Comments on: Book Review: Twenty-Three Years to Save the Planet http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/ Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:01:47 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: jesica http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-33615 jesica Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:46:27 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/#comment-33615 Simply great !Nice book review site I like your site and i have gone through your website it's good site,Especially The Book Review on "Twenty-Three Years to Save the Planet" is very use full to all the book lovers.Not only book lovers .Great information i got from your site to every one .Recently i have visited one book review site which is smiler to yours that may be use full to you and your visitors . Simply great !Nice book review site I like your site and i have gone through your website it's good site,Especially
The Book Review on "Twenty-Three Years to Save the Planet" is very use full to all the book lovers.Not only book lovers .Great information i got from your site to every one .Recently i have visited one book review site which is smiler to yours that may be use full to you and your visitors .

]]> By: gecko http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-33105 gecko Wed, 27 Jun 2007 00:05:46 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/#comment-33105 Most likely the greatest emission reductions will come from life and human-centric activities like the large-scale poverty reduction, healthy sensible living, education, intelligent advancement, and sound environmental stewardship. The benefits are obvious. It's not clear what the real hardships are. Most likely the greatest emission reductions will come from life and human-centric activities like the large-scale poverty reduction, healthy sensible living, education, intelligent advancement, and sound environmental stewardship.

The benefits are obvious. It's not clear what the real hardships are.

]]> By: socialscientist http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-33101 socialscientist Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:34:29 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/#comment-33101 Free transit in large cities should be a federal, if not international, effort. The savings from free public transit more than pay for the cost. It replaces a minimum wage boost. It replaces the need for oil wars. It has an economic multiplier of anywhere from 4 to 9, compared to 1 to 2 for general govt expenditure. It gets unsafe autos off the road. It reduces auto traffic deaths. It might save the species. What is the value of that? Free transit in large cities should be a federal, if not international, effort. The savings from free public transit more than pay for the cost. It replaces a minimum wage boost. It replaces the need for oil wars. It has an economic multiplier of anywhere from 4 to 9, compared to 1 to 2 for general govt expenditure. It gets unsafe autos off the road. It reduces auto traffic deaths. It might save the species. What is the value of that?

]]> By: anonymous http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-33049 anonymous Tue, 26 Jun 2007 04:52:13 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/#comment-33049 Regarding free public transit: yes, it often works pretty well in cases where there is fairly limited service, and fare revenue covers a negligible part of the operating costs. But in NYC, a free subway would require increasing the operating subsidy by a factor of 6, partly to account for lost fare revenue, and partly to account for the increase in ridership that would mean a correspondingly higher cost of operation. And I honestly don't think the city has a spare $3 billion a year lying around for that purpose. Regarding free public transit: yes, it often works pretty well in cases where there is fairly limited service, and fare revenue covers a negligible part of the operating costs. But in NYC, a free subway would require increasing the operating subsidy by a factor of 6, partly to account for lost fare revenue, and partly to account for the increase in ridership that would mean a correspondingly higher cost of operation. And I honestly don't think the city has a spare $3 billion a year lying around for that purpose.

]]> By: Angus Grieve-Smith http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-33044 Angus Grieve-Smith Tue, 26 Jun 2007 03:46:59 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/#comment-33044 In regards to air travel: with the help of <a href="http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/05/cruised" rel="nofollow">Dan Savage</a>, I'm going to come out of the closet ... as the ultimate transportation nerd: an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship" rel="nofollow">airship</a> fan. I've always thought of airships as the most civilized way to travel: relatively quiet and sedate, and more efficient and less polluting than a plane. Savage quotes a Monbiot article from the <i>Nation</i> that says "The total climate impact of a zeppelin, blimp, or airship is 80 to 90 percent lower than the impact of a jet airplane." Of course, a 43-hour trip to Europe would be a major pain, especially in economy class without room to move around. Still, I'd like to see them brought back into service on some routes. As far as passenger ships go, I'm wondering if Monbiot was right to use the energy consumption of a luxury cruise ship as representative. I think it'd be possible to get people across the Atlantic in a few days with enough comfort to keep them sane, but not all the swimming pools and Wayne Newton. It seems like that would use a lot less energy, but I don't know how it would compare to airplanes. Does he address that in his book? In regards to air travel: with the help of Dan Savage, I'm going to come out of the closet ... as the ultimate transportation nerd: an airship fan.

I've always thought of airships as the most civilized way to travel: relatively quiet and sedate, and more efficient and less polluting than a plane. Savage quotes a Monbiot article from the Nation that says "The total climate impact of a zeppelin, blimp, or airship is 80 to 90 percent lower than the impact of a jet airplane."

Of course, a 43-hour trip to Europe would be a major pain, especially in economy class without room to move around. Still, I'd like to see them brought back into service on some routes.

As far as passenger ships go, I'm wondering if Monbiot was right to use the energy consumption of a luxury cruise ship as representative. I think it'd be possible to get people across the Atlantic in a few days with enough comfort to keep them sane, but not all the swimming pools and Wayne Newton. It seems like that would use a lot less energy, but I don't know how it would compare to airplanes. Does he address that in his book?

]]> By: socialscientist http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-33037 socialscientist Tue, 26 Jun 2007 00:41:29 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/#comment-33037 Free public transit. The beginning of the end of autosprawl. http://www.freepublictransit.org Free public transit. The beginning of the end of autosprawl.

http://www.freepublictransit.org

]]> By: Jason Varone http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-33021 Jason Varone Mon, 25 Jun 2007 17:48:22 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/#comment-33021 <p>Monbiot certainly has the best action plan on how to get out of this mess in the remaining years...Its a hell of a mountain to climb though.</p><p>Reading his work makes me feel good and terrible simultaneously. I don't see America making these changes in time, not when it takes so long just to pass (or not pass) something like congestion pricing.</p> Monbiot certainly has the best action plan on how to get out of this mess in the remaining years...Its a hell of a mountain to climb though.

Reading his work makes me feel good and terrible simultaneously. I don't see America making these changes in time, not when it takes so long just to pass (or not pass) something like congestion pricing.

]]> By: Charles Siegel http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/comment-page-1/#comment-33015 Charles Siegel Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:37:01 +0000 http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/06/25/book-review-twenty-three-years-to-save-the-planet/#comment-33015 Many of his prescriptions involve consuming less, such as living in smaller houses and driving less. The prescription would be more successful if he pointed out that consuming less also means working shorter hours. For more details, see my 4-page white paper Work Time and Global Warming at http://www.preservenet.com/studies/WorkTimeGlobalWarming.html. We can aim for an economy with an adequate standard of living and abundant leisure. This would be better in many ways than our current economy, which requires long work hours to support a consumerist standard of living that provides little satisfaction. I think environmentalists would be more successful politically if we advanced this sort of positive view of the future. We are doing it for urban planning, talking about building cities that are more livable than our current sprawl as well as being more environmentally sound. We also need to do it for the economy as a whole. Many of his prescriptions involve consuming less, such as living in smaller houses and driving less.

The prescription would be more successful if he pointed out that consuming less also means working shorter hours. For more details, see my 4-page white paper Work Time and Global Warming at http://www.preservenet.com/studies/WorkTimeGlobalWarming.html.

We can aim for an economy with an adequate standard of living and abundant leisure. This would be better in many ways than our current economy, which requires long work hours to support a consumerist standard of living that provides little satisfaction.

I think environmentalists would be more successful politically if we advanced this sort of positive view of the future. We are doing it for urban planning, talking about building cities that are more livable than our current sprawl as well as being more environmentally sound. We also need to do it for the economy as a whole.

]]>