24 Hours of
Reality- The Dirty Weather Report is a an event taking place over 24 hours from
the 14th to the 15th of November, putting a spotlight on climate change in every
region of the world. Broadcasting live on the Internet; featuring news, voices
and multimedia content experts, musicians, comedians and citizens share their
stories about climate change impacts.
The event
is launched by the Climate Reality Project, lead by the Chairman, former Vice
President Al Gore (The Climate Change Project, 2012).
The Climate
Reality Project’s Message: ”We can solve the climate crisis, we need leadership
to implement solutions today.”
In
continuation of my latest blog post, one of the four targeted areas in the CPH
2025 Climate Plan is mobility, aiming to make cycling, walking or public
transport the preferable transport forms when getting around the city. I will in
the following blog post focus on biking and on the specific goals and
initiatives Copenhagen has made to reach each the goals set for 2025. I will
thereafter evaluate if it is realistic for other cities to adapt these goals.
Copenhagen
is a world-class city for cyclists but their ambitions are higher and new initiatives
are required to reach the major goal of 2025:
For 50 % of
trips to work or school in Copenhagen to be by bike (35 % today).
Reaching
this goal will lead to reducing the annual carbon emission by 40,000 ton CO2
compared with 2010 (The City of Copenhagen, 2012).
To reach
these goals concrete initiatives include:
Travel time-
Establishing Superhighways, short cuts, routes with Green Waves for bikers.
Safety- Green
bicycle routes, redesign of intersection, wider bicycle lanes, safer school
routes and campaigns for the general bicycle attitude and consideration.
Comfort- Improved
asphalt and snow clearance on cycle tracks, services (air pumps, apps e.g.) and
effective bicycle parking.
Lifestyle and image- Campaigns marketing the health associated with cycling and specific
efforts for groups with potential for more cycling (e.g. newcomers).
The Municipality
of Copenhagen expect total costsof approximately 56 million British pounds to
reach the goals set in the CPH 2025 Climate Plan. In addition to the
initiatives tied with the CPH 2025 Climate Plan the city will have expenses of
approximately 100 million British pounds to develop the bicycle city further (The City of Copenhagen, 2011).
One of the
great strengths of the bike culture in Copenhagen is that biking is nothing
special; people choose to bike simply because it is practical, fast and
cheap. In other countries biking is more
of a subculture, requiring special clothes, extreme bikes etc. For cultures to
adapt Copenhagen’s bicycle goals and ambitions the general bike mentality will
need to change. None the less, Copenhagen’s bicycle plans can inspire cities
and be a role model for other cities.
Copenhagen
is leading the way in the action against climate change by becoming the first
carbon neutral capital by 2025. Their goal is to show that it is possible to
combine growth, development and an increase in life quality while reducing CO2
emissions.
On August
23rd 2012 the City Council of Copenhagen adopted the CPH 2025 Climate Plan, a
plan to show the route to a CO2 neutral Copenhagen. Carbon
neutrality will be reached when Copenhagen’s carbon net emissions equals zero. This means Copenhagen will have to reduce their
carbon emissions to a minimum, and compensate the remaining emissions with
external initiatives. The CPH
2025 Climate Plan has been divided into four areas: energy consumption, energy
production, mobility and the city administration. In the plan specific goals
and initiatives within each area are described for how the goal of carbon
neutrality can be reached. Through close cooperation between governments,
businesses, knowledge institutions and Copenhageners the holistic plan is
working for a better quality of life, innovation, job creation and investment
(City of Copenhagen, 2012).
The
government has been criticised for failing to introduce a promised congestion
charge for Copenhagen, which would potentially have increased the use of public transport for the
city’s commuters (Stanners, 2012).
An article
written by Rasmus Skov Olesen for Baggrund
(a Danish contemporary online magazine), the method used in calculating
the Copenhagen's carbon emission is criticised. Today the city’s emission is calculated only from the
direct carbon emissions of the area. This means there is a weighted focus on
the emissions associated with traffic congestion and the energy sector. This
calculation fails to include the citizen’s environmental liability associated
with indirect emissions e.g. the emissions associated with travel and
consumption. NIRAS (a large multidisciplinary consultancy company) mean the
method for measuring carbon emission is incorrect, giving a distorted
perception of reality amongst the citizens, where the world’s environmental and
climate problems are being solved from above.
The problem is it is not popular to discuss behavioural changes and
reduction in public consumption, as it is often associated with a welfare loss
(Olesen, 2012). By including the indirect emissions, Copenhagen will need to
give more responsibility to the citizens forcing them to change their
comfortable lifestyle in order to meet the 2025 goals.
Regardless,
as a capital city and a metropolis, Copenhagen is taking responsibility for
climate change. Let us hope the initiatives will inspire other cities to do the
same.
I have
personally not been able understand why people reject the messages of climate
change when the science all points in the same direction and climate scientists
agree.
As early as
in 1990 the IPPCC published their first Scientific Assessment Report evaluating
how human activities are changing the Earth’s climate through the Greenhouse
Effect. Several hundreds of scientists from 25 countries around the world
agreed and concluded that climate change may potentially be the greatest global
environmental challenge facing mankind (IPCC, 1990). But why are there still
climate sceptics out there?
An
inspiring lecture by Chris Rapley, former director of London’s Science Museum,
the British Antarctic Survey and the International Geosphere-Biosphere
Programme, combined with the reading of scientific papers I have received a
clearer understanding of the physiological and social attitudes associated
with rejecting climate change.
During our
lecture Chris Rapley referred to the book Thinking
Fast and Slow where the author Daniel Kahneman states that the human mind
is capable of believing almost anything. As human beings we are influenced by
the views of those we identify with and whose esteem we seek (Rapley, 2012). In
combination with our surrounding we are also influenced by the media’s
representation of climate change. The media plays a crucial role in informing
the public about climate change as the public’s perception is influenced by the
media’s representation. Because science in the media is a reconstruction and
not a mirror the complexity of climate change science makes it difficult to
communicate. Even though climate scientists agree the uncertainties involved in
climate research is difficult for the media to address as the news demand facts
to deliver a streamlined image of the scientific knowledge (Carvalho, 2007).
Climate
change challenges the economic structure of modern society– where production
and consumption are the ideals of wealth. Taking action against climate change
will affect the governance, funding and fuelling of the modern world. The
opposing views reported in the media have therefore worked to sow doubt amongst
the public reinforced by misinformation campaigns sticking deeper into human
needs. As climate change is a frightening prospect choosing to reject climate
change is a natural instinct (Rapley, 2012). A combination of phycology and the media's representation of climate change have contributed to climate change sceptics.
Findings
from an American nationally representative survey conducted by the Yale Project
on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for
Climate Change Communication indicated that American’s belief in the reality of
global warming has increased by 13 %, from 57 % in January 2010 to 70 % in
September 2012. During the same period global warming deniers in America
declined from 20 % to 12 % (Leiserowitz et al., 2012). This means it is time
for climate scientists to take advantage of their position and be tactical when
informing the public about climate change. According to Chris Rapley this can
be accomplished if climate scientists “…develop a new, coherent initiative to
engage collectively and actively in the political and public discourse.”
(Rapley, 2012). Come on climate scientists, let us get those climate change deniers converted!
