Plano B - Plan B - In the bubble by John Thackara 3
Aqui vai o terceiro post sobre o livro Plano B preparado pelo autor. No final de deste post estão os links para os detalhes do livro no site, ou então para os sites de venda das livrarias. Aproveite tudo o que o John tem a dizer, qualquer dúvida, cheque no site dele: www.thackara.com:
EXTRACT: MOBILITY
Modern movement has transformed the ways we experience “here” and “now.” and “there” and “then.” As a system, mobility is locked into a mode of perpetual growth in a world whose carrying capacity is limited. The status quo policy—“predict and provide”—promises more travel (of people and goods), forever, but using new technologies and integrated systems to make mobility more efficient. A second design strategy is mobility substitution—doing things at a distance that we would otherwise move to do. But as we shall see, mobility substitution is an added extra, not a viable alternative to mainstream mobility. The only viable design option, design strategy three, is to design away the need to move and foster new time-space relations: from distance to duration, from faster to closer.
Modern mobility comes with a price, but the price tag is seldom visible, and we seldom pay it—or not directly. The planet does. Not only is transport expensive in time and money to the user, but it involves such external costs as accidents, traffic congestion, air pollution, climate change, noise, and hidden infrastructure costs. In Europe, these add up to more than 6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). As global systems, air, rail, and road travel are greedy in their use of space, matter, and energy.
We Europeans are proud of our high-speed trains and believe them to be environmentally far more friendly than aircraft. But we’re wrong. High-speed trains are not a light alternative. A total of forty-eight kilograms (about a hundred pounds) of solid primary resources is needed for one passenger to travel one hundred kilometers by Germany’s high-speed train. Researchers at Germany’s Martin Luther University used material flow analysis and life cycle analysis to study the construction, use, and disposal of the system’s rail infrastructure. They measured everything from the running costs of train retrofitting factories to the petrol used by passengers getting to the station—even the provision of drinking water. They added these to numbers for the carbon dioxide emissions, cumulative energy demand, and so on to derive a “material input per service unit,” or MIPS, for train service. The energy demands of the traction process—actually moving the train—dominate the system’s life cycle, but the construction of tunnels and heating rail track points during winter also impose a significant cost.
Making mobility more efficient will not resolve our core dilemma: that although mobility will not stop growing of its own accord, the perpetual expansion of mobility is unsustainable. This is not just the opinion of green activists; a recent report by twelve global automotive and energy companies concluded that if today’s mobility trends continue, the social, economic, and environmental costs worldwide will be unacceptably high.
Comprar Plano B na Livraria Cultura
Comprar Plano B na Livraria Saraiva