Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Sustainable Mobility & Cities Conference (UC Berkeley; 2/23)

Expand Messages
  • Asha Weinstein Agrawal
    [Details at http://www.urbansustainability.berkeley.edu/sustainablemobility.shtml. Note that registration is required.] Sustainable Mobility & Cities
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 11, 2012
      [Details at http://www.urbansustainability.berkeley.edu/sustainablemobility.shtml.
      Note that registration is required.]

      Sustainable Mobility & Cities Conference

      February 23, 2012 | 8AM-6PM | David Brower Center, 2150 Allston
      Way, Berkeley | $75 (Advance Registration is Required)

      The third of three major events in the 2011-2012 Conference Series on
      Urban Sustainability, sponsored by the Ted and Doris Lee Fund at the
      College of Environmental Design and the Boalt School of Law, managed
      by the Institute of Urban & Regional Development.

      The urban transport sector's environmental footprint is profound and
      continues to grow– around a third of energy consumption and CO2
      emissions in U.S. cities comes from the transport sector. The debate
      on how to shrink the urban transport footprint has divided along two
      lines: arguing for technological solutions (e.g., clean-fuel vehicles;
      smart cars), and arguing that policies (e.g., congestion pricing) and
      land-use management (e.g., TOD) that reduce the demand for car travel
      provide a better solution. The debate and rhetoric has become
      fractious and at times divisive. In modeling how to comply with AB32,
      for example, CARB (California Air Resources Board) estimates that some
      90% of the targeted CO2 emission reductions will come from
      technological advances and a much smaller share (5% or so) might come
      from land-use initiatives like TOD. Many smart-growth policy advocates
      dispute this. The technology versus policy debate could very well be a
      false dichotomy. Is it possible that the two might effectively work
      together in tandem, promoting cross-purposes? Need the two
      points-of-view always be at loggerheads? Might there be
      synergies/win-win outcomes associated with aggressively pursuing the
      two strategies in tandem.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.