ecoenviron

More of This, Please

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:58:48 -0400

The High Line

Developing Countries are Decoupling... in the Wrong Thing

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:46:18 -0400

Remember in Augsust-Septemeber 2008, just before Lehman went down, where the main discussion among economists was the decoupling (or not) of emerging markets with respect to the developed world? The Lehman killed the theory (although the crisis has still to leave in the developed world).

But what clearly did decouple, sadly so, is the carbon dioxide emissions. According to this paper in “nature climate change” journal, consumption-based emissions, or those emissions associated with the consumption of goods and services, increased 6.1 percent over 2009 and 2010 in developing countries. As a result, 2009 marked the first time that developing countries had higher consumption-based emissions than developed countries.

“So far, the GFC has not contributed to a long-term decrease in global carbon emissions, as has been the case in the past. For example, the oil crises in 1973 and 1979 caused persistent price shocks and structural changes in energy production and consumption that led to a reduction in the global reliance on oil and an increase in the reliance on natural gas, which resulted in a drop in emissions.

“The GFC was an opportunity to move the global economy away from a high emissions trajectory,” the authors say. “Our results provide no indication of this happening and indicate that the GFC has been quite different from previous global crises.”

Is Fair Trade Fair?

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:10:22 -0400

Now Robert Skidelsky get’s in on the discussion. Also a bit philosophical, but extremely interesting. Article.

“But, despite its shaky economics, the fair-trade movement should not be despised. While cynics say that its only achievement is to make consumers feel better about their purchases – rather like buying indulgences in the old Catholic Church – this is to sell fair trade short. In fact, the movement represents a spark of protest against mindless consumerism, grass-roots resistance against an impersonal logic, and an expression of communal activism.

That justification will not convince economists, who prefer a dryer sort of reasoning. But it is not out of place to remind ourselves that economists and bureaucrats need not always have things their own way.”

Is Free Trade Fair?

Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:07:46 -0400

One of my personal favorite economists, Dani Rodrik, op-ed on free trade. The piece is a bit philosophical and goes through a very simple example he gave at a class in Harvard. But Rodrik is Rodrik, and is always worth reading.

And his conclusion is provocative:

“Similarly, when we expect redistributive effects to even out in the long run, so that everyone eventually comes out ahead, we are more likely to overlook reshufflings of income. That is a key reason why we believe that technological progress should run its course, despite its short-run destructive effects on some. When, on the other hand, the forces of trade repeatedly hit the same people – less educated, blue-collar workers – we may feel less sanguine about globalization.

Too many economists are tone-deaf to such distinctions. They are prone to attribute concerns about globalization to crass protectionist motives or ignorance, even when there are genuine ethical issues at stake. By ignoring the fact that international trade sometimes – certainly not always – involves redistributive outcomes that we would consider problematic at home, they fail to engage the public debate properly. They also miss the opportunity to mount a more robust defense of trade when ethical concerns are less warranted.”

Eco101 and Parking in San Francisco

Thu, 15 Mar 2012 17:01:14 -0400

An interesting piece from the NY Times on parking spaces.

SAN FRANCISCO — The maddening quest for street parking is not just a tribulation for drivers, but a trial for cities. As much as a third of the traffic in some areas has been attributed to drivers circling as they hunt for spaces. The wearying tradition takes a toll in lost time, polluted air and, when drivers despair, double-parked cars that clog traffic even more.

an ambitious experiment that aims to make sure that there is always at least one empty parking spot available on every block that has meters. The program, which uses new technology and the law of supply and demand, raises the price of parking on the city’s most crowded blocks and lowers it on its emptiest blocks. While the new prices are still being phased in — the most expensive spots have risen to $4.50 an hour, but could reach $6 — preliminary data suggests that the change may be having a positive effect in some areas.

Change can already be seen on a stretch of Drumm Street downtown near the Embarcadero and the popular restaurants at the Ferry Building. Last summer it was nearly impossible to find spots there. But after the city gradually raised the price of parking to $4.50 an hour from $3.50, high-tech sensors embedded in the street showed that spots were available a little more often — leaving a welcome space the other day for the silver Toyota Corolla driven by Victor Chew, a salesman for a commercial dishwasher company who frequently parks in the area.

“There are more spots available now,” said Mr. Chew, 48. “Now I don’t have to walk half a mile.”

San Francisco’s parking experiment is the latest major attempt to improve the uneasy relationship between cities and the internal combustion engine — a century-long saga that has seen cities build highways and tear them down, widen streets and narrow them, and require more parking at some times and discourage it at others — all to try to make their downtowns accessible but not too congested.

The program here is being closely watched by cities around the country. With the help of afederal grant, San Francisco installed parking sensors and new meters at roughly a quarter of its 26,800 metered spots. It tracks when and where cars are parked and, beginning last summer, began tweaking its prices every two months — giving them the option of raising them 25 cents an hour, or lowering them by as much as 50 cents — in the hope of leaving each block with at least one available spot. The city also has cut prices at many of the garages and parking lots it manages, to lure cars off the street.

It is too early to tell whether the program is working over all, but an analysis of city parking data by The New York Times found signs that the new rates are having the desired effect in some areas. While only a third of the blocks in the program have hit their targeted occupancy rates in any given month since the program began, the analysis found, three-quarters of the blocks either hit their targets or moved closer to the goal. The program is a bit more successful on weekdays.

Of course, price is only one factor that influences behavior: about a fifth of the time prices rose but more spaces filled up, or prices fell but fewer people parked. The full effects of the phased-in price changes have yet to be felt: the most expensive spots cannot hit the $6-an-hour maximum until next year at the earliest.

Jay Primus, who manages the program for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, said the experiment was a break from the past because the city was now trying to use its parking policy to reduce traffic and pollution and make parking easier — not just raise revenues. “We’re counting on the fact that people are expert when it comes to parking,” he said. “We only need a few people to see there is a price difference and choose to park in a different location to open up just a few spaces here and there.”

Meters here can now charge different prices at different times of the day, and the city has lengthened or eliminated time limits. Since the city made it easier to pay for parking with credit cards, and began a program that allows people to find spots and pay for them on their mobile phones — so they no longer have to run out of meals that take longer than expected to feed the meters — fewer parking tickets have been issued.

The program is the biggest test yet of the theories of Donald Shoup, a professor of urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles. His 2005 book, “The High Cost of Free Parking,” made him something of a cult figure to city planners — a Facebook group,The Shoupistas, has more than a thousand members. “I think the basic idea is that we will see a lot of benefits if we get the price of curbside parking right, which is the lowest price a city can charge and still have one or two vacant spaces available on every block,” he said.

But raising prices is rarely popular. A chapter in Mr. Shoup’s book opens with a quote from George Costanza, the “Seinfeld” character: “My father didn’t pay for parking, my mother, my brother, nobody. It’s like going to a prostitute. Why should I pay when, if I apply myself, maybe I can get it for free?” Some San Francisco neighborhoods recently objected to a proposal to install meters on streets where parking is now free. And raising prices in the most desirable areas raises concerns that it will make them less accessible to the poor.

That was on the minds of some parkers on Drumm Street, where the midday occupancy rate on one block fell to 86 percent from 98 percent after prices rose. Edward Saldate, 55, a hairstylist who paid nearly $17 for close to four hours of parking there, called it “a big rip-off.”

Tom Randlett, 69, an accountant, said that he was pleased to be able to find a spot there for the first time, but acknowledged that the program was “complicated on the social equity level.”

Officials note that parking rates are cut as often as they are raised. And Professor Shoup said that the program would benefit many poor people, including the many San Franciscans who do not have cars, because all parking revenues are used for mass transit and any reduction in traffic will speed the buses many people here rely on. And he imagined a day when drivers will no longer attribute good parking spots to luck or karma.

“It will be taken for granted,” he said, “the way you take it for granted that when you go to a store you can get fresh bananas or apples.”

Michael Cooper reported from San Francisco, and Jo Craven McGinty from New York. Malia Wollan contributed reporting from San Francisco.

A very interesting conference on the future of China’s...

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 19:38:39 -0500

A very interesting conference on the future of China’s green cities

theeconomist: An exhibition in Jeddah, a red Sea port city,...

Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:29:11 -0500

theeconomist:

An exhibition in Jeddah, a red Sea port city, demonstrates that Saudi artists and comedians are enjoying a thin breath of freedom.

thisbigcity: Housing is changing. Join This Big City, Future...

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:44:59 -0500

thisbigcity:

Housing is changing. Join This Big City, Future Cape Town and Secret Republic today at 2PM EST / 7PM GMT / 8PM CET / 9PM SAST for the next #citytalk on Twitter.

房屋正在改變，歡迎加入《城事》、未來開普敦、Secret Republic的行列，於倫敦時間2月13日晚上7點／台北時間2月14日凌晨2點，一同參加#citytalk在Twitter的討論會。

humanscalecities: Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic...

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:44:45 -0500

humanscalecities:

Naked City: The Death and Life of Authentic Urban Place

Sharon Zukin

architizer: A wild proposal for a waterproof architectural...

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:44:20 -0500

architizer:

A wild proposal for a waterproof architectural membrane to buttress Manhattan in the face of rising sea levels.

Why Smaller Houses Are Smarter

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:43:52 -0500

Why Smaller Houses Are Smarter:

moneyisnotimportant:

According to US census data, the size of the average American home in the 1950s was a modest 1,000 square feet. Today, the square footage has more than doubled to nearly 2,500.

It’s easy to get trapped into thinking that you need a bigger house. The thing is, we’re like goldfish. We expand to the size of our living space. Because of this, it won’t be long before you feel like you’ve outgrown your new apartment or house.

Buying a new house and moving is so incredibly expensive. So, if the only reason you’re moving is to have more square footage, be sure to give it a lot of thought before signing on the dotted line.

imanel: LOST Dharma Rapid Transit.

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:43:01 -0500

imanel:

LOST Dharma Rapid Transit.