-
MORE RED THAN GREEN - from environment to sustainability
13 posts
Written by Kaarin Taipale
CV : Originally I'm an architect and historic preservationist, who became a journalist (editor of a professional magazine), later a municipal civil servant (City of Helsinki). I'm the former chair of ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, a worldwide organization of cities. In my blog I would like to give a global view on urban development. In the future we will have to fight for both: democracy and sustainability - which are interconnected. Fair labor, fair trade, clean energy and a safe cities!
-
ON THE ROAD TO COPENHAGEN – BALI AFTERTHOUGHTS - 12-12-2007 20:42:44 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
Best regards from Bali. I was there last week to organize and speak in two side events on behalf of the Ministry of the Environment of Finland. The topic in both of the events was to highlight the energy and emission savings potential of buildings and construction.
Now, it is time to focus on Copenhagen, where the new climate protocol should be finalized and agreed upon in 2009. This is a huge challenge not only for the City of Copenhagen and Denmark hosting the meeting, but to Sweden’s EU Presidency and to the European Union as a whole.
The EU needs it own “roadmap” towards Copenhagen, making sure that the EU not only upholds but strengthens its position as the world leader in progressive and innovative climate policies. This means including all aspects of sustainable use of energy, such as energy for development, fair mechanisms of technology transfer, and decent work. This requires that the European Union is unanimous and strong in its positions.
The EU should use its best diplomacy, most determined political cooperation and financial bilateral mechanisms to make certain that developing countries, China and India in specific, will play a fair but focal role in Copenhagen. That the same goes for the United States, goes without saying.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and similar tools have to be further developed so that by 2009 they can be more broadly applied than today. This is particularly important in the buildings and construction sector, which uses 30-40% of all energy and has huge emissions savings potential, which can be implemented with existing technologies.
Indeed, if there is to be a title for the Copenhagen 2009 conference, it should be A Better Built Environment for All, which would encompass the aspects of mobility, buildings, construction, infrastructure, public services and information and communication. The implementation of this target would bring together the private and the public sector, both federal, national and local governments, and civil society organizations. -
Energy – a new realm for moral double standards? - 08-10-2007 11:04:16 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
Oh boy, it is energy and climate change everywhere. Aren’t you getting tired? Too bad, since I’m afraid that the topic won’t disappear from the headlines in quite a while. But what is this with double standards; speaking one thing and doing the other, acting as a saint in public but committing sins in private?
Let’s go back to climate change. When we burn fossil fuels, oil, gas, coal or peat, carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere and changes it. Temperatures rise, glaciers melt, oceans get warmer, hurricanes get more frequent, some places get more rain and floods, others are hit by draughts and forest fires. Extreme phenomena become more frequent.
If this is caused by excessive burning of fossil fuels, it should be clear, what the medicine is: let us burn less non-renewables and more renewable!. But as you know, it is not that simple, and that is where the double standards enter the picture.
The first lobby says that they do not ”believe” in climate change, as if it was a religion, not science. I find it interesting that often the same guys have a strong belief in their investment portfolios, hedge funds and whatever. If there would be a way to predict the moves of the stock exchanges as accurately as we can calculate global warming, we’d all be millionaires!
These calculator people are the same, who demand accurate predictability of tax percentages and inflation rates. However, for them it is quite clear that no one can prophesize the price of oil. Quite recently, 50 USD per barrel seemed the ultimate limit, now 80+ is the going rate.
We, the consumers know that we should save energy, but it is so nice to buy cute gadgets that use electricity, keep our summer cottages warm all around the year, and dream of a bigger car. Four-wheel-drive SUVs are fabulous. And how many nuclear power plants does it take to make sure that the tiny red light on the digi-box stays on?
The industrialists yell that growth and competitive edge must not be put in danger, energy must be cheap and there must be plenty of it available. The same guys move their factories to countries with polluting energy and cheap labor. They pretend that the problems can be outsourced, hidden in China or India. But the same guys speak quite fluently about globalization, and they know very well that we have only this one single planet.
Every year, the automobile industry brings new, slightly less polluting car models to the market. “Save the environment, buy a new car!” – This must be the ultimate energy double standard! In Norway, the consumer protection authorities recently forbid such advertising. In Finland, the conservative government plans to raise the price of gas just a little, so that it won’t hurt anyone. Gas is like vodka, always worth every cent.
Then we have those who believe in technology. “Engineers will come up with a solution, don’t worry.” – Strangely enough, the same people who regard themselves as rational thinkers call windmills “ugly”. “New energy technologies have to be developed on the market, subsidies would distort free competition!” they say. However, these engineers are not bothered by the fact that crude oil has soon been subsidized with a sum of one trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is about 300 million Euro per day. – In Finland, it is ok to subsidize burning peat, that is called agricultural policy. But subsidizing wind energy, no, that would distort the market!
And then we have the politicians. They know that they are supposed to talk about climate change in a noble manner. But the also know that their voters want to have a bigger house, a bigger car and faster growing investment portfolios. It is not politically correct to remind them that 20% of all energy is burned in traffic, and almost 40% in heating, cooling and lighting of buildings.
But there are strange news coming from across the oceans. Even US companies are asking for regulation and limits to carbon emissions. They know that their competitive edge depends on who develops the most energy efficient products and production methods. The firms want to have a level playing field and no free riders. Building researchers don’t talk about energy consumption any more, they think of buildings that will produce their own energy.
The homeless ice-bears are not our biggest problem. The real risks are linked with economy and security. Energy will force us to rethink everything. That is why I suggest hereby that we’ll leave moral double standards to bedrooms and start being honest at least in energy issues. -
Big Brother and Climate Change - 01-06-2007 14:11:06 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
“The United States is taking the lead, and that’s the message I’m going to take to the G-8,” Mr. Bush said according to the New York Times (NYT 1st June 2007). – Is 'leadership' all that it is about? Until now – and certainly in the foreseeable future – the EU has been the obvious world leader in the fight against climate change.
No, it is not just about political power, I guess, but also about economic power. Bush has now understood that there is no way around but also the industry will have to take climate change seriously. He’d like to see that US companies would negotiate directly with Indian and Chinese governments and businesses and agree on standards and transfer of technologies.
For Bush, energy efficiency is suddenly ok, if it is achieved with technologies that the US can sell to other countries, instead of technologies developed in the EU, Japan, Korea, India or China.
What drives me nuts is that within the EU, there is still a huge number of politicians, business leaders and, I’m sorry to say, trade union leaders, who don’t see that the EU really has to get serious about energy savings, energy efficiency and renewable energy sources.
This morning in Helsinki, the EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs gave a presentation about EU energy policies. He listed three challenges: security, sustainability (well, he only discussed the climate change) and compatibility. He praised President Bush’s speech. Maybe this was ‘only’ diplomacy. The EU has every reason to denounce a plan to hold any “climate talks” next Fall parallel to the Bali negotiations about the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol.
How terriblydisappointing, such skilful political manoeuvring: to disguise business promotion as concern for the environment. Let us hope that the EU will be more skilful, more united and more swift in its moves than the Big Brother. -
Poor kids, poor kids - 31-05-2007 12:26:03 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
How appropriate that PES has childcare week now; in Finland the Conservatives who won the parliamentary elections this March, are now showing the true nature of "HOPE" that was their campaign platform.
One of their first actions has been to announce that everyone will have to pay for the daycare of children, also the unemployed and the single parents with very low income. In Finland until now, the public children's daycare has been regarded as one of the flagships of the Nordic Welfare State, giving also the kids of the poorest homes decent food every day, and allowing mothers, also single mothers go to work and take care of their family.
During the election campaign, the Conservatives blamed the social democrats for having wasted public money into what they called "employment-creation-tricks" and beautifying the unemployment statistics, whereas the labor market in fact would need more workforce for low-paying jobs (such as healtcare, care for the elderly, childcare, you know what kind of work is not regarded fancy, fit for a man, and worth paying for).
And now, what else does this proposal mean than taking (mostly) women off the workforce, because they are supposed to stay at home and take care of their kids. Kinder, Küche, Kirche, as the German used to say, keep women between the stove and the bed. That is what they call "family values".
The suggestion of the Conservatives, still supported by the Prime Minister's Center Party, is so appalling that also the Greens, who are in the coalition Government now, have had a really hard time defending it.
Sure, the poorest families will always get free daycare for their kids, "for social reasons", the Conservatives say. That would mean writing applications, getting scrutinized, getting labelled as "a social case".
This is the fundamental difference between neoliberal welfare policies of the Conservative and true equity: pennies and cents for the beggars instead of equal access to basic services. -
We lost this one - 22-03-2007 11:31:03 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
So, last Sunday we suffered a terrible loss in the Finnish Parliamentary elections. In the 200-seat house we'll have 45 MPs instead of 55 previously. The conservatives won, like in Sweden recently - however, in Sweden they had prepared for the victory, in Finland the blue ones did not count on winning, not even themselves... This means tough talks in forming the government, lead by the center party (51), the biggest party with the slightest possible margin, just one more seat than the conservatives (50).
Why? Poor advertising campaigns? Bad weather? Bad image after 12 years in government? "Conservative tide in Europe"? Too close and too visible links with the trade unions? Poor selection of candidates (also indirectly influenced by the trade unions)? Boring message (better public services, smaller tax cuts)? Loss of credibility (why didn't you improve the public services while 12 years in government? why did you allow all the tax cuts to the wealthy)? Male chauvinist power elite in the party leadership, allowing only photogenic young ladies, with no real voice, a place in the limelight next to it? Old-fashioned leadership culture, with no real internal debate? No real understanding of contemporary urban poverty and the changing job markets? Fake eco-touches only on the surface, but conservative energy policies in reality?
I'm just quoting some of the comments in the present public debate here. Unfortunately, there is a lot of room for self-criticism - and many of us hope that the opportunity will be used for an open, constructive discussion, instead of trying to hide the mistakes that have been made. Creating a new culture of dialogue is our only chance to learn and to find a new edge.
This is a chance for the Finnish SDP to renew itself and to arrive at the 20th century - already next year we'll have local elections, where we should come up with new initiatives. Global urban policies: pioneering energy policies, sustainable public procurement as an innovation platform, and more diversified public services are on the top of my list. Not very sexy, I agree, I'll try to reformulate!
But for the next four years, it will be a cold ride. More tax cuts to the wealty, more irregular jobs with minimum wages, more poverty and unemployment, maybe strikes - and more nuclear energy.
Certainly, on the loss, we are to blame ourselves. But there is one thing that I can't understand: how could so many people believe the ads of the conservatives telling that they'll bring HOPE and that they are a workers' party, as well? How? -
Energy efficiency, savings - or nuclear? - 13-01-2007 19:00:21 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
For years now I've bored people by writing about energy, even when asked to talk about "urbanism" or "architectural styles after modernism and post-post-modernism." It has not been much appreciated, when I've stated that the quality of urban space or buildings does not depend on how they look but on what they are. It seems difficult to grasp that nothing else than the looks will change, if you change the looks... square to circle, white to red, brick to timber... so what?
My other hypothesis meets with equal disbelief: that poor design or planning in reality means an absence of it. If a structural detail or a functional aspect of a building does not work, it means that no one has spent any time thinking of it. Maybe there was no funding available, or no knowledge about alternative solutions. But the worst case - and the most common - is that it hasn't even occurred to anyone that there is a problem which needs to be solved.
This is what has happened with energy. Engineers have calculated the insulating capacity of various materials and details, and the industry has produced fantastic windows, as examples. In Finland we boast about our district heating systems and the efficiency of co-generation of energy and heat, now even tri-generation, where cooling is added. But, scrutinized by the construction industry lobby, the politicians have not set really ambitious energy targets, even if every singly new building could be a zero-net-energy building with marginal extra cost and existing technology. No rocket science.
Of all energy, almost 40% is consumed in buildings, transport takes almost 20% and industry the rest. You can argue the accuracy of the figures, but the maintenance of buildings (heating, cooling, lighting, equipment) is the single biggest consumer of energy. It is shocking to see how much energy is spent on cooling and lighting. The figures and shares change from country and continent to the other, but the principle remains the same.
These days, it is much more sexy to talk about the need to build more nuclear power than to talk about energy efficiency and savings. During a recent public debate the director of the Finnish company Fortum Nuclear Services corrected the language of other speakers by noting that energy savings are the result of energy efficiency. His implied message was that energy efficiency requires new technologies, and the applications take time.
Wrong! Efficiency is efficiency - which of course leads to a smaller growth of energy consumption - but energy savings are simply savings: again, no rocket science, no hi-tech. You switch off the light, you leave your car in the garage and walk or take the subway, or you take off the plug of the mobile phone charger when you don't need it. This requires a change in your behavior, you can't blame the engineer or the politician. However, it requires political will to ask for it, instead of more nuclear power. -
About housing policies and candlelight - 20-12-2006 13:10:24 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
”On winter evenings, walking through the streets of the city, I would gaze into other people’s houses through the pale orange light of home and dream of happy, peaceful families living comfortable lives.” Orhan Pamuk describes the yearning for 'home' - and makes it obvious how distant the reality can be from our dreams.
Public debate concerning housing likes to list a great number of usual suspects: insufficient availability of land, in particular for single-family houses, poor land use planning, high cost of real estate and apartments, people having to invest too much of their income into housing, too much time spent on mobility, poor services, greedy developers, stupid architects, dismal quality of construction, lack of maintenance...
But could it be that the expectations on "housing" are too far removed from the product "house" that the "machinery" will ever be able to deliver? The whole chain starting with investors and political decision makers, and ending up with developers and construction companies can only come up with square meters and numbers of apartments. However, we keep dreaming of the security and privacy of a home, which is our castle. We miss warmth and love, caring and caressing, but get four walls instead. Meanwhile, housing fairs, furniture stores and illustrated magazines keep convincing us that the home is just a question of a bit more interior decoration.
Even the most perfect welfare state cannot replace the smell of freshly baked bread or the touch of a warm hand. No luxury home can repare the wounds of shattered human relationships. There are too many questions, where 'housing' is not the answer.
Here in the darkness of the Northern winter, Christmas is the festival of light, and people like to light candles. Somehow, candles represent the "pale orange light of home" and make us feel happy here and now, grateful for being alive and having friends, close and far away. Warmest Season's Greetings, and a Happy New Year.
Quote from: Pamuk Orhan (2005) Istanbul, Memories of a City. London: Faber and Faber -
Energy greetings to Porto - 04-12-2006 12:44:28 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
Unfortunately I won't be able to join you in Porto, but I'd like to mention three topics which you'll most likely discuss there, among others: energy, public procurement and innovations.
Hardly any one doubts that providing equal and safe access to energy is the most basic service, next to freshwater and sanitation. However, the hugely growing worldwide demand on energy, liberalization (read: privatization) of the market, and the proven linkages between fossil fuels and global warming make energy a politically explosive package.
Even if one would not feel sorry for the ice bears and would not be aware of the future of SIDS (Small Island Developing States), the growing price of fossil fuels has become unbearable: pollution of the environment of the poorest, and the dollars and loss of democracy spent on wars and corruption.
The answer to the energy crisis is not simply 'more energy!' First, we'll have to save energy, consume less, change our habits, think different. Second, we'll have to develop and use more energy efficient technologies - which does not necessarily mean super-hi-tech. As an example, in many climates the most traditional building is the most energy efficient building. Public transport is far more efficient than mobility based on private cars and all the infrastructure they need. Third, we'll have to shift towards renewable energy sources, and this will require a hefty dose of political will, too.
Why public procurement in this connection? The public sector - cities, governments, public institutions like universities etc. - can and must set the standard. How can we ask our citizen to think and act differently, if the tax money is not spent the way we speak?
The public sector can be an informed client, asking the private and the third sector to deliver energy efficient and ethically sustainable products and services, it won't buy any other stuff.
My favourite example dates back to 1970s, when the City of Curitiba in Brazil decided that they want to have a public transport system that did not exist anywhere, yet, a Bus Rapid Transport system. Finally Volvo agreed to develop a BRT bus for Curitiba - and now they have a big factory in Brazil. Isn't this what we call both technological and social innovation?
Have a great time in Porto! -
Arms and ploughs - 25-11-2006 17:43:30 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
Darfur, Baghdad, Kabul - cities and villages where arms and ammunition do the talking, places filled with hate, torture and death. So much hate that watching it from my safe North European corner, I cannot even begin to understand it.
We know that rifles and Rifle Associations rule in many other countries, as well, also in the so called developed world. It is as if our societies were not able to give young men any other tools to prove their identity as men than either weapons or cars, the bigger the better.
I was in Costa Rica last week to talk about sustainable urbanism. The tropical country has a fantastic natural environment, The Costa Ricans know that there is no alternative to sustainability if they want the tourism industry to flourish. However, their cities need a lot of development. Urban public space and public transport are some of the key areas.
But there is one hugely important sector where Costa Rica has shown the rest of the world that the unthinkable alternative works: they have no army. The small country with no military forces has the most stable government and the most equal society in Central and South America.
Whoever commands the army in a developing country, by default has a fierce opposition fighting to be in control. Because military rule is not democratic governance, it involves corruption and privileges for selected few. The poor remain excluded from this exchange of favors. The rulers' priority will always be, how to remain in control of the army - and alive.
This is like writing to Santa Claus: please, destroy all military forces from the face of the earth! So simple and obvious, and yet a total utopia: forging arms to ploughs and eradicating poverty for good.
P.S. I learned in San José that the body guards of the Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (whom I secretly admire) are from Cuba. They've been sent by Castro, who receives oil from Venezuela for a reduced price, and can resell it on the market for hard currency. - Contemporary political favors. -
Reading cities as political text - 15-10-2006 18:14:51 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
I’ve this theory about reading cities as political text. No, it is not an empirically or quantitatively proven theory, just a hunch. But it seems to work.
It struck me once, as I stood on a pedestrian overpass high above a 10-lane street in one of the metropolis of the world, in a so called rapidly industrializing country.
There were bus stops on both sides, between the lanes, so that I could imagine how the national government or city representatives would give talks in international conferences, boasting about the well functioning public transport system and the sustainable development principles guiding the urban planning of the capital city.
However, to cross the street, the pedestrians had to climb up steep steps, at least two stories high. And to get to the narrow isles of the bus stops between traffic lanes, they had to climb down to the street level again. The bus stops were so narrow and crowded that in order to pass another person, one had to step off the isle.
No one needed to give me an explanation of the principles that had guided the decision making: I could see them in real life. The privileged men driving their new cars had voted in support of the growing inequity in their city.
It was easy to read the political value system in a foreign country, where it was so blatant. It may be a bit more difficult to see it in some of our European cities, where the dictatorship of the private car is less obvious.
The car industry has created so much employment during the early years of industrialization that we’ve grown somewhat blind to see how it still guides our decision-making, be it about land use, mobility planning, road infrastructure or energy issues. Look closely, and you cannot help noticing it. -
Johannesburg Declaration - 10-09-2006 17:41:52 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
Talking about cooperation with developing countries, surprisingly many Europeans still have a 'von-oben' attitude: we'll give, they'll receive. Colonialism remains with us, not least in attitudes.
I'm starting to see that when it comes to political will, drive and visions, we in the cold "North" have a lot to learn from "the South".
Mayors in cities like Bogota and Cape Town have had visions about equity and urban sustainability that we can only dream of, and they've put their plans into action, while we still keep talking.
Another example was a recent e-mail from ICFTU informing about the TRADE UNION AFRICAN CONFERENCE ON LABOUR AND THE ENVIRONMENT, which was held in Johannesburg, South Africa in July this year.
To my amazement in my own country Finland, some trade union representatives often use the same arguments as people from the industry associations: employment first, sustainability second, or, more energy first, no matter what kind of energy, and energy efficiency, conservation and renewables maybe some time later. Growth first, environment only if we have to, this has been the tone of voice.
Let me quote a couple of paragraphs from the Johannesburg Declaration of the Trade Unions of 18 African countries, and their international associations:
"We agree to:
1. Strengthen our understanding of the links between the environment, labour and poverty. Decent Work should be taken to embrace environmental sustainability, as essential to sustainable livelihood.
2. Make the fundamental rights of workers and their unions a central feature of sustainable development strategies, e.g. for freedom of association, collective bargaining and the right to refuse dangerous and hazardous work.
3. Ensure gender equity and women worker issues as indicators of environmental and social sustainability and integrate such indicators into sustainable development strategies for designing and implementing change."
I'm proud of my COSATU and other friends in Johannesburg. -
Women - red, green or equal? - 22-08-2006 13:47:25 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
Many governments boast over the fact that they have women members of the cabinet - at least in the Ministry of the Environment. What does that mean? You know the answer: sustainability is regarded as a marginal, 'soft' issue, not strategic, just the right place for women to water plants - ughh?
Tell me about gender equity first when women are ministers of finance and defence, and the beloved gentlement take care of education, social affairs and the environment!
Our colleagues in Sweden are taking women's issues seriously, also in the ongoing election campaign. They acknowledge that gender issues are about power - make no secret of it.
In Finland Minister Tuula Haatainen (SDP) has recently considered introducing a requirement that also private companies must have a quota for women in their boards - as in Norway. I'd strongly support that: myself, I'd not mind being the "token woman" at all! Quite the contrary, I'm already used to it, and the men seem to forget the fact surprisingly soon.
Sustainability is also about equity - poor and rich, north and south, but also men and women. Securing women equal access to power means that their (our) resources are used more efficiently: many women are better educated and are used to working at least as hard as their male colleagues.
Also, in the hypothetical case that the values of women would be different from those of men - more red and more green, maybe - having more women involved in decision making processes would secure a more true representation of people. That is what we call democracy, isn't it? -
Overhaul Green on Red! - 24-07-2006 15:39:02 - Only logged activists can post a comment, please sign in or register here
The days of ”environmental policies” are over, history! We’ll have to go past the Green on Red and start taking “sustainable development” seriously. – What do I mean by us social democrats leaving the Green behind?
No doubt, the roots of sustainability are in the protection of nature: endangered species and wildlife. But far too many people still keep talking about “environmental sustainability”, equating that with “green” and thinking of the pioneers fighting for birds and butterflies for the sake of nature conservation.
Globalization – of everything – has made it obvious that there is no separate Green. There is no silo of natural environment which can be protected without approaching it simultaneously from many different angles, such as labor, poverty, access to water and energy, health, equity, participatory governance, finance, and more. Sustainable development is not just Green, it has all the colours of the rainbow.
Erkki Tuomioja, the Foreign Minister of Finland, has said that always before elections all parties become social democrat – they all want to remember the working man and woman. For some years, it has seemed that before elections, every party becomes green. “Protection of the environment” is on everyone’s agenda.
In real life, when talking about implementing sustainability policies, I keep hearing the comment “Let us secure work for all and eradicate poverty first – and talk about sustainability after!” Even Trade Union voices sometimes sound exactly like the ones of Industry Associations: “More and cheaper energy from any source for any kind of production, otherwise our jobs will be gone.”
It took me years to understand that the values of social democracy are very much the same as those considered women’s values in society: equity, empathy and ethics. Now I’m also suggesting that the values of the most extreme Green are in fact most profoundly Red values.
| < | November 2008 | > | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 1- | 2- |
| 3- | 4- | 5- | 6- | 7- | 8- | 9- |
| 10- | 11- | 12- | 13- | 14- | 15- | 16- |
| 17- | 18- | 19- | 20- | 21- | 22- | 23- |
| 24- | 25- | 26- | 27- | 28- | 29- | 30- |
-
-
contact us
-
sitemap
-
contact us
-
sitemap
© PSE - Terms of use and privacy policy - About
With the financial support of the European Parliament