Making our cities cleaner is not a technical issue, it's a political one. And from Bristol to Bogota, there are examples of mayors making it happen
Leo Hollis theguardian.com 11 Apr 14;
Last week smog became the latest immigrant scare: particles from the Sahara and industrial pollution from mainland Europe became the predominant blight damaging life in the capital. So drastic was the level 9 air quality reading from the Met Office, that David Cameron forewent his morning run to do more work instead, claiming that this was a "naturally occurring weather phenomenon". Meanwhile, Nick Clegg was quick to add that "obviously, we can't blame the government".
While the areas worst hit by the smog appeared to be East Anglia and the Midlands, weather maps of central London showed that it was in the most congested urban areas that the worse affects could be measured. In response, agencies, health organisations and politicians warned people to be careful when going outside and to avoid strenuous activity. At the same time, foreboding statistics circulated stating that in the UK 300,000 deaths in the past decade were as a result of air pollution, as well as today's disconcerting news that in the London borough of Kensington, one in 12 deaths are caused by respiratory problems.
The lack of any adequate response is not just a government failing, but a general political one: the result of the inability from all major parties to get to grips with a comprehensive, sustainable urban policy. For while the city may be the location of the problem, it is also the only solution.
Despite the fug, cities are the greenest possible way to live together and perhaps the only way we can future-proof ourselves against the disasters of climate change. By living close together, sharing resources and reducing our energy usage we can minimise our footprint. In his book, Green Metropolis, David Owen shows that despite New York accounting for 2% of the total American population, it only emits 1% of the US greenhouse gases. A recent study by the British physicist Geoffrey West shows that, when a city doubles in size, it becomes more efficient, increasing its carbon footprint only by 85%.
How we build and move around has a huge impact on the quality of life. Housing and transport currently account for 40% of all carbon emissions in the city: much news has been made by cities such as Masdar, designed by Norman Foster on the outskirts of Abu Dhabi and which promises to be carbon-neutral. Similar schemes, such as Tianjin Eco city in China, are so confident in their design, the latest green architecture and infrastructure, that "the residents will not be expected to make any particular effort to be green".
It is more difficult to retrofit our existing cities to the same standards. Technological innovation is not enough to make that change. For example, Bristol's air quality issues are the result of the postwar road-planning schemes that run through the centre of the city. Mayor George Ferguson has campaigned hard to get the city named as the 2015 European Green Capital, promising a varied programme of improvements that are more than just upgrades to the metropolitan fabric. It is as much a question of changing the life between buildings as it is the buildings themselves.
We have to change our behaviour in order to become more sustainable. Initiatives from city hall as well as from the community need to actively engage with each other to make a real difference. The emergency demands action with, rather than to or for, the city. This is a different type of politics that many in city hall see as an obstacle.
The most obvious challenge here is getting people out of their cars. Last month the authorities in Paris responded to high pollution levels by banning cars with even numbered number plates. At the same time, public transport was made free of charge for three days. Although the results were obviously disputed by opposition politicians and the car lobby, the ban had an instant effect on air quality. But how do we get people to voluntarily leave their cars at home in the long term?
In 1998, Enrique Peñalosa was elected mayor of Bogota in Colombia and started a series of polices that addressed both public transit and social inequality. That year, private cars occupied 64% of all road space but were used by only 19% of the population. As a result, Peñalosa pedestrianised large sections of the city, banned parking on pavements, raised the tax on petrol, and forced commuters to leave their cars at home at least two days a week. One Thursday every year was declared a car-free day. He also revolutionised the bus system so that people would want to leave their cars at home rather that sit in traffic. As he noted: "Urban transport is a political and not a technical issue. The technical aspects are very simple. The difficult decisions relate to who is going to benefit."
Politicians might blame the weather, but they must surely stand accused of ignoring the rising frustration that results from their complacency.
The real question, therefore, is: who has the will to change the city, rather than just the means? It requires a political will, and a concerted effort to engage with citizens to show that changing our behaviour is not just good for the environment but for all of us. Rather than Boris Johnson's unconvincing platitudes that one day London's air would be "as sweet as the Alps", we should listen more to the straight-thinking Ferguson, who notes "this mustn't be just about the centre of the city or the white middle class. In a city that is extremely diverse, it has to engage with all communities."
