WBCSD Mobility 2030 report - general commentary
- -----Original Message-----
From: Paul Metz [mailto:metz@...]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:21 PM
Thank you for this initiative. If July 30 is indeed the end, I can only
now make some remarks and wish they serve you in these 2 weeks.
1. In the early stage of this WBCSD-project I met with the organisers
and told them that their focus cannot credibly claim to cover
"mobility". The report should be named more correctly "some first steps
towards sustainable AUTOmobility". If not, I urged them to include
public transport and the potentials for reduction of physical mobility
by ICT, telework, teleconsults, telemeetings, ... Some other members of
the same associations should be invited, not only the cars and fuels
interests. And how can e.g. city design be included, if 'urban sprawl'
is not accepted as a fact of nature ?
2. The (inofficial) strategy of the WBCSD is to 'defend the licenses to
operate' of its members as as long and cheaply as possible. It does so
by presenting success stories, which support its lobby for voluntary and
subsidised actions and against legislation. It mainly - if not only -
represents transnational companies and usually agrees with the general
business lobby ICC. In 1996 I co-founded and since then represent the
pro-active European Business Council for Sustainable Energy. See
<http://www.e5.org> www.e5.org for its agenda, which includes active
support for Kyoto, carbon taxes and trading, elimination of perverse
subsidies, etc. also on behalf of small and midsized companies. Also on
my own website you find more.
3. This report should be confronted with the Millennium Development
Goals - should there be "access to mobility" in it ? - and with the
Climate Convention. It is unlikely that the scenario until 2030
projected in this study is compatible with these global superpriorities.
It may be a good start, but does not show the appropriate sense of
urgency. And how can mobility in developing countries 'leapfrog' and
avoid repetition of the fossil, land-intensive route we try to end here?
Finally, I am convinced of the good intentions of the experts involved
in the WBCSD project group. My questions here aim at their bosses, the
strategy of the companies and at the governmental decision makers they
try to influence.
Good luck and please explain why we have only 2 weeks. In August more
experts may have time to contribute.
Dr Paul E. Metz Managing Consultant
Phone +31 26 362 04 50
Mobile +31 653 76 58 85
Market intelligence for profitable green business
- -----Original Message-----
From: Terence Bendixson [mailto:t.bendixson@...]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: International Peer Review of a major report - an example?
Dear Eric et al.
I am sure I am putting my head in the oven in sending you the attached
Independent Transport Commission report 'Suburban Future'. It refers
England, is based on research by Marcial Echenique at Cambridge, and
concludes that transport policy for the suburbs (pretty well
England) will have to be car based. Of course public transport has a
(currently 4 to 8 per cent of the trips [including walks] of English
suburbanites and exurbanites are made by bus and train) but getting a
on cars is top priority. What does this mean? Fiscal measures to promote
hyper-economical vehicles; variable road user charging to promote
travel behaviour; and company travel plans because firms like Vodafone
BAA at Heathrow show they can be made to work.
It is not radical but it could make a difference. Fuel at $50 a barrel
be a wonderful addition.
Terence Bendixson, Secretary
Independent Transport Commission
University of Southampton
c/o 39 Elm Park Gardens, London SW10 9QF
Tel 020 7352 3885