[This is the second piece in a multi-part series examining the city through the lens of the Green Metropolis, by David Owen]
Should Manhattan move to us?
When offered the magic wand which to transform Vancouver, David declined. ‘Sweeping changes always leads to unintended consequences’, he says. Omniscient decision-making led our cities to where we are today; GM’s 1933 Futurama city-building model based on the mobility of the automobile has made our communities unwalkable and heavily reliant on lifestyle-subsidizing oil. Instead, incremental shifts in the urban environment can start to move our urban patterns to something approximating the densities of Manhattan.
Change, he suggests, happens most effectively because of economic hard times, inconvenience, or high costs. A big reduction in aggregate greenhouse gas emissions of the United States have occurred as a result of the 2008 recession. Public transit ridership was at an all-time high (a hefty 5.5% on average) when oil peaked at 4$US/gallon [1.05$US/litre]. New Yorkers drive less because it is more convenient to walk.
It is at this point that the book becomes still more compelling. A frequently cited solution for climate change is the development of increasingly efficient technologies and renewable energy sources. The Green Metropolis directs our attention to the Jevons Paradox to spoil this dream.
The Jevons Paradox was articulated in the late 19th century to explain why increasingly efficient steam engines were leading to more and more coal consumption. This is because energy efficiencies are rarely translated into reduced resource consumption. Rather, they are used to extract more performance from the same unit of energy.
For example: webpages are not significantly faster today because of increasing bandwidth, they are more content-rich. The more efficient engines of the Toyota Land Cruiser of today does not use significantly less fuel than it used to; it now has a DVD player, more horsepower and a huge towing capacity. The driver still only represents 2% of the vehicle’s total load. 98% of its power is still being used to transport the vehicle itself (albeit now containing personal media screens, a champagne bar and ultra-lux heated seats).
The other frequently cited solution to climate change debunked by the Green Metropolis are ‘market forces’. As oil increases in cost, driving will decrease and the suburbs will be abandoned due to decreasing land values. ‘Market forces also include famine and civil unrest’, Mr. Owen reminds me. Personally, I am in favour of hybrid density over famine.
The book notes that driving a market-reactive, efficient car the same distance simply prolongs the moment until we have to start boiling dirt for oil (actually we already are). Market-driven efficient technologies will not have a long-term effect on our collective carbon outputs, but efficient cities can.
By this point the world is looking pretty grim.
I explain this feeling to David, and he points to Australian thinker Saul Griffin: ‘We need heroin and prostitutes: high cost, low-climate impact entertainment,‘ he paraphrases. We need something that can occupy the day without necessitating a lot of extra energy inputs. We have to stop hustling. We have to stop collectively growing in size and desire.
Although not directly articulated, both the book and our conversation danced obliquely around this idea of no-growth; Manhattan is a dense, expensive, efficient place to dwell because it cannot grow anywhere but up.
[Look for The Extension of the Good Life, part three of this series]