PlaNYC seems like a good start towards sustainable development. That’s not to say that our job will be over once it’s completed. Even if PlaNYC’s goals are reached, the general population would still be nowhere near achieving 100% sustainability in our lifestyles. But it’s a start. It’s far better than not having any plan or policy at all. Changing habits this ingrained and widespread is a painstakingly slow process, but baby steps are better than complete immobility.
The plan is very vague about how the city will go about achieving its goals, which could be both an advantage and a disadvantage. For one thing, it leaves plenty of options open. So when it comes to reducing greenhouse emissions, shrinking combined sewage overflows, and combating traffic congestion, we can do whatever it takes to reach these ends—without being bothered about the specifics of government policy. Right? Hopefully. Or the ambiguity could lead to long legal debates about which specific technology or course of action would be best for each case. These debates would have to happen at some point down the line, of course, but the fact that they aren’t already resolved means that we have even more opportunities to go wrong—to choose low-cost convenience over investments in sustainable development, to compromise rather than push forward. We have many choices—but once we begin to walk a certain path, it’s hard to opt out of it, as our current situation demonstrates. We need to be careful and stay involved.
One example of this ambiguity that particularly troubles me is the pledge to pursue “cleaner, more reliable power”. What does this mean? Does this mean investing in mechanisms for fossil-fuel burning plants—researching techniques to make energy production more efficient, filter out wastes more effectively? Does this mean building new nuclear power plants, or upgrading and maintaining the old ones? Does this mean resorting to solar energy, or to fracking? How would the government of the city go about executing any of these options? The stage is set for a prolonged and heated tussle over one of the most urgent questions that faces the city today.
Another thing that bothers me is that plaNYC says absolutely nothing about curbing growth. Growth is nearly always used as a positive term these days—for cities, for people, for economies and industries. Growth is a goal. But why does it have to be? Why do we continue to see all growth as desirable? When something begins to grow out of control, it’s called a tumor. Population growth is not the problem. The problem comes when the powers that be expand production exponentially and then use marketing to turn humans into consumers. How are we going to lower our greenhouse emissions while simultaneously increasing the power supply? We’re not quite at the stage where that can be done, yet. (And why do we really need to increase the power supply if we already have a surplus?) How are we going to reduce transportation congestion and make sure that everybody lives within a 10-minute walk of a park while coevally adding a million homes? And who’s going to live in those million homes? Are they going to be affordable enough to attract people from the more crowded, poorer areas of the city, or will they only attract newcomers—more affluent people from outside of the five boroughs? What will those homes do, overall, for the city? And where will they be squeezed—into new, completely undeveloped lands, or into preexisting neighborhoods? How will they meet their energy consumption needs?
PlaNYC tries to tackle the issues of economic, social and environmental equilibrium all at once. It’s not a perfect plan. PlaNYC is only a small first step. It leaves us with plenty of choices, and each one addresses at least one of the three goals of sustainable development to a certain degree. Finding the balance is tricky, but, in the long run, sustainable development is most definitely worth the work and effort that needs to be invested in it, especially in growing cities like New York.
