Seong Im Hong

Nov 19, 2012

Getting the Last Word: Debate about the Debate Assignment

            Call me petty, but I want to get the last word in on the debate about the debate assignment. (And even if Demetra never hears this argument somebody else would know.)

Taxing residential areas a “green tax” is great, but this is a flawed system based solely on the whip. To have an effective system of encouraging citizens to be more environmentally conscious, policy makers should employ both the whip and the carrot. It sounded to me that the “whip,” or the tax, would hit families equally as hard regardless of how good they are about their energy. If this is so, the policy makers should consider their goal: is it to raise tax revenue for investment in green energy, or to herald a shift in the citizens’ habits that may continue even after a total shift to green, renewable energy?

With just the tax in effect, there is nothing stopping the citizens from changing their energy usage habits to be more conservative. What if there are tax cuts offered to those who consume less than the district’s average energy consumption? That way, citizens who do not feel like they can afford the tax can take control of their home to reduce their energy consumption. (They can, for example, unplug their appliances when they are not in use.)

(I italicized “take control of their homes” because I think this is a key step to developing green habits: I think citizens have a sort of… learned helplessness, almost, when it comes to dealing with issues that are bigger than any single one of us can handle. I talked about this before when I was trying to make sense of the Andy Kushner quote, but I think the idea is relevant again: we have learned to seek freedom from responsibility in perceived helplessness in the face of giant organizations and giant problems like ridiculous campaign bills, banks’ reckless behaviors, and global warming. Companies have been consolidating for years and years to the point that we as individuals cannot help but feel small and insignificant when we stare at their true size. We have become removed from corporations and large organizations (the U.S. government included, I suppose) to the point that we really ought to have corporation-money-units to help us fathom how much exponentially bigger everything is. And instead of demanding to have a say in how our society is run, we just shrug and say, “Oh well,” probably because we’re not really in any discomfort. Yet.)

Of course, employing the whip and the carrot to encourage taking control over what comes up to be the grand total of $5 tax per year isn’t going to change the world. Like Demetra said, there won’t be a paradigm shift—if people chose to unplug their appliances, it will be to pay less rather than out of actual concern for the environment. I agree with that. However, can that small change in attitude (a perception of control) change anything if there are many of these perception shifts? I think it maybe, maybe, maybe can, and here’s why:

(I’m about to get a bit radical and theoretical. Bear with me.)

There is a term, microaggression, to describe commonplace act of aggressions that act to subtly put down/subjugate a group of people. Microaggression can have a tinge of racism (i.e. “I can’t believe you’re black! You act like a normal person!”) or sexism (i.e. “Get back in the kitchen and make me a sandwich! Haha, this is totally a joke!”) or homophobia (i.e. “I can’t be homophobic! One of my best friends is gay!”).

I think microaggression can extend to non –isms and –phobias. I think that how we react to the world is effected by what we expect out of it from past experiences. And this sounds crazy, but Messianic Moments are supposed to be kind of crazy: maybe supporting a culture of some level of personal control over large institutions (like the IRS) can lead to a more proactive culture.

Wow, that sounded kind of libertarian, too.

Obviously, we do need taxes to support large institutions (i.e. EPA) whose full-time job is to combat other large institutions (i.e. Exxon-Mobil). But we also need to remember that we as a collective are employing those large institutions. But how do we draw the line between personal control/choice and sacrificing for the greater good? Obviously, we can get the two to meet by educating people about why, for example, global warming is bad. But that will take time. Generations, even. So how what do we do meanwhile? I don’t know.

(And that is why I want to be a doctor/scientist, not a policy maker.)

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.

Alda Yuan

Professor Alexandratos

MHC 200

Week 11 Response

It is very assuring to hear that New York City has such a far-reaching plan in place and that its government is continually working on it.  As we have seen in this class and as I have noticed from the news, it is often the penchant when undertaking such projects to set goals and yet take no steps until the target date approaches and it becomes too late to make an impact. The fact that such a large and commercial city is taking these steps is especially heartening for it indicates at least something of a shift in values of the government officials that has proceeded through time.

The preservation of the watershed in order to reduce the necessity of constructing a costly water treatment plant was no doubt fueled largely by the fiscal benefits. Nevertheless, this instance of forward thinking became a boon to the environment as well as the city. And even if it was an effort triggered by purely a instrumental outlook, it has at the very least led to different ways of thinking in the city’s management of our natural resources, in a way that can be considered more in line with the mantra of avoiding “killing the bees.” This is simply a more eloquent restatement of the idea that people need to consider the ramification and consequences of their action. Something that might seem a small loss today may turn out to be a big detriment in the future when the details are better understood. As always, the arguments cycles back to the division between intrinsic and instrumental.

Somewhere between this parsing of terms and words lies the difference between intrinsic and instrumental viewpoints. Instrumental value is forever stuck with the body of knowledge accessible at the present time. The only things that have value are the ones, which has benefits or foreseeable benefits. But this a judgment is confined and limited by the time and information available to you at any given point. The idea of intrinsic value encompasses and goes beyond this limitation. In saying that that everything has value, we regard the parts of the whole as well as the whole itself to be of significance and worth the effort to understand and study.

As to the logistics of the plan, it seems to me at once both ambitious and flawed. Ambitious simply because there is a plan and because it recognizes that all the factors must be improved at once if there is to be improvement overall. Besides, it is much more than the majority of the world or even the majority of the country is willing to attempt or even discuss. And indeed, many of its aspects are laudable. Most impressive to me was the effort on Staten Island to extend the natural drainage system. Here is an example where natural processes are adapted and engineered by human ingenuity to maximize benefits for all. This is a great example of green engineering and demonstrates what humans can achieve if they direct their intelligence and resourcefulness toward the right avenues.

On the other hand, the lack of publicity about this plan seems to be a flaw. For instance, I had no idea that this was an ongoing process before this class. And yet, I knew of many of the individual components of the plan, such as the 2^nd avenue subway. Perhaps there are difficulties of which I am unaware but I cannot imagine that it would too difficult for government officials to communicate to the public that these efforts are all part of a comprehensive plan that will help to ensure New York City’s environmental health. This would help make average citizens more conscious of the situation, which should be a major end goal. For environmental efforts can not perpetually be imposed from the top down. The necessity of the undertaking must be accepted at all levels if we are to claim success.

New York City has many admirable goals to improve itself over the next two decades as part of the PlaNYC program. Designed to increase the “liveability” of the city in the categories of land, water, transportation, energy, and air, these goals fit well into the framework of sustainability. They seem to follow and seem to match up well with a conclusion I came to in previous essays – that the city must take advantage of the opportunities presented to it, and renew itself to be better and more efficient.

The city plans to take greater advantage of its resources, as any city might. But rather than develop for industry, the improvements outlined for PlaNYC seem focused on allowing millions of New Yorkers to enjoy the full benefits of the city they live in. Unusable brownfields are to be cleaned and restored – many of them into parks for the city’s residents. Waterways are to be opened, not for commercial fishing, but for recreation. And greenhouse gas emissions are to be lowered by 30%, a goal which, if achieved, would be extremely impressive.

Many of the goals outlined in the plan are simply logical, such as improving the city’s electrical grid and transportation system or building additional housing. But the primary beneficiaries of the improvements will be those who live there, as residents and workers rather than owners or businesses. Creating a city that people want to live in is improvement from the ground up – business and innovation will follow. If New York can become the nicest city in America to live in, by the standards of the general population, it will surely secure itself as the city model city of the future.

Many successes have already been logged in the record book for PlaNYC. Municipal infrastructure and train lines that can function underground are being decked over by housing and business, facilities that can take better advantage of clean air and natural light. In this way the city continues to make more of itself advantageous to more New Yorkers. New train lines focus on decreasing congestion and designing more efficient routes. The city is functional now, and excellent in many respects – but if PlaNYC accomplishes its goals, the city will be on track to become an excellent city for everyone.

I was particularly intrigued to learn of Staten Island’s “Bluebelt” program. This is a prime example of green engineering – engineering waterways and ecosystems to process our water and protect our land. The juxtaposition between the natural-looking drainage system and the vacuum truck was unique, but possibly indicative of trends to come. The system is a mutualistic partnership between humans and nature, as opposed to a parasitic or even commensal one. This matches up perfectly with the lyric from the song we listened to in class: “if you’re after getting the honey, don’t go killing all the bees.”

In reading about science and technology, I often hear about scientists delving into natural processes as a framework for technology. But sometimes we can simply redirect existing systems to suit our needs. Of course, we have learned lessons in what happens when we use introduce formerly remote species into new environments. But our tools have become more subtle since we intentionally relocated invasive species to remove pests or do other tasks for us. Genetic engineering lets us introduce specific traits into a species. GM crops are now common, but I don’t believe we have ever used such organisms for much of a role in green engineering or sustainable development. I expect it won’t be long before our knowledge is complete enough, or our need is dire enough, for us to give it a try.

          Bloomberg’s plaNYC is truly an incredible effort and probably Bloomberg’s biggest ever. The initiative is very far-reaching and has actually been seeing implementation already, even though the date set for implementation of the goals is 2030. Typically I am more hesitant than anyone about these types of initiatives and efforts, and more specifically I am skeptical that they will actually work, but plaNYC actually looks promising. I think a key to its potential success will be the early work put in that has already been done. Having 97% of programs launched within the year after the program started shows that although the undertaking is massive, the Mayor’s office is starting now rather than waiting until it is too late. While I can see the logic those opposed to plaNYC would present, namely that it is too much money being spent and an example of big government, I really think Bloomberg did it right with this one. For the entire semester I have complained every week of humans not having a proper outlook or being shortsighted in their handling of the environment, but for once I think someone took a step back and actually thought in the sense of the greater good. If plaNYC is successful I think it will probably be the greatest accomplishment of Bloomberg’s time in office, and it will remain as a siginificant legacy.

            Part of what I think makes plaNYC so appealing is the plan really does not outstep its fair sphere of influence. An initiative of this kind seems perhaps best on such a small scale, for truly what plaNYC is setting out to accomplish is not necessary applicable to every city; tailoring the plan specifically to New York City insures that it is exactly what we need. If the federal government tried such an initiative I really suspect that some spending would likely be wasteful and the problems would not be handled with the appropriate degree of detail.

            One example of the well-chosen initiatives is the plan’s call for expansion of mass transit use, and specifically the updating of the strong system we already have. The controversial congestion-pricing proposal, while perhaps seeming a bit extreme at first, would also do an incredible amount to create a more sustainable and less congested New York City. I can understand why the proposal was not passed, but I just can’t imagine it being something that people would want revoked once it had settled into the normal. While eight dollars is enough to make a serious difference, it also isn’t such a high price that it will have any serious impact on business on a greater scale. If it was a big enough difference even to close a few businesses, the others that were able to operate while making a smaller impact on the environment should be favored anyway.

            I’m really very glad that Bloomberg created plaNYC and I have very high hopes for the program. I think the legislation could potentially seen as monumental in the future and could be a large part of what’s keeping New York City perpetually on top and ahead of the game. Sooner or later different cities are going to have start adopting similar initiatives and I’m glad to see New York leading the charge.

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.

PlaNYC sounds wonderful and it seems that we are making real progress in improving land, water, transportation, energy and air. While it is nice that we set goals for where we want to be, it is even nicer that PlaNYC is acting to work towards achieving these goals. The updates from 2011 and 2012 showed some progress here in New York City, a sign that PlaNYC has been effective. Hopefully, other cities all across the globe will marvel at our success and rush to emulate PlaNYC.

I am a bit skeptical about all the success that has been attributed to PlaNYC. The 2011 and 2012 updates noted that 250,000 more residents are within a 10-minute walk of a park. First of all, I am sure there are ways to make these numbers appear more impressive than they actually are. My big question is what exactly is a park? Does it have to be a green area? Does a swing set and a bench constitute as a park? I would define a park as a place where someone can go for recreation and be able to appreciate nature. There should be green at a park and schoolyards should not count. Ideally, a park should be able to accommodate several recreational activities from nature walks to baseball games. Many of the parks that have been built for PlaNYC could be tiny, almost useless parks. Therefore, I am not completely sold on the progress PlaNYC has made.

One of the best park models I have seen is the plan to build a park at the former site of the Fresh Kills Landfill. While I do not support the creation of this park, I can only admire the park design. It will accommodate dozens of activities. It is set to be five parks in one, all comprising the Fresh Kills Park. The Confluence will contain a bunch of athletic fields and host waterfront activities. The North Park will contain natural settings for beauty, walking, running, biking, and picnicking. The South Park will contain soccer fields and mountain bike paths. The East Park will contain a scenic route and areas for Frisbee, golf, sports fields, and other recreation activities. Now THIS is a park! If only all parks could model this one. Unfortunately, this is completely unrealistic, especially in crammed cities like NYC where land is at a premium. It is only possible on Staten Island because it is being built over a horrific landfill.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about the creation of this park. Many toxins and known carcinogens have been detected in significant amounts at the landfill and in nearby residential areas. I have noticed high rates of lung cancer on Staten Island, maybe partially due to this. That is why I am skeptical about building a park where all these toxins are. I understand that the landfill is buried deep and will remain closed forever. I also understand that the air and ground will be monitored for toxins to ensure safety. However, I cannot get it through my head to accept it and watch future generations taking their children to the park at the former site of the landfill without even knowing it existed. But I do love the idea of taking advantage of the now unused land by building a park there. It seems like it will be an amazing park that I would love to go to. It will help Americans get outdoors more and enjoy nature. Hopefully it will be a step in stopping future kids from being hooked on electronics and staying indoors all day. Hopefully when it is all said and done, I will develop a clearer attitude towards this park and the former landfill.