Eric Doherty: Canada needs system change not climate change

What does it mean where the rubber hits the road?

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      The slogan “System change not climate change” is well known in Europe, and is becoming a central rallying cry in the growing global movement for climate justice. But to many people in North America, it is still an unfamiliar and even threatening slogan. So what does “system change” mean where the rubber hits the road?

      The climate crisis is among the most serious challenges ever faced by humanity, but there are real and equitable solutions. These solutions will have benefits beyond climate stability, including cleaner air, healthier communities, and sheltering us from the wild oil price swings expected due to the peaking of conventional oil production.

      But these solutions imply big changes to how we live—really transformative changes to our society and economy. That is what system change not climate change means to me: an acknowledgement that facing up to these huge challenges means making transformative changes. This system change is both possible and necessary.

      One of the main places where we need to make transformative change is in our transportation system. In Canada, about 30 percent of climate changing greenhouse gas emissions come directly from the tailpipes of our cars, trucks, and airplanes. But if you add all the indirect emissions such as from mining and refining tar sands oil, and building roads and parking garages, Hydro Quebec calculates that transportation accounts for about half of our emissions. Transportation emissions have been increasing at over twice the rate of total emissions, largely due to government spending on urban freeways and airport expansions.

      Our automobile-dominated transportation system was created to do more than move people and goods; it was created largely to spur on the consumption of materials and energy to keep our economy growing. Therefore, changing to a system based on public transit, bicycles, and walking challenges the growth-based economic paradigm.

      David Suzuki points out that nothing on a finite planet can grow forever. In a lecture, he says:

      Economists believe the economy can grow forever. Not only do they believe it can grow forever, which it cannot, they believe it must grow forever. Since World War II they have equated economic growth with progress....We have fallen into the trap of believing that economic growth forever is possible and necessary....[T]his is absolutely suicidal.

      After World War II, economists in North America saw the private automobile combined with easy access to loans as the way to keep the economy growing. Governments poured billions into urban freeways while neglecting public transit and passenger rail. At the same time, auto manufacturers spent huge amounts on advertising to convince the public they needed cars. And it worked—people borrowed money to buy cars which drove the expansion of major sectors of the economy including oil, steel, coal, and rubber. Automobiles became the largest manufacturing sector, and automobile dealerships, gas stations, and repair shops sprouted up in every community.

      By the mid 1950s, streetcar and interurban train lines were being shut down to make room for more cars, and many new suburbs had minimal or no transit service. Even in cities where the streetcar and bicycle were once the dominant forms of transport, the private automobile, which only a few decades earlier had been an extravagant luxury item, become seen as a necessity.

      The automobile is still a key driver of economic growth, so transforming our transportation system also means making major changes to how we think about economics. Adbusters, the cheeky Vancouver-based group that sparked Occupy Wall Street and the movement including Occupy Vancouver, is a global leader in challenging advertising-driven consumerism and communicating the need to end economic growth.

      The remarkable spread of the Occupy movement provides an unprecedented opportunity to challenge the fantasy of infinite economic growth on a finite planet. Reports such as Prosperity Without Growth and The Spirit Level outline how our wellbeing could be enhanced with the move away from economic growth and consumerism to a focus on meeting human needs and creating a more equal society.

      Our transportation and economic system must be changed to put people and the environment first. In our present automobile-dominated system, lower income people often face higher levels of air pollution, noise, and traffic danger but don’t own cars. For people who don’t own cars, freeways are barriers to mobility not transportation routes.

      A widely promoted fix for climate change and peak oil is replacing gasoline powered cars with an even greater number of electric cars. This means ever-increasing material and energy consumption with a different source of energy. The climate benefits of this technological fix are dubious, and it also fails the test of equity and justice. Acquiring a $40,000 electric vehicle is completely out of reach for many. But car co-ops with electric vehicles have the potential to provide more equitable access to cars for occasional use, combined with real emissions reductions.

      Complete communities exist where people do not have to travel far to meet their day-to-day needs, making it possible to walk, bike, and use high-quality public transit. This way of designing communities levels the playing field for people who are not able to drive or cannot afford a car. Seniors, youth, people with disabilities, and low-income families gain the most from complete communities with an adequate supply of affordable housing.

      We need to create complete communities and a just transportation system, not just a low-carbon transportation system. There needs to be a smooth transition for already disadvantaged social groups and to win over, rather than punish, the wide range of households who are dependent on cars for their mobility because they have “just played by the rules”. Effective transition strategies will also be needed for affected workers.

      The first step in creating the transportation transformation is to shift public spending from things that make the climate crisis worse like freeway expansion to funding real solutions. Canadian governments spend in the neighbourhood of $10 billion a year on roadway expansions, which could be re-allocated to fund transit, walking, and cycling.

      The change from complete communities and streetcar systems to our automobile-dominated transportation system was engineered from the top down, by the wealthiest one percent and the corporations they control. The transportation and economic system change we need has to come from the rest of us, the 99 percent as the Occupy movement puts it.

      Part of the Council of Canadians’ Climate Justice campaign is the System Change Not Climate Change Project. The project features videos of both well known personalities such as Naomi Klein and grassroots activists who talk about why we need system change, and give examples of new ways forward. We need your participation in sparking this essential transformation, starting with organizing teach-ins in your community using these videos. You can find out more at systemchange.ca.

      Eric Doherty is a member of the Council of Canadians’ Vancouver-Burnaby chapter and StopThePave.org. He is a coauthor of the recent report Transportation Transformation: Building Complete Communities and a Zero-Emission Transportation System in BC.

      Comments

      20 Comments

      Denise

      Oct 11, 2011 at 4:22pm

      Great analysis Mr. Doherty! Thank you for this important information, yes our government should be caring about our collective future including our physical environment, sadly our present governments do not care, or more correctly the BC government and the Federal Government cares about their "friends" in banking, the oil industry, etc... Hey why don't YOU run for Government? You would have my vote with your vision!

      Scott S

      Oct 11, 2011 at 8:46pm

      Eric, I certainly agree. It was disappointing to see the Liberals force the mayors to go with SkyTrain transit for the Evergreen Line.

      Streetcars would have been ideal for the Evergreen Line. Supposedly, the SkyTrain has fewer stops to make the commute fast.

      What most don't see is that streetcars have closely spaced stations and buses are not required to transfer many people to the SkyTrain. Streetcars are also much less expensive and you can triple the amount of transit in comparison to the SkyTrain.

      I'm not a transit expert and am just making a casaul observation. Any thoughts?

      transit better than condoms

      Oct 11, 2011 at 9:21pm

      Do make out in the back seat of your parent's car, take transit!

      Reality Check

      Oct 12, 2011 at 10:00am

      @Scott S

      Please just do two seconds of research before posting. Rapid transit line options need to b e evaluated on a case by case basis to determine the best option. For the Evergreen Line, LRT or street car would not be thdat much less expensive as there is a significant amount of tunneling required. Also, SkyTrain is running at grade for a fair distance along the railway. Fewer stops and faster travel times means fewer expensive trains are required to serve the same amount of passengers. Between lower operating costs and higher ridership and thus revenue, SkyTrain will likely perform better financially than LRT or streetcar on this particular route.

      On many other routes, LRT or streetcars are indeed much less expensive but not in this case.

      Scott S

      Oct 12, 2011 at 12:27pm

      Reality Check, I do not profess to be an expert. Trolley buses and streetcars seem to climb hills easily. Is a tunnel necessary for streetcars?

      I was just asking the question. It doesn't make too much sense to me that SkyTrain stations spaced far apart means fewer SkyTrain cars.

      It seems to me that you require the same number of streetcars or SkyTrain cars to move a certain number of people. Am I missing something?

      Also, it seems to me that buses are required along the SkyTrain route while they are not on streetcar routes. Doesn't SkyTrain mean paying for transit twice along the route?

      I don't think that SkyTrain is financially smart when it costs three times more to build than streetcar transit which probably can avoid the tunnel. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

      The people at TransLink probably know what they are doing and everyone else in Canada is wrong building LRT and streetcars networks. Excuse my ignorance. I just do not know and was hoping to find out what Eric, who is transportation planner, thinks.

      edoherty

      Oct 12, 2011 at 12:36pm

      @ Reality Check - you have a good point, Evergreen is a good exception to the general rule that light metros like skytrain cost a lot more than light rail. Only the electric bus rapid transit option had greatly reduced capital costs for Evergreen, it would have avoided all the tunneling.

      But my main point is that we need to move away from spending on road expansion to investing in public transit. The best type of transit in each particular situation is a secondary point - and in general a lot more rapid transit needs to be mostly on the surface.

      Looking forward to discussing these kinds of issues at Occupy Vancouver starting Sat Oct 15 and ongoing - see http://occupyvancouver.com Bring your tent!

      James G

      Oct 12, 2011 at 10:04pm

      I interpret "social change not climate change" in a different way. Maybe it's because I believe that those who live in luxury and depend on the current power structure but set themselves up as the ultimate authority on environmental concerns are frauds. There can be no effective challenge to the economy that is designed to be wasteful in order to thrive without confronting capitalism itself.

      Pretending we can all equally bear the burden of a sweeping alteration of how society works without a class analysis is the zygote of nothing less than fascism.

      Steve W

      Oct 13, 2011 at 8:14am

      Nowhere in this commentary do I see population control mentioned. If the population of the planet continues to grow, humans will consume more resources. We need to stabilize the human population, or things will only get worse.

      edoherty

      Oct 13, 2011 at 10:12am

      @James "There can be no effective challenge to the economy that is designed to be wasteful in order to thrive without confronting capitalism itself."

      "Capitalism" is just a word, and confusing jargon to many. When I hear it I think of something like "the economic system dominated by the 1% that is designed to be wasteful in order to grow and thrive." Others understand quite different things hearing the same word, particularly those who have heard the term 'natural capitalism' over and over again.

      My translation of what you wrote: "There can be no effective challenge to the economy that is designed to be wasteful in order to thrive without confronting the economic and political system that is designed to be wasteful in order to thrive." Does not say much to me at all.

      Lets either skip the confusing jargon or explain terms in plain language - both on line and at the workshops at Occupy Vancouver.