“According to Naomi Oreskes, a great number of climate change scientists (she interviewed most of the top 200 climate change scientists in the US) suffer from some sort of mood imbalance or mild or serious depression. It is easy to understand why: we see the climate change taking the planet apart right in front of our eyes. We also clearly see, right in front of us, what urgently needs to done to stave off global disaster on an unprecedented scale. We need carbon taxes and the reconversion of industry and energy towards zero CO2 emissions systems. This route is without any doubt technically and economically feasible, but politically it seems to be permanently locked. If we do not unlock it, the future looks bleak, not to say hopeless, for humankind.”
It’s clearly not a positive article. But it is an important read. We know we need to immediately and drastically reduce CO2 emissions (for all the reasons explained in the article), but we simply aren’t doing that.
“According to Naomi Oreskes, a great number of climate change scientists (she interviewed most of the top 200 climate change scientists in the US) suffer from some sort of mood imbalance or mild or serious depression. It is easy to understand why: we see the climate change taking the planet apart right in front of our eyes. We also clearly see, right in front of us, what urgently needs to done to stave off global disaster on an unprecedented scale. We need carbon taxes and the reconversion of industry and energy towards zero CO2 emissions systems. This route is without any doubt technically and economically feasible, but politically it seems to be permanently locked. If we do not unlock it, the future looks bleak, not to say hopeless, for humankind.”
It’s clearly not a positive article. But it is an important read. We know we need to immediately and drastically reduce CO2 emissions (for all the reasons explained in the article), but we simply aren’t doing that.
Part of the problem, I think, is that it’s easy to lull ourselves into complacency. We read about it and we notice the erratic weather patterns, but for the most part the status quo isn’t all that bad for most of us. Life just goes on.
There’s evidence that revenue-neutral carbon pricing could actually increase productivity levels. It would force innovation. But it doesn’t yet appear to be 10x better than what we have today – which is often what you need to get people to accept change.
So instead we hold largely ineffectual climate change conferences, which allow us to tell ourselves that we are, in fact, doing something. But I don’t think we’re being bold enough. And that’s too bad.
I’ve been a big fan of MIT’s Senseable City Lab since I was a grad student at Penn. Their work sits at the intersection of cities and technology, and so I’ve always found it incredibly fascinating.
Recently, the lab examined data from all of New York’s 13,586 registered cabs and looked for ways that technology and mobile tech could potentially optimize the way the system works today. In particular, they were interested in examining instances where people were heading to the same place at the same time, and were within no more than a 3 minute walk of each at the start of the trip.
That is, 80% of the time, there was an overlap in both time and route. That’s an hugely interesting stat because it starts to show just how much waste and inefficiency there currently is in the system. Think about all the trips and carbon emissions that could be potentially eliminated through optimization.
Here’s a video they produced on the project. Click here if you can’t see it below.
It’s a great example of how technology is and will continue to creep into every segment of the economy. It’s exactly what I was talking about in my post, “Disrupting everything.”
Part of the problem, I think, is that it’s easy to lull ourselves into complacency. We read about it and we notice the erratic weather patterns, but for the most part the status quo isn’t all that bad for most of us. Life just goes on.
There’s evidence that revenue-neutral carbon pricing could actually increase productivity levels. It would force innovation. But it doesn’t yet appear to be 10x better than what we have today – which is often what you need to get people to accept change.
So instead we hold largely ineffectual climate change conferences, which allow us to tell ourselves that we are, in fact, doing something. But I don’t think we’re being bold enough. And that’s too bad.
I’ve been a big fan of MIT’s Senseable City Lab since I was a grad student at Penn. Their work sits at the intersection of cities and technology, and so I’ve always found it incredibly fascinating.
Recently, the lab examined data from all of New York’s 13,586 registered cabs and looked for ways that technology and mobile tech could potentially optimize the way the system works today. In particular, they were interested in examining instances where people were heading to the same place at the same time, and were within no more than a 3 minute walk of each at the start of the trip.
That is, 80% of the time, there was an overlap in both time and route. That’s an hugely interesting stat because it starts to show just how much waste and inefficiency there currently is in the system. Think about all the trips and carbon emissions that could be potentially eliminated through optimization.
Here’s a video they produced on the project. Click here if you can’t see it below.
It’s a great example of how technology is and will continue to creep into every segment of the economy. It’s exactly what I was talking about in my post, “Disrupting everything.”
Today I learned about something new called 2030 Districts. They are: “designated urban areas committed to meeting the energy, water, and transportation emissions reduction targets of the 2030 Challenge for Planning.”
Toronto’s new 2030 District is downtown, which is bound by the lake in the south, Bathurst Street in the west, Dupont Street and Rosedale Valley in the north, and the Don Valley in the east.
It’s the first district outside of the US. The other established districts are in Seattle, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Denver, Stamford, San Francisco, and Dallas.
The goals for Toronto’s district are as follows (quoted from 2030 Districts):
To cut district-wide emissions in half, including zero-emissions from new buildings by 2030.
Support a better understanding of where and why energy use, water use, and GHG emissions occur across the District.
Work in partnership with building owners, service providers and conservation groups to accelerate the adoption of best practices for building design and management.
Facilitate broad stakeholder dialogues to uncover and overcome systemic barriers to long term reductions in energy use, water use and GHG emissions.
I’m looking forward to following and learning more about this initiative. I think many of us can agree that producing less, not more, GHG emissions in the future would be preferable. And we know that the bulk of it comes from both buildings and transportation.
Today I learned about something new called 2030 Districts. They are: “designated urban areas committed to meeting the energy, water, and transportation emissions reduction targets of the 2030 Challenge for Planning.”
Toronto’s new 2030 District is downtown, which is bound by the lake in the south, Bathurst Street in the west, Dupont Street and Rosedale Valley in the north, and the Don Valley in the east.
It’s the first district outside of the US. The other established districts are in Seattle, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Denver, Stamford, San Francisco, and Dallas.
The goals for Toronto’s district are as follows (quoted from 2030 Districts):
To cut district-wide emissions in half, including zero-emissions from new buildings by 2030.
Support a better understanding of where and why energy use, water use, and GHG emissions occur across the District.
Work in partnership with building owners, service providers and conservation groups to accelerate the adoption of best practices for building design and management.
Facilitate broad stakeholder dialogues to uncover and overcome systemic barriers to long term reductions in energy use, water use and GHG emissions.
I’m looking forward to following and learning more about this initiative. I think many of us can agree that producing less, not more, GHG emissions in the future would be preferable. And we know that the bulk of it comes from both buildings and transportation.
