Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability
Hi Dawie ... the nature of walkability is not yet adequately understood... I'd appreciate it if you'd expound a bit on the nature of walkability, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one. Previous refs here: Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability Dawie Coetzee Sun, 12 Jun 2011 http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg76045.html Re: [Biofuel] NEWS - Clean transportation alternative 2011/04/20 Dawie Coetzee http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg75873.html Re: [Biofuel] NEWS - Clean transportation alternative 2011/04/22 Dawie Coetzee http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg75885.html Also this: [biofuel] The Green Bandwagon 2004/08/11 Keith Addison http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg37245.html All best Keith I also wonder what exactly is meant by emissions increasing, and how it was measured. However, being no great fan of EVs and having a positive abhorrence of robotic and abstruse hybrids, I am more concerned that statistics that do not surprise me in the least are indeed genuine. I should, for instance, like to have some supporting statistics on Swedish roads development, on Swedish vehicle-buying patterns, on Swedish vehicle use patterns. For I am convinced that the tendency to opaqueness and passivity in automotive technology is a primary factor that drives vehicle-dependence. Perhaps not immediately related, but I have feared a suburban backlash in the urban design profession for some time. The primary motivation would be a dialectical sense of fashion, i.e. everyone has been advocating walkable cities forever; let's be really radical and propose Los Angeles c. 1958 - and there the idea that electric vehicles make everything OK might be an enabling factor. That would be a tragedy, as the nature of walkability is not yet adequately understood; but it sits all too well with the aesthetic approach to urban design according to which the unwalkable city is undesirable not from any consideration of practical ecology but because it is quintessentially American and, as everyone knows, Americans have atrocious taste ... Best regards Dawie Coetzee From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sun, 12 June, 2011 15:20:42 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability Something is rotten in the state of Sweden. Or not. But I do smell a dead rat in here somewhere. We have studies from the U.S. that switching from petro-fuel to electricity for transportation reduces emissions, including greenhouse gases, even when the electricity comes entirely from coal-fired plants. However, in Sweden, the primary energy sources are hydro and nuclear (over 90% of the generation from those two sources). Fossil sources produce considerably less than 10% of the electricity mix. (This document is a bit dated, but presents the information nicely in a graph on page 2. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_se_en.pdf) So, Sweden is switching from conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles to electric and plug-in hybrids, charging from a grid that is over 90% supplied from essentially zero-GHG sources, but the emissions are going up? And, the actual market penetration is still trivially small - I'm guessing well below 1% of the total road-going fleet in the country. Doesn't pass the smell test. Unfortunately, the article doesn't bother to cite the evidence used to support it's conclusion. My suspicion: the Swedish 'transportation sector' includes something other than private cars that might be driving the numbers up (e.g., ships burning bunker C crude). Actually, after a very limited Web search, I could not find anything credible that looked like the 'evidence' for the article - just lots of copy-cat items that also did not provide citations for the desired data. I did find this, dated January 2011: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/change-in-total-ghg-emissions, which shows Sweden's transportation GHG emissions going up 9% from 1990 to 2008. The catch is that Sweden did not get serious about EV incentives until about 2008-2009, a time period not covered by the data for this report. Here's someone else's response (found while searching for the 'evidence'). http://dagblog.com/link/what-if-green-products-make-us-pollute-more-10581 (check the comments by quinn) Darryl On 11/06/2011 1:10 PM, Keith Addison wrote: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/10-3 Published on Friday, June 10, 2011 by CommonDreams.org The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability by Firmin DeBrabander What if electric cars made pollution worse, not better? What if they increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of decreasing them? Preposterous you say? Well, consider what's happened
Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability
Hi Darryl, thanks. First, belated congratulations for the runner-up award for The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy: Personal news item: My book, The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy, won Runner-up in the international Green Book Festival Awards non-fiction category, beating out entries by David Suzuki and Ron and Lisa Beres. I'd hoped to update the review at JtF by now, but I'll do it soon, it's top of the list. Here's someone else's response (found while searching for the 'evidence'). http://dagblog.com/link/what-if-green-products-make-us-pollute-more-10581 (check the comments by quinn) Yes, fire him. I think that's worth posting in full: http://dagblog.com/link/what-if-green-products-make-us-pollute-more-10581 Bunk. The right-wing think tanks have won another round, by bellyaching about pseudo-intellectual concepts like the Jevons effect widely enough that it catches on even in articles like this one. I mean, it's a clever idea, as long as you don't think about it too long. At which point, it starts to sound absurd, even laughable. If something gets cheaper, I'm going to spend ALL my savings on getting more of that thing?? SOME, yes. But it just gets on its face absurd - as well as becoming entirely free from that nasty evidence thing - when it's pushed to claim I'm gonna claw back most or all of the savings. by quinn esq 6/5/2011 - 3:05 pm reply As for the rest of the article, it's impressive just how full of shit it is. It reads like an academic's plea to fire me. 1st off, Sweden has apparently seen rising transportation emissions, even after all its good car stuff. Well, except that the latest figures I've seen show no such thing. Here's the latest - December 2010 - annual report by Sweden to the UN under Kyoto. Which, near as I can read it, (WArning, 2 MB PDF file) shows (page 61) that passenger car emissions are down since 1990, while FREIGHT transport is up. Which - sorry - does not show that passenger vehicles becoming greener means people are flooding to the suburbs or whatever. If they rose a couple of % from 2009 to 2010, sorry but I'd suspect that's the recession and recovery, not some grand Devonsian shift. Also, here's the announcement, entitled, Record Reduction in Swedish Emissions from Dec/2010. You can read about the disastrous situation that Sweden's intensive pursuit of greening has gotten them into, in the following paragraph, Swedish greenhouse gas emissions are declining substantially. In 2009, emissions fell by over 3.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, the largest reduction in any single year to date* . This means that Sweden's total emissions have now dropped by a total of around 17% since 1990, and levels have never been lower. You know, they only emit 5.6 tonnes per person now (abut a quarter of the US and Canada.) And their total emissions are down 17% since 1990, even though the population has grown by 11%. Not bad. by quinn esq 6/5/2011 - 3:24 pm reply I think I'll keep going on this one, as it really does deserve a proper burial. Buddy says, Based on Sweden's experience with green cars, it's daunting to imagine their possible impact here. Who can doubt that they'll likely inspire Americans to make longer commutes to work and live even further out in the exurbs - bringing development, blacktop and increased emissions with them? Now, let's stop and think about this. 1st, electric cars DO create technical pressures, but more likely to live within their limitations. The biggest of which is... their shorter range. Not longer, shorter. 2nd electric cars will clean up the tailpipe emissions issue as well as reduce a huge amount of urban noise. Which will make urban areas MORE liveable, not less. etc. by quinn esq 6/5/2011 - 3:24 pm reply After mangling the Swedish experience - and providing absolutely NO links or sources or figures - buddy goes after the Chinese. Ooh, always good, the Chiiineeese. Here: American industry hungrily targets the rising Chinese consumer class. For the sake of the planet, we better hope it doesn't get its way. Consider: China's car ownership rate is about one-sixth that of the U.S. If China achieves rates comparable to the U.S., that would put an additional 800 million cars on the road. And that's just China. Even if we somehow succeeded in making China's fleet super-efficient, it would still be more than the planet can handle Of course, the Chinese will also want more electronics, clothes, meat, processed foods, bigger houses. In short, we can bet that the rising Chinese middle class will want something close to what we have. And why shouldn't they?... Everyone is betting, hoping (assuming?) that technology will eventually help us deliver the American dream worldwide with no environmental impact. But we may run out of planet by the time that day comes So. Technology can't save us. A fabulous phrase.
Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability
Something is rotten in the state of Sweden. Or not. But I do smell a dead rat in here somewhere. We have studies from the U.S. that switching from petro-fuel to electricity for transportation reduces emissions, including greenhouse gases, even when the electricity comes entirely from coal-fired plants. However, in Sweden, the primary energy sources are hydro and nuclear (over 90% of the generation from those two sources). Fossil sources produce considerably less than 10% of the electricity mix. (This document is a bit dated, but presents the information nicely in a graph on page 2. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_se_en.pdf) So, Sweden is switching from conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles to electric and plug-in hybrids, charging from a grid that is over 90% supplied from essentially zero-GHG sources, but the emissions are going up? And, the actual market penetration is still trivially small - I'm guessing well below 1% of the total road-going fleet in the country. Doesn't pass the smell test. Unfortunately, the article doesn't bother to cite the evidence used to support it's conclusion. My suspicion: the Swedish 'transportation sector' includes something other than private cars that might be driving the numbers up (e.g., ships burning bunker C crude). Actually, after a very limited Web search, I could not find anything credible that looked like the 'evidence' for the article - just lots of copy-cat items that also did not provide citations for the desired data. I did find this, dated January 2011: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/change-in-total-ghg-emissions, which shows Sweden's transportation GHG emissions going up 9% from 1990 to 2008. The catch is that Sweden did not get serious about EV incentives until about 2008-2009, a time period not covered by the data for this report. Here's someone else's response (found while searching for the 'evidence'). http://dagblog.com/link/what-if-green-products-make-us-pollute-more-10581 (check the comments by quinn) Darryl On 11/06/2011 1:10 PM, Keith Addison wrote: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/10-3 Published on Friday, June 10, 2011 by CommonDreams.org The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability by Firmin DeBrabander What if electric cars made pollution worse, not better? What if they increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of decreasing them? Preposterous you say? Well, consider what's happened in Sweden. Through generous subsidies, Sweden aggressively pushed its citizens to trade in their cars for energy efficient replacements (hybrids, clean diesel vehicles, cars that run on ethanol). Sweden has been so successful in this initiative that it leads the world in per capita sales of 'green cars.' To everyone's surprise, however, greenhouse gas emissions from Sweden's transportation sector are up. Or perhaps we should not be so surprised after all. What do you expect when you put people in cars they feel good about driving (or at least less guilty), which are also cheap to buy and run? Naturally, they drive them more. So much more, in fact, that they obliterate energy gains made by increased fuel efficiency. We need to pay attention to this as GM and Nissan roll out their new green cars to great fanfare. The Chevy Volt, a hybrid with a lithium-ion battery, can go 35 miles on electric power alone (after charging over night, for example), and GM brags on its website that if you limit your daily driving to that distance, you can commute gas-free for an average of $1.50 a day. The Volt's price is listed at a very reasonable $33K (if you qualify for the maximum $7500 in tax credits). The fully electric Nissan Leaf is advertized for an even more reasonable $26K (with qualifying tax credits, naturally). What a deal-and it's good for you, too, the carmakers want you to know. As GM helpfully points out on its website, Electricity is a cleaner source of power. Sweden is a model of sustainability innovation, while the US is the most voracious consumer on the planet. Based on Sweden's experience with green cars, it's daunting to imagine their possible impact here. Who can doubt that they'll likely inspire Americans to make longer commutes to work, live even further out in the exurbs, bringing development, blacktop and increased emissions with them? In its current state, the green revolution is largely devoted to the effort to provide consumers with the products they have always loved, but now in affordable energy efficient versions. The thinking seems to be that through this gradual exchange, we can reduce our collective carbon footprint. Clearly, however, this approach is doomed if we don't reform our absurd consumption habits, which are so out-of-whack that they risk undoing any environmental gains we might make. Indeed, we are such ardent, addicted consumers that we take efficiency gains
Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability
I also wonder what exactly is meant by emissions increasing, and how it was measured. However, being no great fan of EVs and having a positive abhorrence of robotic and abstruse hybrids, I am more concerned that statistics that do not surprise me in the least are indeed genuine. I should, for instance, like to have some supporting statistics on Swedish roads development, on Swedish vehicle-buying patterns, on Swedish vehicle use patterns. For I am convinced that the tendency to opaqueness and passivity in automotive technology is a primary factor that drives vehicle-dependence. Perhaps not immediately related, but I have feared a suburban backlash in the urban design profession for some time. The primary motivation would be a dialectical sense of fashion, i.e. everyone has been advocating walkable cities forever; let's be really radical and propose Los Angeles c. 1958 - and there the idea that electric vehicles make everything OK might be an enabling factor. That would be a tragedy, as the nature of walkability is not yet adequately understood; but it sits all too well with the aesthetic approach to urban design according to which the unwalkable city is undesirable not from any consideration of practical ecology but because it is quintessentially American and, as everyone knows, Americans have atrocious taste ... Best regards Dawie Coetzee From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sun, 12 June, 2011 15:20:42 Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability Something is rotten in the state of Sweden. Or not. But I do smell a dead rat in here somewhere. We have studies from the U.S. that switching from petro-fuel to electricity for transportation reduces emissions, including greenhouse gases, even when the electricity comes entirely from coal-fired plants. However, in Sweden, the primary energy sources are hydro and nuclear (over 90% of the generation from those two sources). Fossil sources produce considerably less than 10% of the electricity mix. (This document is a bit dated, but presents the information nicely in a graph on page 2. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_se_en.pdf) So, Sweden is switching from conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles to electric and plug-in hybrids, charging from a grid that is over 90% supplied from essentially zero-GHG sources, but the emissions are going up? And, the actual market penetration is still trivially small - I'm guessing well below 1% of the total road-going fleet in the country. Doesn't pass the smell test. Unfortunately, the article doesn't bother to cite the evidence used to support it's conclusion. My suspicion: the Swedish 'transportation sector' includes something other than private cars that might be driving the numbers up (e.g., ships burning bunker C crude). Actually, after a very limited Web search, I could not find anything credible that looked like the 'evidence' for the article - just lots of copy-cat items that also did not provide citations for the desired data. I did find this, dated January 2011: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/change-in-total-ghg-emissions, which shows Sweden's transportation GHG emissions going up 9% from 1990 to 2008. The catch is that Sweden did not get serious about EV incentives until about 2008-2009, a time period not covered by the data for this report. Here's someone else's response (found while searching for the 'evidence'). http://dagblog.com/link/what-if-green-products-make-us-pollute-more-10581 (check the comments by quinn) Darryl On 11/06/2011 1:10 PM, Keith Addison wrote: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/10-3 Published on Friday, June 10, 2011 by CommonDreams.org The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability by Firmin DeBrabander What if electric cars made pollution worse, not better? What if they increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of decreasing them? Preposterous you say? Well, consider what's happened in Sweden. Through generous subsidies, Sweden aggressively pushed its citizens to trade in their cars for energy efficient replacements (hybrids, clean diesel vehicles, cars that run on ethanol). Sweden has been so successful in this initiative that it leads the world in per capita sales of 'green cars.' To everyone's surprise, however, greenhouse gas emissions from Sweden's transportation sector are up. Or perhaps we should not be so surprised after all. What do you expect when you put people in cars they feel good about driving (or at least less guilty), which are also cheap to buy and run? Naturally, they drive them more. So much more, in fact, that they obliterate energy gains made by increased fuel efficiency. We need to pay attention to this as GM and Nissan roll out their new green cars to great
Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability
Hello all, sincerely Swedish I have never heard of this article. Neither have I heard any of the conclusions in the article. The truth is that people driving flexible fuel cars fill with gasoline if the gasoline is cheaper than the E85 (15% gasoline, 85% ethanol). It is also true that the diesel car sector has been growing rapidly during the past years. But that was from a very low level, seen from European standards. How that can increase the CO2 is a riddle. The big CO2 cut is however in heat production. The heat power plants producing hot water for houses and flats are nowadays almost exclusively burring CO2 neutral fuels, such as waste vegetable oils. I do not think that the article has been published in Sweden, even though there are, even here, strong forces aiming to turn the energy consumption back to only fossil fuels and - in worst case- nuclear power. I suppose they are fighting that battle in other countries too. Jan W - Original Message - From: Darryl McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 3:20 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability Something is rotten in the state of Sweden. Or not. But I do smell a dead rat in here somewhere. We have studies from the U.S. that switching from petro-fuel to electricity for transportation reduces emissions, including greenhouse gases, even when the electricity comes entirely from coal-fired plants. However, in Sweden, the primary energy sources are hydro and nuclear (over 90% of the generation from those two sources). Fossil sources produce considerably less than 10% of the electricity mix. (This document is a bit dated, but presents the information nicely in a graph on page 2. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/energy_policy/doc/factsheets/mix/mix_se_en.pdf) So, Sweden is switching from conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles to electric and plug-in hybrids, charging from a grid that is over 90% supplied from essentially zero-GHG sources, but the emissions are going up? And, the actual market penetration is still trivially small - I'm guessing well below 1% of the total road-going fleet in the country. Doesn't pass the smell test. Unfortunately, the article doesn't bother to cite the evidence used to support it's conclusion. My suspicion: the Swedish 'transportation sector' includes something other than private cars that might be driving the numbers up (e.g., ships burning bunker C crude). Actually, after a very limited Web search, I could not find anything credible that looked like the 'evidence' for the article - just lots of copy-cat items that also did not provide citations for the desired data. I did find this, dated January 2011: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/change-in-total-ghg-emissions, which shows Sweden's transportation GHG emissions going up 9% from 1990 to 2008. The catch is that Sweden did not get serious about EV incentives until about 2008-2009, a time period not covered by the data for this report. Here's someone else's response (found while searching for the 'evidence'). http://dagblog.com/link/what-if-green-products-make-us-pollute-more-10581 (check the comments by quinn) Darryl On 11/06/2011 1:10 PM, Keith Addison wrote: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/10-3 Published on Friday, June 10, 2011 by CommonDreams.org The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability by Firmin DeBrabander What if electric cars made pollution worse, not better? What if they increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of decreasing them? Preposterous you say? Well, consider what's happened in Sweden. Through generous subsidies, Sweden aggressively pushed its citizens to trade in their cars for energy efficient replacements (hybrids, clean diesel vehicles, cars that run on ethanol). Sweden has been so successful in this initiative that it leads the world in per capita sales of 'green cars.' To everyone's surprise, however, greenhouse gas emissions from Sweden's transportation sector are up. Or perhaps we should not be so surprised after all. What do you expect when you put people in cars they feel good about driving (or at least less guilty), which are also cheap to buy and run? Naturally, they drive them more. So much more, in fact, that they obliterate energy gains made by increased fuel efficiency. We need to pay attention to this as GM and Nissan roll out their new green cars to great fanfare. The Chevy Volt, a hybrid with a lithium-ion battery, can go 35 miles on electric power alone (after charging over night, for example), and GM brags on its website that if you limit your daily driving to that distance, you can commute gas-free for an average of $1.50 a day. The Volt's price is listed at a very reasonable $33K (if you qualify for the maximum $7500 in tax credits). The fully electric Nissan
[Biofuel] The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/06/10-3 Published on Friday, June 10, 2011 by CommonDreams.org The Green Revolution Backfires: Sweden's Lesson for Real Sustainability by Firmin DeBrabander What if electric cars made pollution worse, not better? What if they increased greenhouse gas emissions instead of decreasing them? Preposterous you say? Well, consider what's happened in Sweden. Through generous subsidies, Sweden aggressively pushed its citizens to trade in their cars for energy efficient replacements (hybrids, clean diesel vehicles, cars that run on ethanol). Sweden has been so successful in this initiative that it leads the world in per capita sales of 'green cars.' To everyone's surprise, however, greenhouse gas emissions from Sweden's transportation sector are up. Or perhaps we should not be so surprised after all. What do you expect when you put people in cars they feel good about driving (or at least less guilty), which are also cheap to buy and run? Naturally, they drive them more. So much more, in fact, that they obliterate energy gains made by increased fuel efficiency. We need to pay attention to this as GM and Nissan roll out their new green cars to great fanfare. The Chevy Volt, a hybrid with a lithium-ion battery, can go 35 miles on electric power alone (after charging over night, for example), and GM brags on its website that if you limit your daily driving to that distance, you can commute gas-free for an average of $1.50 a day. The Volt's price is listed at a very reasonable $33K (if you qualify for the maximum $7500 in tax credits). The fully electric Nissan Leaf is advertized for an even more reasonable $26K (with qualifying tax credits, naturally). What a deal-and it's good for you, too, the carmakers want you to know. As GM helpfully points out on its website, Electricity is a cleaner source of power. Sweden is a model of sustainability innovation, while the US is the most voracious consumer on the planet. Based on Sweden's experience with green cars, it's daunting to imagine their possible impact here. Who can doubt that they'll likely inspire Americans to make longer commutes to work, live even further out in the exurbs, bringing development, blacktop and increased emissions with them? In its current state, the green revolution is largely devoted to the effort to provide consumers with the products they have always loved, but now in affordable energy efficient versions. The thinking seems to be that through this gradual exchange, we can reduce our collective carbon footprint. Clearly, however, this approach is doomed if we don't reform our absurd consumption habits, which are so out-of-whack that they risk undoing any environmental gains we might make. Indeed, we are such ardent, addicted consumers that we take efficiency gains as license to consume even more! We need to address consumption fast because-news alert-the current consumer class on earth barely amounts to 1 billion people (if that), but 2 billion and counting eagerly wait in the wings. American industry hungrily targets the rising Chinese consumer class. For the sake of the planet, we better hope it doesn't get its way. Consider: China currently has a car ownership rate approximately one-sixth that of the US. If China achieves car ownership rates comparable to the US, that would put an additional 800 million cars on the road. And that's just China. Even if we somehow succeeded in making China's fleet super efficient, it would still be more than the planet can handle. Of course, cars are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Chinese consumer dreams. They will also want more electronics, clothes, meat, processed foods-bigger houses. In short, we can bet that the rising Chinese middle class will want something close to what we have. And why shouldn't they? We have been showcasing our middle class comfort worldwide for years through our vast media exports. Everyone is betting, hoping-assuming?-that technology will eventually help us deliver the American dream worldwide with no environmental impact. But clearly, we may run out of planet by the time that day comes. Even the American dream in an 'energy efficient format' is likely too much for the earth to handle. If this is chilling-and it should be-you might wonder, what are our options? Justice demands that we cannot prevent, much less discourage the growing global consumer class from having the consumer goods we currently enjoy. Real change starts with us then, and I'm afraid to say, radical change is in order. We must figure out a way to consume less, which means driving less, shopping less, eating less meat (which the UN estimates is responsible for a fifth of all greenhouse gases), and conserving food and energy. This means essentially rethinking our suburban-sprawling, fast-food-gorging, shopaholic society. We must model for the world the changes we hope everyone will make to
