4. The most liveable place in the world

It’s Monday morning and I am back in at work after a drive through the streets of Melbourne. I usually take the tram, which has been great. In the mornings and afternoons, the trams are frequent and fast. Certainly a lot nicer than driving across Melbourne, which is now a city of some 4 million people and probably even more cars!? Melbourne is consistently ranked as one of the most liveable cities in the world. But what does this mean? No doubt Melbourne is a vibrant city with many parks and jam-packed with restaurants, cafes and city-activity. But is it really one of the best places to live in the world? To begin with most rankings of cities tend to focus on large urban centres and overlook smaller cities/towns or regional centres. And this immediately raises some questions.

Turning to Sweden, this is a country that ranks as one of the best places to live in the world across a whole range of criteria from life expectancy to educational opportunities. I have been living in Lomma, a small town of some 10,000 people, which is consistently ranked among the top communities in Sweden with the best living standards. I think the contrast between large cities, like Melbourne, and small towns, like Lomma, throw up many important lessons and questions for sustainability and liveability. How should we measure and compare cities on sustainability and quality of life? And what are the key aspects in cities or towns that we value? I am supervising an international Masters student working on this very topic. The results will be interesting indeed. Stay tuned.

3. Winning hearts and minds

I arrived back in Melbourne just in time for a by-election for the State seat of Melbourne (in Victoria). The Greens Party claimed the Federal seat of Melbourne at the last election, and the polls suggested they could potentially take the State seat as well. Cathy Oke (an old friend and current Greens councilor at the City of Melbourne) ran a positive and energetic campaign for the State seat, and it came down to the wire in a race against the Labour party candidate as the Liberal party (currently in power in the State of Victoria) decided not to contest the by-election. In the end, the Greens claimed the largest primary vote with 36% but the Labour party won in the end on preferences after claiming 33% of the primary vote. A number of factors did not go in the Greens favour, including a low voter turn-out and a large number of “donkey” votes, but I think most importantly the result shows the Greens must constantly be reflecting on their key messages and how they frame their role in modern politics. 

For me, I think the Greens political approach (and communication activities by many academics working with sustainability) often becomes too conceptual with ideas like livability, affordability and sustainability put forwards. The Greens also tend to be strong on policy in the sense that they present detailed policy plans (although costings are sometimes weak). On the contrary, I think the vast majority of voters focus little on policy (except for very concrete shifts in policy, like funding cuts for education for example) or concepts and more on values and principles, and want to know exactly what role Greens candidates will play in a Parliament, whether it be State or Federal. I also think the Greens need to focus much more on the business case for developing “smart” technologies and industries (and jobs). There are of course many opinions on what the Greens should and should not be doing, like better defining how they are different from the Labour party and not falling into the role of playing "conventional" politics. It's always going to be tough for the Greens, that's why they need to be innovative and proactive.

2. The slow death of global environmental conferences

I have recently had quite a few discussions about Rio+20, which commemorated the ground-breaking environmental and development conference in 1992 in Rio, Brazil. I was able to attend the Stockholm+40 event, which celebrated the conference from 1972 in Stockholm, Sweden. Unfortunately, this time around, both conferences have been widely criticized as a major failure of global governance. 

Philip Sutton of Greenleap wrote ... "Have we reached our alcoholics anonymous moment with sustainability? The Rio+20 conference was a fiasco, the international climate negotiations are getting nowhere fast and the political setting in Australia for environmental progress is going backwards at a terrifying rate. The purpose of pointing this out is not to engage in self-flagelation or 'dark-siding'. It is simply to see if, at last, we can admit, like a new member of an alcoholics anonymous  self-help group, that the methods we have been collectively applying to sustainability campaigning are simply not working and to continue with the same approach is futile. From that point of recognition it might be possible to build up a new, effective approach."

On a positive side, there was significant acknowledgment of the role of cities and local governments in bringing about sustainability (a theme I will return to later). Overall, there is still much to learn about what happened before, during, and after Rio+20 and what went so wrong? There are a huge number of sources and analyses to better understand what the Rio+20 outcomes mean ...

                                  

Chasek/IISD  http://www.iisd.ca/uncsd/rio20/enb/

Pearce/Yale e360  http://e360.yale.edu/feature/beyond_rios_disappointment_finding_a_path_to_the_future/2547/

Prideaux/MWN  http://wildmigration.org/newsletter.php?newsletter_select=29

James et al./CAP  http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/06/rio_text.html

Halle/IISD  http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2012/com_life_after_rio.pdf

Montague/TBIJ  http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/06/22/analysis-rio-20-epic-fail/

Dalkmann/WRI   http://insights.wri.org/news/2012/06/rio20-rear-view-whats-road-ahead-sustainable-transportation

Meynen et al./EJOLT  http://www.ejolt.org/section/blog/

Worth/Major Groups (video statement) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQbo9fPqZbs&feature=player_embedded

Boyd/IISD http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/06/25/its-called-an-un-sustainable-development-conference-for-a-reason/

Leape/WWF http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/?205343/WWF-Rio20-closing-statement

Greenpeace (press statement)  http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/press/releases/Greenpeace-Press-Statement-Rio20-Earth-Summit-a-failure-of-epic-proportions/

Mittler/Greenpeace http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/beyond-rio20-lets-mobilize-for-a-better-world/blog/41095/

Birdlife International http://www.birdlife.org/community/2012/06/reflections-rio-reaffirming-renewing-rhetoric-anything-really-changed/

Lieberman/Pew (txt + video statement) http://www.pewenvironment.org/news-room/press-releases/some-progress-at-rio-but-no-time-to-waste-85899400661

Wagner/Linkages Update (IISD)  http://www.iisd.ca/linkages-update/191/

Sanwal/SD List (developing country perspective)  http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/blogs/rio20-begining-global-transformation-and-new-multilateralism

Norden (Nordic region)  http://www.norden.org/en/news-and-events/news/rio-20-big-step-forward-on-sustainable-consumption-and-production

Smith/RTCC  http://www.rtcc.org/rtcc/a-week-in-climate-change-five-things-we-learnt-4/

Watts & Ford/The Guardian  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/23/rio-20-earth-summit-document

Romero & Broder/New York Times  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/23/rio-20-earth-summit-document

Monbiot/The Guardian  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/25/rio-governments-will-not-save-planet

Beinecke & Van Noppen/New York Times  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/after-rio20-we-have-to-solve-the-earths-problems.html

Kothari/Tehelka  http://www.tehelka.com/story_main53.asp?filename=Op070712Ashish.asp

Chen/China Daily  http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-06/29/content_15534416.htm

Vidal/The Guardian  http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2012/jun/27/rio20-reasons-cheerful

Chatterjee/CorpWatch  http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15746

Associated Press  http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2012/06/23/world/americas/ap-lt-brazil-rio20-outcome.html

IUCN   http://www.iucn.org/news_homepage/events/iucn___rio___20/on_the_road_to_rio__bonn_2011/?10227/20-years-on-civil-society-leads-in-Rio

Griffin/Bloomberg  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-26/rio-20-on-the-same-planet-but-not-the-same-page.html

Deen/Inter Press Service  http://www.ipsnews.net/2012/06/rio20-promised-green-economy-was-a-fake-say-activists/

Marshall/Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-marshall/rio-20-point-of-no-return_b_1620596.html

Boykoff & Osnes  http://www.insidethegreenhouse.net

1. Flying High

It's a long, long flight from Sweden to Australia. Some 30 hours from door to door and over 20 hours in the air. This time it was from Copenhagen to Doha to Melbourne. It seems airlines in the Middle East are starting to grow their fleets, destinations and customers, which is probably similar in many parts of the world.

While the GHG emissions associated with flying are relatively small compared to other industries, they are growing quickly, and airlines are very sensitive to prices changes in fuel, so there is quite a lot of action in the airline industry around how to be as efficient as possible and the development of alternative fuels.

On my flights from Sweden to Australia a few ideas rushed through my head about airlines, GHG emissions and what the future holds for this industry in a world with higher fuel prices? As I work in the biofuels area, I know there is a lot going on to explore possibilities to produce suitable fuels for planes. This is an area of considerable activity.

I remember I was once given a survey on a plane about how to reduce GHG emissions or offset such emissions? Today, most airline companies offer passengers the opportunity to tick a box and offset emissions associated with their flight. I wrote that this box should be pre-ticked and customers would then have to un-tick the box ... I wonder just how much a different this might make?

I have flown out of Copenhagen airport many times, and spotted posters proclaiming that the airport has drastically reduced its GHG emissions. This is of course impressive for any company or large buildings. But what is patently obvious is that Copenhagen airport is not including the flights in its emissions inventory ... of course it is the planes that make up the vast bulk of GHG emissions when talking about the airline industry. 

And this final thought about Copenhagen airport reminded me about how the Mayor of London took the courageous decision to include the GHG emissions from airports and flights in its GHG emissions accounting for the city. A bold and correct decision that reflects the reality of challenges facing large cities that are based around the movement of people.

That's it for now!