in a proposed solar plant. Furthermore there was a commitment to targets of 10% renewable energy by 2016, and 20% renewable and low emissions power generation by 2020.[8]

While this suggests a commitment to achieving the diversification that is associated with sustainable systems, it is arguable that the targets are set too low to be meaningful. Additionally, the policy puts forward the merits of a solar power station for northwest Victoria as having greenhouse gas emission savings equivalent to “removing 90,000 cars from our roads.”[9] This is perhaps a little misleading, as while this assertion may be correct it is difficult to ascertain whether this results in overall fewer greenhouse emissions in Victoria. For example, Drive reports that new car sales exceeded one million in Australia in 2007 and are expected to again in 2008.[10] Figures like this, in conjunction with the Melbourne’s population forecasted to reach 5 million by 2030 suggest demands for increased energy production may outpace the development of renewable sources, and the ability for emission reduction.

Perhaps appropriately, when considering that 89% of Australia’s brown coal reserves is in the Latrobe Valley,[11] both the Victorian government and the Federal government are putting their faith in ‘clean coal’ technology. Brumby in April this year announced $127 million of funding into demonstration projects for carbon capture. It is questionable whether this can eventually provide a zero emission solution when cleaner burning processes are combined with capture and storage measures. It does fit with our definitions of sustainability however, in that it seeks to maintain our present needs and aspirations in such a way that attempts to minimize harm to natural systems. Whether it can deliver on this, and whether the outcome of Australia’s ‘clean coal’ experiments will have any bearing on global warming both remain unknown quantities.

The Victorian government has developed a considered and balanced approach to the question of sustainability in its water and energy policies. There are many dissenting voices who criticize their approach. Yet each area has a diverse range of policies aimed at reducing consumption, more efficient production and better distribution. It must be remembered that in the context of this essay ‘sustainability’ is not synonymous with ‘environmentalism’. To many, however, it is. Which is why many see investment in ‘clean coal’ technology as an insignificant step in tackling global warming. But with the largest proportion of the worlds electricity being generated from coal, finding a meaningful, cleaner process of burning coal is perhaps a more significant contribution to reducing global emissions than expecting both the developed world and the developing world to convert to renewables en masse.

References:

ABS, ‘Profiles of major minerals, oil and gas’, Year Book Australia 2007, Available: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/97D983DC8C663895CA25723600027F57?opendocument, Accessed: 30/10/08.

The Age, Insight, ‘Water, water everywhere – but going nowhere’, 23 Oct. 2008, p. 6.

Goldie, J., Douglas, B., Furnass, B., ‘An urgent need to change direction’, in In Search of Sustainability, eds. J. Goldie, B. Douglas, B. Furnass, Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing, 2005, p. 3.

Our Water Our Future: Victorian Desalination  Project Fact Sheet, Available: http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/474/Fast-Facts—Merged-September-2008.pdf, Accessed: 29/10/08.

Spinks, J., Drive, ‘It’s official: new-car sales break 1 million barrier’, 7 Jan. 2008, Available: http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=47114.

Victoria’s Energy Challenge, Available: http://www.alpvictoria.com.au/Policies-and-Platforms/Policies/Climate-Change/Victorias-Energy-Challenge.html, Accessed: 30/10/08.

Water: Making Every Drop Count’ from ALP Victoria, Available: http://www.alpvictoria.com.au/Policies-and-Platforms/Policies/Climate-Change/Water-Making-Every-Drop-Count.html, Accessed: 29/10/08.

---

[1] J. Goldie, B. Douglas, B. Furnass, ‘An urgent need to change direction’, in In Search of Sustainability, eds. J. Goldie, B. Douglas, B. Furnass, Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing, 2005, p. 3.

[2] Brundtland report, quoted in Goldie et al. p. 2.

[3] ‘Water: Making Every Drop Count’ from ALP Victoria, Available: http://www.alpvictoria.com.au/Policies-and-Platforms/Policies/Climate-Change/Water-Making-Every-Drop-Count.html, Accessed: 29/10/08.

[4] The Age, Insight, ‘Water, water everywhere – but going nowhere’, 23 Oct. 2008, p. 6.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Our Water Our Future: Victorian Desalination  Project Fact Sheet, Available: http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/474/Fast-Facts—Merged-September-2008.pdf, Accessed: 29/10/08.

[7] Victoria’s Energy Challenge, Available: http://www.alpvictoria.com.au/Policies-and-Platforms/Policies/Climate-Change/Victorias-Energy-Challenge.html, Accessed: 30/10/08.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Jez Spinks, Drive, ‘It’s official: new-car sales break 1 million barrier’, 7 Jan. 2008, Available: http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=47114.

[11]ABS, ‘Profiles of major minerals, oil and gas’, Year Book Australia 2007, Available: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/97D983DC8C663895CA25723600027F57?opendocument, Accessed: 30/10/08.

An Essay on “Thinking globally and acting locally”

“Thinking globally and acting locally” is an often used phrase concerning sustainability. Can local action ever really address global threats and trends?

Sustainability is a global issue. Within the current narrative of economic development; sustainability of the economy, of the environment, of society and of culture itself will mean perhaps the dramatic reshaping of the global economy. This is confronting for many current political leaders who seem to see especially the environment and the economy as at odds with one another. They are correct. The current global economic paradigm is one fundamentally based upon the exploitation of resources and people. Within this context the question is raised as to whether local action can ever really address global threats and trends to remedy and halt the considerable detriment caused to the environment. Whatever the answer may be, another question is raised as to whether there is even an alternative to local action while a distinctive lack of domestic political will for change continues to be observable; a pattern of “thinking globally and doing nothing locally.”

Transportation is one of the key issues where enormous reform of expectations and use are needed. The burning of fuels derived from oil is one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions that are affecting the stability of the earth’s climate. This essay seeks to examine the question of local action against the role of transport: it’s trends, it’s threats, and it’s opportunities. To do this it is necessary to explore and understand just what constitutes ‘local’ and ‘local action’, and what relevance this has to ‘thinking globally’. This essay both argues and assumes that car use is an instigator and perpetuator of social, economic, and environmental problems; and is by no means a benign convenience, nor mark of civilization or achievement. However the current paradigm which exists must be acknowledged, and an interpretation of cases where urban form and transportation modes have been successfully re-thought must follow, to discover whether these localized initiatives can achieve global significance.

Finally, to be considered is the reality that individual action in addressing the issue of transportation is both economically and socially restrictive; how then do we deal with the personal discouragement and self-denial which seems to be the prerequisite for social and environmental altruism?

In understanding and realising the potential of local action it is necessary to arrive at some sort of definition for the term. There are many relative and qualitative interpretations of what local action could mean when discussing the sustainability of transport, particularly private transport. In some ways, local action here is the same thing as individual action, especially in Australia with our high reliance and aspiration to individual transportation in the form of the car. It is considered a ‘rite of passage’. To take action in reducing the number of motor vehicle trips generally requires the commitment of the individual to find alternatives. But however much the individual is motivated by political, economic, or environmental concerns, and however essential this is for assisting change,  it does not quite arrive at what should really be considered local action.

Of course, if we take the definition that describes local as being a part of a whole, then the scope is considerably widened as to what local action might involve. It begins to encompass nations and governments operating within their wider region. But while this may be local in a global sense, and the role and importance of governments in providing policy and legislation is unquestionable, and while they certainly have their own mandate in the push towards transport sustainability, many feel disempowered and uninvolved by the lack of progressive will and inability to move away from the status-quo.

It is this un-involvement which leads us to a meaningful perspective on local, for what remains is the inherently human need to identify themselves with others and the physical world. There is no need here to engage in any form of analyses over why humans are socially and personally dependent upon others and their environs, but suffice to say that this essay recognises it to be so. True local action involves communities working together to achieve change in their city and its environs through combination of local government and committees, collectives of individuals, and interest groups representing business.

To affect individual choice and to change car use habits which are practically considered rights requires progressive policy that is accepting of the uncomfortable truth that;

private automobiles create manifold problems: their cost and fuel needs drain wealth from a community; they are the major source of urban pollution; commuting is time consuming and often exasperating; and much urban space is devoted to cars, harming the ecology, economy, and social life of cities. (Roelofs 1996: 14)

Policy within a national framework which engages with and has adaptability for local communities is required. It is unfortunate that many of the examples to follow of local private and public transport initiatives which have had favourable environmental, social, and economic outcomes have not made their way upwards as models into national policy making.

Cars have almost redefined the effective meaning of local for individuals, bestowing the opportunity to travel increased distances at the utmost of personal convenience, and yet it remains that a high proportion of recorded car journeys are over short distances. Observing the British statistics examined by Mayer Hillman (1990: 68) it shows that of journeys under 1.6km in 1985-1986, 51% were made by car, outweighing walking as the next most common mode by 17%. These are incredibly local journeys, which poses the question as to whether the car is a means of acting locally, that does not think globally, or even of the local social consequences caused by “the growing dominance of the system of motorised mobility and its effects; ever-increasing speed, distance and dispersal alongside the erosion of ‘local community’, conviviality and ‘nature’.” (Horton 2006)

Roseland, using the research of Elsworth  and Tunali (1995 and 1996 respectively) which estimates the number of new cars per year at between 38 and 50 million, states that “our obsession with the automobile is clearly unsustainable” (Roseland 1998: 107). Writing in 1969, the economist E.F. Schumacher with reference to the county of Los Angeles describes the “monstrous inefficiency of needing nearly 4 million cars for 7 million people.” He quotes an unnamed Californian professor saying that “this does not indicate a high standard of living, but the terrible cost of transportation” (Schumacher 1998: 91).

Dave Horton (2006) makes use of the work of Carley and Spapens in concluding that “growing car ownership and use has accelerated the stretched-out and sprawling character of different parts of daily life”. He follows this by asserting that “Urban sprawl contributes to, among other things, increased air pollution, traffic congestion, ‘wasted’ time, obesity, falling public involvement, declining social interaction and deteriorating quality of life” (Horton 2006). These negative externalities and costs which Horton describes are not borne by the individual motorist when they purchase their cars, fuel, and parking. Doubtless if they were, despite their almost incalculable nature, the costs of these externalities would make individual automobile ownership incredibly prohibitive.

Their currently exists no equivalent environmentally and socially benign alternative to the sort of individual transportation that the automobile provides. Change to a completely green fuel source is both prohibited by the strength of the oil industry, and is seemingly pointless, as it will do nothing to exacerbate the traffic congestion of our cities. Herein lies one of the biggest barriers in the reformation of the global transport trend, and that is the accurate and objective recognition of the problems. The Progress in Planning (Mazza, L & Rydin, Y 1997: 22) issue dealing with urban sustainability says of the city of Edinburgh; “traffic restraint does not seem to rank very high in the policy agenda, although the problem of congestion attracts a fair degree of public concern.” Roseland identifies that “all too often, transportation planning takes projected demand as a given and attempts to satisfy it rather than trying to reduce it” (Roseland 1998: 112).

There are many example of where local communities and cities have proactively worked towards addressing many of the above issues in a progressive manner. They have identified the vehicle which provides the greatest environmental, economic and social outcomes for individual urban transport;

Bicycles are ideal for use in highly congested urban centers and thus can play an important role in sustainable transportation strategies. They avoid air pollution and high levels of fuel consumption associated with low-vehicle operating speeds and short distance, cold start trips. (Roseland 1998: 113)

And also identified is the impediment – “cities must now stress reduction of single-occupancy vehicle trips as the only way to achieve improved air quality, reduce energy consumption contributing to atmospheric change, and relieve traffic congestion” (Roseland 1998: 111).

Freiburg in Germany is often identified as a model city when talking about the success of traffic-calming measures; measures designed to slow, divert and remove car traffic. It is clear here that transport issues and policy were not examined from the perspective simply of a deficit of road infrastructure. The measure of the “vitality and viability” of an urban centre is often seen in terms of the number of cars moving in and out, and so “urban policy for traffic gets directly to the economy-environment interrelation which the concept of sustainable development seeks to tackle” (Mazza, L & Rydin, Y 1997: 17), but the response often remains fixated on increasing parking and building ring-roads. Increase of capacity results in increased use, and many diversionary measures only serve to economically isolate some areas in favour of others.

Roseland (1998: 111) identifies that “the concept of  ‘sustainable transportation’ calls for a more holistic approach to community planning, policy, and investment” and shows how Freiburg has used this principle to keep car use constant between 1976 and 1991, whilst increasing public transport use by 53% and cycle trips by 96%. The success is attributed to “sharply restricting automobile use in the city; providing affordable, convenient and safe alternatives to auto use; and strictly regulating development to ensure a compact land-use pattern conducive to public transport, bicycling, and walking” (1998: 114).

The key concern is how to adapt these ideas to suit other cities already locked into automobile independence. How can other local communities make use of the success and experiences of a city like Freiburg in countering the global automobile fixation that both allows and leads to suburbanization and sprawl? Mees sees the need to avoid the “infrastructure and technology fetishism” which has an extraordinary hold on the public imagination, the popular press, and the community of transport experts (Mees 2000: 82). Perhaps the most effective form of public transport which can lead the move away from car dependence will be the bus. The “relatively low costs of entry to the industry mean that private sector funds can flow into bus provision. This contrasts with the high costs of fixed rail projects, which require public capital subsidies” (Mazza, L & Rydin, Y 1997: 29). What is needed in replacement of infrastructure solutions then, are strategies to improve pricing, routes, timetabling, flexibility and marketing of bus services. These strategies are then much more easily adopted as models for other cities than fixed infrastructure which is forced to adapt to the local unique physical characteristics of a city, and whose engineering complexity alienates from the planning process the main beneficiaries of public transport; the public.

How then do we counter this obsession with infrastructure and technology, and as individuals not become discouraged in participating with or creating local action to change the nature of urban transport to that which is more efficient, less polluting, quieter and healthier, and resulting in a reduction in congestion. How, as individuals do we overcome the reality that “those who do not drive become second-class citizens” and that the roads which cars demand “separate neighbours and prevent intermingling” (Roelofs 1996: 14). Roseland (1998: 109) in reporting on Donald Appleyard’s 1969 study on the relationship between low traffic streets and increased community, finds that “on the light-traffic street, residents were found to have three times as many local friends and twice as many acquaintances as those on the heavy-traffic street.” John Roberts advocates;

making people realise the absurdity of each driving themselves, to the threshold where the congestion they create not only brings them to a wholly uneconomic standstill, it adversely affects green mode users too (Roberts 1990: 40)

What this shows is that a reduction in private car use is not only beneficial to the environment and the functioning of a city, but that it also brings many positive social effects relating to community interaction and equity of access.

It is clear from this discussion of both the need to reduce private automobile dependence and of the social, ecological and even economic benefits that this could bring. When we consider the relationship between local action and global threats and trends, there is a tendency towards the assumption that the ‘global’ means elsewhere in the world. Yet it is known that “Australian cities are amongst the world’s heaviest consumers of transport energy” (Newman 2006: 128) with around 13 per cent of city wealth spent on transport, compared to cities with highly patronized public transport networks, such as Tokyo spending only 5 per cent on transport. Newman concludes that the “cities with the best public transport and least car dependence are working better economically” (Newman 2006: 128).

So from this there remains little ambiguity as to where a significant part of the global threat, and the clear leader of the global trend, is really coming from. Developed Western nations have set the standards for automobile abuse which have become an aspiration and goal for developing countries. Not to say that were ‘we’ to lead, that the world would necessarily follow, but there certainly seems to be an obligation to set the standard for greener transport. As we have seen, the advantages of doing so for individual communities are local and are claimed by that community, negating the need for fully self-sacrificing altruism.

And yet while this is fairly easy to comprehend, Roberts goes on to conclude of our inability to reduce automobile dependence; simply that “rationality does not seem to be wholly adequate as a cause for change” (1990: 45). While local authorities remain in control of their transport issues, with the absence of any clear progressive vision, it seems that it shall only be as each city reaches its own transport ‘critical mass’ that meaningful change will be realised.

References:

– Roelofs, Joan (1996) Greening Cities: Building Just and Sustainable Communities. New York: The Bootstrap Press.

– Hillman, Mayer (1990) Planning for the green modes: a critique of public policy and practice. In The Greening of Urban Transport, ed. Rodney Tolley. London: Belhaven Press.

– Horton, Dave (2006) Environmentalism and the bicycle. In Environmental Politics. 15(1): 41-58.           

– Roseland, Mark (1998) Towards Sustainable Communities. Canada: New Society Publishers.

– Schumacher, E.F. (1998) This I Believe. Devon: Resurgence.

– Mazza, L & Rydin, Y (1997) Urban Sustainability: Discourses, Networks and Policy Tools. In Progress in Planning, ed. D. Diamond & B. Massan. Exeter: Elsevier Science. 47(1)

– Mees (2000) A Very Public Solution, MUP, Chapter 3 (pp77-95)

– Roberts, John (1990) The Economic Case for Green Modes. In The Greening of Urban Transport, ed. Rodney Tolley. London: Belhaven Press.

– Newman, Peter (2006) Urban Design and Transport. In In Search of Sustainability, ed. J Goldie, B Douglas, B Furnass. Collingwood: CSIRO Publishing.