The recent decisions by the Trump Administration to opt out of the Paris Accord on climate change, and to roll back and/or negate the Obama Administration's rules for power plant emissions, seem to place him squarely in the camp that says jobs before environment.
But is it necessarily true that we can't have both?
The May edition of the National Geographic Magazine has an interesting chart which ranks 100 of the world's major cities in three areas; people (social), planet (environmental), and profit (economic health). It is called the Arcadis Sustainable Cities Index.
Before detailing some of the more interesting findings, I thought it best to research Arcadis, to find the source of the information. As we all too painfully know, proving a point through scientific study or research is quite easy when the answer is predetermined. I am sure if one were to look hard enough, "science" which debunks the connection between coal mining and black lung disease can be found.
In the case of Arcadis, it is a global design, engineering and management consulting company based in Amsterdam, Netherlands, with origins dating back to 1868. While this indicates a bias towards their version of what a sustainable city might look like, now and into the future, they are successful at what they do; 350 offices in 40 countries with revenue of 3.3 billion euro in 2016. So, factoring in a bias towards "greener" projects, and perhaps European cities, I am comfortable offering the following information from their chart.
Of the three factors, the social aspect ranks lowest for 34 cities. Sixteen of those are in North America, 16 out of the 23 cities ranked. For 12 of those 23 cities, profit was the highest of the three factors. Certainly, a clear indicator of priorities for our continent.
Profit is ranked last in 19 of the 32 European cities while 14 of the 32 rank highest in people. Again, a clear indicator of priority.
There are three Canadian cities on the chart, and they ranked first, second and fourth overall in North America with New York ranking third between them.
The highest ranking city in the United States, overall, was New York which also ranked first in Profit, and Environment but in the middle of the pack in People. The top ranked city in the People category was Boston which was also second overall. Following New York and Boston, were San Francisco and Seattle.
Zurich was the highest rated city overall, first in planet, top 5 in Profit, mid 20's in People.
Interestingly, of the top 10 ranked cities in the Profit category, eight of them also ranked in the top sixteen overall; Singapore, Hong Kong, London, Edinburgh, Stockholm, Paris and Prague, along with the aforementioned Zurich. Perhaps some evidence that profit need not eliminate all concern for people and environment.
Conversely, of those cities in the top 10 rankings for Environment, all but one were in the top 50, six were in the top 25, three were in the top 10, and two were in the top 5 for Profit. Hmm.
Could there be a correlation between people who feel that when factors such as health, education, income equality, work-life balance, crime, housing and living costs are adequately addressed, profit follows? It is certainly true that a robust economy does not usually exist when there is chaos, whether politically or socially generated. The bottom five ranked cities were Kolkata, Cairo, Nairobi, New Delhi and Manila. None had any factors which placed them in the top 75.
Certainly, the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and London might effect future rankings. And I doubt we will see a migration of people from North America to Edinburgh or Prague in the near future. But the point is that profit can exist side by side with a concern for the environment and the people who live there when cities make an effort to consider its inhabitants as more than just income generators.
Of course, there were some places where the difference between profit ranking and environmental ranking was 65 or more; Dubai, Abu Dhabi and Kuala Lumpar. Hopefully, those who stress the incompatibility between profit and environmental concern are not offering these cities as their model.
In the end, as usual, it comes down to balance. Certainly, the debate is necessary as to how far the pendulum should swing in any one direction. Stifling economic growth unless a project or plan perfectly protects all living things is as absurd as approving all business plans as long as one new job is created. But the premise that we can't have both, in varying degrees is just plain wrong. It surely belies the belief that by ignoring our responsibility towards keeping our planet and its occupants healthy, America will be great again.
No comments:
Post a Comment