Reva McAulay
MHC 200-Weekly Response #11
11.19.12
PlaNYC is a really impressive program, both for being willing to make such a long, extensive list of goals and for actually making progress on them. Building more parks is great, and honestly I think it doesn’t even matter whether they’re big or small or have grass and trees are not. Big parks with lots of greenery are around too, they just might be a little further than a 10 minute walk. Having small outdoor spaces nearby still allows people to get fresh air, be active, and have a little bit of community. Making waterways safe for recreation has basically the same functions, with the added benefit that if they are safe enough for people, they will probably be clean enough for wildlife as well. Providing cleaner energy is good, but vague, so it could mean anything from slightly more efficient or slightly less polluting fossil fuel plants to renewable energy sources. Reducing global warming emissions by 30% in the next 20 years is much more specific, but still doesn’t explain how. It would probably entail some combination of renewable energy and cleaner vehicles as well as who knows what else.
The bluebelt program seems great. It provides the same ecosystem services as any other expanse of plants and soil, while also reducing flooding and filtering runoff. Plus, it’s really pretty. Continuing to protect the watershed initially doesn’t sound like much of a goal, but its important for it to be part of the plan to ensure that the government is not tempted to stop and sell the land for development or something. Bike lanes are another multi-purpose goal, in that they protect bike riders’ safety, encourage an environmentally friendly mode of transportation, and make it easier for people to bike ride as a form of recreation.
All in all, the plan seems like a very good mix of public service and environmentally beneficial projects. It takes into consideration everything from the necessary (housing) to the purely recreational, with things like reducing congestion in between. It seems highly unlikely that the city will accomplish all these goals by 2030, but nonetheless it looks like they are actually making decent progress, which is what matters. In 5 years, they planted half a million trees, created new parks, implemented the select bus service, and created new housing. Now they have 18 more to accomplish the rest. As I said, this seems unlikely, but on the other hand Wikipedia says that “over 97% of the 127 initiatives in PlaNYC were launched within one year of its release and almost two-thirds of its 2009 milestones were achieved or mostly achieved.” If that’s true, it is a very good sign. Even accomplishing two-thirds of PlaNYC by 2030 would be great, and presumably the remaining third would be wrapped up soon after.
As for Monday’s presentation: You guys did a great job, and hearing both sides of the carbon tax was very interesting. However, I think cap-and-trade is something that actually has a lot of merit, probably even more than a carbon tax. A carbon tax punishes everybody, it just punishes companies that use less carbon less. Cap-and-trade actually rewards businesses that can operate with fewer emissions than the standard. And then, it also takes the guesswork out of trying to get companies to meet whatever goal the EPA has in mind. Finding the level of tax that would get companies to lower emissions to a certain level would be very difficult, and almost certainly involve a lot of trial and error. Giving out or selling emission permits makes it very easy, and then allows the government to continue to decrease carbon use over time. It worked well in reducing acid rain, better from both an environmental and economic standpoint than had been expected, so there’s every reason to believe it would work well for this.
