Flying III: Would You Fly If You Had More Options?

by Ben Carmichael May 22, 2008
Favorite

Tags

airplanes | chris calwell | flying | otto lilienthal | smart growth

In my last post about flying, I quoted Otto Lilienthal, the inventor whose enthusiasm for aviation carried him into both the skies and the grave, as saying, "To fly is everything."

Sitting on the tarmac of the Portland Jetport two weeks ago, it occurred to me that Lilenthal was right. And that's the problem.

Many of us who have come to devote our lives to protecting the environment have done so by the grace of places we came to see through air travel. I, for one, remember flying to Norway to go fishing -- a place of what seemed to me prehistoric natural beauty preserved through an age of change. The same is true for economists, and linguistics and journalists -- their service to our understanding of the world depends upon a costly exploration of it.

But there's also another sense in which Lilenthal was right. Americans' transportation choices have essentially been reduced to flying and driving. Both are not only energy intensive, but also made inconvenient by such issues as congestion, increased security concerns and a host of other issues. Again, I quote Chris Calwell, a former NRDC staffer, who in our email exchange suggested that "if we had a viable high-speed rail network between key cities, business travelers could be more productive and all of us would be emitting fewer greenhouse gases and using less energy."

What it comes down to is a simple need for more choices.

People aren't going to stop moving. And we're not going to develop new, low-carbon fuels for airplanes anytime soon. The mere delivery of Boeing's 787 Dreamliner -- the first all-new airplane Boeing has produced since 1995 -- has been delayed three times since October. All this points to a larger barrier to progress: change comes slowly to the airline industry. With significant reductions needed by 2050, waiting for the airline industry to deliver significant reductions in time would be to bet against our better knowledge of the industry's own past.

Wouldn't it be wiser to use the technology we currently have to design a more attractive rail network?

Wouldn't it be wiser to set fuel efficiency standards and incentives that encouraged the development of cleaner cars?

And wouldn't it be wiser to design cities and neighborhoods that don't require us to drive nearly as much as we currently do?

Europe has done it. So have parts of Asia. It really doesn't seem like that much to ask.

(This post is the third in a series on the relationship between flight and the environment. Click here and here for the first two.)

Email
Share
- del.icio.us
- digg
- newsvine
- facebook
- stumbleupon
Print

Comments

john wrote on May 27, 2008, 11:58PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

I couldn't agree more that rail networks could provide a tremendously valuable component to a more efficient transportation model for America. Unfortunately the challenge lies not only in developing the networks - a huge challenge in itself - but also in reorganizing the way in which Americans live. Europeans live in much more densely populated areas - not only the cities, but even the 'rural' locations have access to the trains. Another major component to the European model is the bus system which is largely overlooked in discussions in the US.

After saying all that, living in Europe myself, I can say cars are quite popular and trains are expensive. It will be interesting to watch what happens with changing fuel prices.
Ben Carmichael wrote on May 28, 2008, 09:46AM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

Hi John,

I think you're absolutely right to argue that the barrier to progress is not simply building the network -- a huge challenge in and of itself -- but in reorganizing the way in which Americans live. We need new zoning laws that not only permit, but encourage mixed-use communities. One of the best answers to global warming is a well designed city -- one that attracts rather than repels families.

This conversation reminds me of an article published by Paul Krugman in the International Herald Tribune a week go in which he claims to have seen the future in Berlin. He wrote:

"Europeans who have achieved a high standard of living in spite of very high energy prices - gas in Germany costs more than $8 a gallon - have a lot to teach us Americans about how to deal with that world.

"If Europe's example is any guide, here are the two secrets of coping with expensive oil: Own fuel-efficient cars, and don't drive them too much."

It's not simply a matter of automotive innovation, as you say, John, but of changing the geography of our neighborhoods. There have been stories recently about public officials being excited over a 5 to 10 per cent increase in ridership on public transportation following the increase in fuel prices. But only about 5 per cent of Americans take public transit to work. We need that number to be much, much larger. And in order to make it larger, we need neighborhoods that are accessible. That contains green spaces. That provide amenities like grocery stores, churches and offices. It's about houses, yes, but also about homes.

In the short term, we need to stop sprawl. NRDC's Smart Growth program says, "Sprawling land development is gobbling up the American countryside at an alarming rate of about 365 acres per hour." Figures like this make you realize how far America is from coming to terms with the problem, let alone the solution.

Best,
Ben
john wrote on May 28, 2008, 07:36PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

True indeed.

I've been witness to one of the most horrific cases of sprawl here in the central valley of California. There is a long history to the development of the UC Merced campus, and the selection of the town. More history than I can provide here.

What has been so discouraging for me has been the lack of leadership on behalf of the University. In 2000 (or thereabouts) the UC had several communities begging the new campus to be built in their town. And yet, at that time (when certainly the UC could have imposed some pressure) the UC did nothing to demand improved zoning models be put in place prior to the construction of the campus. The result? Prospectors built in Merced thousands of new homes in a manner that provided absolutely zero 'smart growth'; providing incredibly limited open space, no multi-use zoning, only 'token' bike paths, increased traffic congestion, etc.

Now, not surprisingly, Merced is the fourth in the nation for home foreclosures (at one point I recall it was #1). See:
http://www.foreclosurewarehouse.com/blog/merced-county-foreclosure-stati...

It is a subject which I wish I were in a position to write further about. I would be interested in seeing it looked at as a 'case study'. What I find most discouraging is how 'green' the campus claims to be and the fact that they have received GOLD and PLATINUM LEED (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEED) certification. If anyone has driven by the campus at night, I guess they would be scratching their heads as well. Let's just say, as Motel 6 would, "They'll leave the lights on for you".

I should add, in defense of the campus and folks who are involved with the process. A lot of work is done, and much progress is made, toward designing a more 'green' community around the campus. The challenges faced in moving toward environmentally conscientious construction projects are truly highlighted in an environment as politically charged as constructing the first major research university of this century. People have preconceptions of what a campus needs to be or where and how they should be able to park, etc. Trees, paved or unpaved parking lots, green grassy malls, these are all battles fought painstakingly and that's WITHIN the campus. This says nothing for what challenges would be faced if one were to go head to head with the developers who essentially raped Merced for the opportunity of a quick buck.

-john