Four the Future - October 4

Water in China, Chinese emissions talks, emissions standards changes, and transportation choices affect health.

• China moving heaven and Earth to bring water to Beijing
  Source: Los Angeles Times; September 29, 2010
  Summary: China is building a series of aqueducts to bring water from the wet south to the parched north. It’s a sacred project because Mao Tse-tung mentioned the concept in 1952. In China, water naturally flows west to east, so the Yangtze River will supply water that is tunneled under the Yellow River, for instance. The Yellow, itself, cannot supply water because it's too polluted. Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to relocate due to inundations cause by dam projects to supply the system. Entire villages are being scooped up and relocated hundreds of miles away to less productive areas, forcing them to be retrained to sow their (ironically) drier soils.
  Opinion: It's hubris, and a total lack of respect for human life, environmentally mitigated balances, and even basic rationality. It’s not your fault, but do be mindful that this is what the Chinese do with the money they get from your purchases.
  
• Climate talks put top emitter China in hot seat
  Source: Los Angeles Times; October 2, 2010
  Summary: China is hosting the next round of UN talks regarding reducing greenhouse emissions. China has recently become the world’s largest greenhouse gas producer, recently surpassing the United States. There is distrust between developed and developing countries as developing countries see the developing countries emitting immense amounts of CO₂ per capita, and attempting to prevent industrial development by restricting carbon emissions. The United States’ intransigence is often cited as a cause of that rift. Failure to make progress could result in the inability to renew the Kyoto protocol, which expires in 2012.
  Opinion: Despite China’s new status as the largest emitter, the United States is still the largest emitter per capita. China is still growing, and a non-carbon economy is necessary to prevent an increase in the incidence of disasters like this year’s Russian fires and Pakistani floods. This problem is global, but individual countries seem to wish to exempt themselves from the global solutions. It's unworthy, and will result in conflicts, potentially armed conflicts, when access to water and food become an issue.
  
• Cars May Need to Boost Fuel Economy to 62 MPG by 2025
  Source: Bloomberg; October 1, 2010
  Summary: The federal government is considering increasing fuel efficiency standards from 3% to 6% per year beginning in 2017. This would result in a standard between 47 to 62 miles per gallon by 2025. The current standard requires automakers to reach 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016. A final rule is set to be adopted by July 31, 2012.
  Opinion: Fuel efficiency will make a big difference, but it’s not a solution in isolation. It must also be accompanied by changes to our landscapes which reduce our dependence on the car itself, too. Adopting several solutions will multiply our efforts’ effects.
  
• Study correlates walking, cycling and obesity levels
  Source: Spokesman-Review; September 21, 2010
  Summary: People who bike and walk in daily life are less likely to be obese or suffer from diabetes. According to the researcher, "the very highest levels of obesity are found in exactly those states that have the lowest level of biking, walking and public-transit use." When children started being driven to school is when child obesity became a problem.
  Opinion: Complete streets, which allow the safe use of roads for biking and walking, and convenient transit makes a huge difference in the health of the people. This is part of the reason why I love planning. Important topics can be found to be closely related, in this case, transportation planning, urban form, and public health. What I don't like about it are the haters, and there are lots of them in the car versus bike debate. There is no rational car versus bike debate. They are both needed, and they will both be used. Neither is inherently superior. Both have their realm within which they are more efficient. They must both be respected. Unfortunately, there are those on both sides who fail to show the proper respect. Having said that, governments across the country are finally beginning to realize that we've over-subsidized cars, and it's time to balance our roads for all people.