China is moving toward a carbon-neutral future through heavy investment in mass-transit, high-speed rail and renewable energy sources. Read the article from World Changing. Los Angeles is pursuing similar carbon reduction strategies but a singular focus on carbon based emissions dilutes the meaning of sustainability. The two are not synonymous and should not be treated that way. "Green buildings" are not "sustainable" unless they address the full menu of priorities that define sustainability.
It's probably not controversial for me to say that carbon-neutrality is not sufficient for a sustainable Los Angeles. Water, transportation (mobility), housing, etc. are all issues intimately tied to the sustainability of the region. Engaging in a narrow discussion about sustainability will mean that too many other vitally important issues will be ignored. It will serve Los Angeles well to have a more comprehensive discussion about sustainability, rather than an overly circumscribed discussion about only carbon emissions. What aspects of sustainability, beyond carbon emissions, do you think policy makers should be considering for Los Angeles?
No comments:
Post a Comment