If Californians – and Americans - are going to cut greenhouse gasemissions, they’re going to have to drive less. But is wonking onpolicy really the best way to make this happen? Or do we have to createa compelling alternate vision for the next generation’s lifestyle – akind of Carbon-Free Futurama?Blogs and news sources – including this one– have been intensely focused on policy, especially since the passageof AB 32 in California in 2006. How should the law be implemented? Whatwill motivate individuals and businesses to reduce vehicle milestraveled? What is the role of state and regional governments? Howshould private activity be taxed or regulated?But policy may betoo slow and too reactive. At least that seemed to be the consensus atthe informal, once-every-now-and-then, and extremely wonky gathering ofNeal Peirce’s Citistates Group,currently going on at a mountain resort near the Pennsylvania,Maryland, and West Virginia border. {The event is being held at The Summit Innnear Uniontown, Pennsylvania – giving the participants a first-handview of early American infrastructure, as the inn is located at thelast summit on the 19th Century “National Pike” that connected the Potomac and Ohio rivers.}Perhapsthe most compelling argument against policy was presented by a leadingtransportation policy wonk, Sam Seskin of Portland. Portland is thesubject of a lot of attention because it is the only U.S. metropolitanarea where VMT has actually gone down. It’s down 10% in the last 20years. But Seskin said that half of the decline is the result ofincreased gas prices in the last two years – so all the aggressivepolicy and regulation in Portland has accounted for only a 5% decreasein VMT in the last 20 years.Clearly, that’s not enough. Or maybea better way to say it is that it’s not nearly enough considering theamount of political capital and policy wonkiness expended in theprocess. So how else do we go after this? By presenting apositive alternative lifestyle that focuses on “high efficiency and lowimpact,” at least according to all-purpose policy wonk Marc Weiss andeconomist Doug Henton. How can people get a lot done – and also enjoylife – while consuming fewer resources in the process? As Weiss, who’spromoting the idea of “climate prosperity,” put it, people need tobelieve that “you can get richer by being greener” and “you can getmore by using less”.The most compelling vision of the suburban age – a vision that comes again and again at meetings like this one – is Futurama,the car-oriented vision of 1960, put forth by General Motors, that wasthe biggest hit at the 1939 World’s Fair in New York. As Weiss noted,Futurama gave people a vision of the future that they wanted. That’sa big contrast to the typical wonky discussion of planning policy,which has a kind of “eat your peas” undertone: Driving a sports carmight be fun, but you’re destroying the world and you should reallytake the bus instead.So what’s the Carbon-Free Futurama? Can youreally create a compelling alternative vision for the future that’sabout walking and bicycling and golf cart type vehicles and so forth? Maybeit’s hard for my generation to imagine – and the Citistates Groupconsists of a lot of old fogies like me. But for the emerginggeneration – which really does believe that their world will bedestroyed unless we go carbon-free – maybe the ideal looks different. I’ve asked my 17-year-old daughter about this, and I’ll get back to you on it.
www.cp-dr.com/node/2079