Re: [carfree_cities] Names & Acronyms
- WEll, we have to take possession of it and brand it, much as that might not be too many folks' liking. Otherwise, someone lese will, and apply it to the new less-gargantuan Hummer or the like.
By introducing a term along with qualifications for applying it--such as not just fuel use, but embedded energy and space requirements--you would pretty much exclude all cars from the equation. It's more than just the carbon, as we all know. A high-capacity sidewalk or bike road makes little interruption of the landscape or cityscape; a tram makes even less (per passenger); an underground metro interrupts the world only at stations, which can be placed within existing structures or structures necessary for other reasons anyway. Likewise, a bike has little embedded energy and runs on grass seeds, shoes likewise; trams and metros generally use stationary sources and can run off nearly anything that makes electricity, including offsite solar, wind, and hydro, etc.
"Organic," the example given earlier, is now a regulated term in most US states and European countries, with specific qualifications for its use. Should be the same with EFT (or whatever).
From: Jym Dyer <jym@...>
Sent: Aug 19, 2005 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Names & Acronyms
> EFT: Earth Friendly Transport=v= Nice if true. Greenwashing has become so prevalent, and
especially in the field of transport ("zero emissions," "clean
air," etc.), that I become preemptively skeptical whenever I
see a phrase like that. Alas.
=v= A similar situation happened with "organic," and now we
need "certified organic."
P.S.: I mentioned a "CST" that's putting up marker graffiti
in Brooklyn. Here are some of her/his/its/their messages:
Post messages to: carfree_cities@...
Unsubscribe (blank message): carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
Yahoo! Groups Links