WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:01.470 align:middle line:90% [SQUEAKING] 00:00:01.470 --> 00:00:03.920 align:middle line:90% [RUSTLING] 00:00:03.920 --> 00:00:06.860 align:middle line:90% [CLICKING] 00:00:06.860 --> 00:00:09.633 align:middle line:90% 00:00:09.633 --> 00:00:11.050 align:middle line:84% DAVID HSU: I'd like to welcome you 00:00:11.050 --> 00:00:13.000 align:middle line:84% to another installment or another lecture 00:00:13.000 --> 00:00:17.230 align:middle line:84% in my MIT class on urban energy systems. 00:00:17.230 --> 00:00:19.480 align:middle line:84% My name is David Hsu, I'm an associate professor 00:00:19.480 --> 00:00:22.030 align:middle line:84% of urban studies and planning at MIT, 00:00:22.030 --> 00:00:25.570 align:middle line:84% and this week we're going to talk about cities 00:00:25.570 --> 00:00:27.580 align:middle line:90% and transportation systems. 00:00:27.580 --> 00:00:30.700 align:middle line:84% In our last lecture, we talked about electric vehicles 00:00:30.700 --> 00:00:33.790 align:middle line:84% and why certain new technologies are much more 00:00:33.790 --> 00:00:37.000 align:middle line:84% efficient than our previous internal combustion engine 00:00:37.000 --> 00:00:39.160 align:middle line:84% or fossil fuel using technologies, 00:00:39.160 --> 00:00:42.790 align:middle line:84% and how we need to achieve electrification to achieve 00:00:42.790 --> 00:00:44.890 align:middle line:90% lower greenhouse gas emissions. 00:00:44.890 --> 00:00:48.100 align:middle line:84% Today, I want to talk about transportation systems. 00:00:48.100 --> 00:00:52.690 align:middle line:84% And I want to take a different attack or a different tack 00:00:52.690 --> 00:00:55.180 align:middle line:84% on the subject of transportation systems. 00:00:55.180 --> 00:00:57.530 align:middle line:84% We'll start with policy analysis. 00:00:57.530 --> 00:00:59.020 align:middle line:90% Here's the materials for today. 00:00:59.020 --> 00:01:01.340 align:middle line:90% They're all in the syllabus. 00:01:01.340 --> 00:01:05.077 align:middle line:84% And what I want to talk about is policy analysis. 00:01:05.077 --> 00:01:07.160 align:middle line:84% Quite often what we teach in public policy schools 00:01:07.160 --> 00:01:09.710 align:middle line:84% or urban planning schools is fundamentally 00:01:09.710 --> 00:01:11.930 align:middle line:84% an economic framing of policy analysis. 00:01:11.930 --> 00:01:15.920 align:middle line:84% It's a cost-benefit analysis, or as one of my previous advisors 00:01:15.920 --> 00:01:18.110 align:middle line:84% would say, a benefit-cost analysis, 00:01:18.110 --> 00:01:20.300 align:middle line:84% because you would want to emphasize 00:01:20.300 --> 00:01:25.040 align:middle line:84% the benefits over the costs if we take certain public policy 00:01:25.040 --> 00:01:26.400 align:middle line:90% actions. 00:01:26.400 --> 00:01:28.490 align:middle line:84% And so the two main concerns we typically 00:01:28.490 --> 00:01:32.210 align:middle line:84% teach in economic styles of policy analysis 00:01:32.210 --> 00:01:36.350 align:middle line:84% are efficiency-- what are the highest priority items? 00:01:36.350 --> 00:01:40.430 align:middle line:84% This assumes that resources in the public sphere are scarce 00:01:40.430 --> 00:01:44.720 align:middle line:84% and we can only basically deploy certain level of resources 00:01:44.720 --> 00:01:46.813 align:middle line:90% to address social problems. 00:01:46.813 --> 00:01:48.230 align:middle line:84% Of course, we should also question 00:01:48.230 --> 00:01:50.390 align:middle line:84% whether or not resources are scarce 00:01:50.390 --> 00:01:53.330 align:middle line:84% or what kinds of political economy, let's say, 00:01:53.330 --> 00:01:54.800 align:middle line:90% leads to this scarcity. 00:01:54.800 --> 00:01:56.780 align:middle line:84% But if you have scarce resources, 00:01:56.780 --> 00:02:00.970 align:middle line:84% you would want to establish what the highest priority items are. 00:02:00.970 --> 00:02:03.330 align:middle line:84% And the second main concern that is usually given, 00:02:03.330 --> 00:02:06.810 align:middle line:84% I would argue, slightly less emphasis in public policy 00:02:06.810 --> 00:02:09.780 align:middle line:84% analysis, is equity: is the distribution 00:02:09.780 --> 00:02:12.650 align:middle line:90% of benefits and cost fair? 00:02:12.650 --> 00:02:14.210 align:middle line:84% And of course, we want to emphasize 00:02:14.210 --> 00:02:17.030 align:middle line:84% that this economic style policy analysis hasn't always 00:02:17.030 --> 00:02:19.160 align:middle line:90% included broader concerns. 00:02:19.160 --> 00:02:22.550 align:middle line:84% For example, risks, that we know from recent disasters 00:02:22.550 --> 00:02:26.450 align:middle line:84% like wildfires in California or of course, the COVID-19 00:02:26.450 --> 00:02:30.420 align:middle line:84% pandemic, that we can have unexpected or low probability 00:02:30.420 --> 00:02:31.370 align:middle line:90% disasters. 00:02:31.370 --> 00:02:34.850 align:middle line:84% We could argue that they are low probability or fairly rare, 00:02:34.850 --> 00:02:37.400 align:middle line:84% but of course, they can also be potentially catastrophic. 00:02:37.400 --> 00:02:38.900 align:middle line:84% So there's increased interest in how 00:02:38.900 --> 00:02:41.150 align:middle line:84% do you achieve resilience to disasters 00:02:41.150 --> 00:02:44.230 align:middle line:90% like wildfires or COVID-19. 00:02:44.230 --> 00:02:46.240 align:middle line:84% Of course, if we talk about equity 00:02:46.240 --> 00:02:47.800 align:middle line:84% we can also talk about definitions 00:02:47.800 --> 00:02:50.560 align:middle line:90% of fairness or justice. 00:02:50.560 --> 00:02:53.410 align:middle line:84% We can talk about it in terms of rights or opportunities 00:02:53.410 --> 00:02:54.760 align:middle line:90% or capabilities. 00:02:54.760 --> 00:02:57.460 align:middle line:84% Those are all differently distributed or considered 00:02:57.460 --> 00:02:59.583 align:middle line:84% or conceived of by different groups. 00:02:59.583 --> 00:03:01.750 align:middle line:84% And of course, this leads us to the overall question 00:03:01.750 --> 00:03:04.660 align:middle line:90% of what is justice? 00:03:04.660 --> 00:03:08.500 align:middle line:84% It's also perhaps fair to say that public policy 00:03:08.500 --> 00:03:10.750 align:middle line:84% analysis doesn't always include behavior. 00:03:10.750 --> 00:03:12.970 align:middle line:84% We know behaviors can rapidly change, 00:03:12.970 --> 00:03:14.710 align:middle line:84% that may be a result of signaling, 00:03:14.710 --> 00:03:16.570 align:middle line:90% or culture, or incentives. 00:03:16.570 --> 00:03:19.240 align:middle line:84% But essentially, I would take the approach 00:03:19.240 --> 00:03:23.020 align:middle line:84% that our economic framing is within a certain context. 00:03:23.020 --> 00:03:26.240 align:middle line:84% We quite often draw on evidence in a similar context, 00:03:26.240 --> 00:03:29.110 align:middle line:84% but we also know that behaviors and cultures do change, 00:03:29.110 --> 00:03:31.420 align:middle line:84% and those behaviors and cultures actually 00:03:31.420 --> 00:03:37.040 align:middle line:84% establish what should be valued in economic systems or markets. 00:03:37.040 --> 00:03:38.777 align:middle line:84% Of course, there's non-monetary values. 00:03:38.777 --> 00:03:41.110 align:middle line:84% Environmental economists have spent a lot of time trying 00:03:41.110 --> 00:03:44.620 align:middle line:84% to establish the non-monetary value of things-- 00:03:44.620 --> 00:03:47.230 align:middle line:84% things that simply exist, but may not necessarily 00:03:47.230 --> 00:03:49.600 align:middle line:90% be traded in a market economy. 00:03:49.600 --> 00:03:51.580 align:middle line:84% Examples include a particular species, 00:03:51.580 --> 00:03:54.550 align:middle line:84% like let's say the desert tortoise or the Grand Canyon. 00:03:54.550 --> 00:03:56.380 align:middle line:84% How do you put an existence value 00:03:56.380 --> 00:03:59.830 align:middle line:84% on the desert tortoise or the Grand Canyon? 00:03:59.830 --> 00:04:01.540 align:middle line:90% People have tried to do it. 00:04:01.540 --> 00:04:03.460 align:middle line:84% We can discuss or debate whether or not 00:04:03.460 --> 00:04:06.970 align:middle line:84% we think those non-monetary values are, in fact, things 00:04:06.970 --> 00:04:10.090 align:middle line:90% that we believe are accurate. 00:04:10.090 --> 00:04:12.090 align:middle line:84% And of course, as I alluded to before, 00:04:12.090 --> 00:04:14.250 align:middle line:84% the total budget or resources we have 00:04:14.250 --> 00:04:16.050 align:middle line:90% to address social problems. 00:04:16.050 --> 00:04:18.329 align:middle line:84% Are we actually taking into account, let's say, 00:04:18.329 --> 00:04:22.560 align:middle line:84% future payoffs for investments or even the sustainability 00:04:22.560 --> 00:04:25.500 align:middle line:90% of our public policy actions? 00:04:25.500 --> 00:04:28.980 align:middle line:84% This brings into question also implementation. 00:04:28.980 --> 00:04:32.160 align:middle line:84% We can analyze whether or not things have certain benefits 00:04:32.160 --> 00:04:34.650 align:middle line:84% or costs, but of course, if we have a public policy that 00:04:34.650 --> 00:04:37.560 align:middle line:84% cannot be implemented, then it may not have any effect. 00:04:37.560 --> 00:04:39.330 align:middle line:84% That leads us to questions of who, how, 00:04:39.330 --> 00:04:42.280 align:middle line:84% and where our public policy is going to be implemented. 00:04:42.280 --> 00:04:44.970 align:middle line:90% And of course, growth and speed. 00:04:44.970 --> 00:04:49.350 align:middle line:84% We often do our policy analysis based on existing data. 00:04:49.350 --> 00:04:54.150 align:middle line:84% We may not capture large shifts in systems or situations. 00:04:54.150 --> 00:04:56.700 align:middle line:84% And of course, we know that certain technologies 00:04:56.700 --> 00:04:58.360 align:middle line:90% are growing faster than others. 00:04:58.360 --> 00:05:00.960 align:middle line:84% So are we understanding-- or is our public policy 00:05:00.960 --> 00:05:04.860 align:middle line:84% analysis durable or in a technical phrase, stationary? 00:05:04.860 --> 00:05:08.010 align:middle line:84% And we assume that our results from one period of time 00:05:08.010 --> 00:05:10.240 align:middle line:90% are generalizable to another. 00:05:10.240 --> 00:05:11.700 align:middle line:90% And finally, geography. 00:05:11.700 --> 00:05:14.100 align:middle line:84% Similarly, can we assume that our public policy 00:05:14.100 --> 00:05:17.850 align:middle line:84% analysis and our public policies work the same in all places? 00:05:17.850 --> 00:05:21.000 align:middle line:84% Again, can we generalize the effects of our public policy 00:05:21.000 --> 00:05:24.000 align:middle line:84% analyses from one place to another? 00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:26.630 align:middle line:84% And so in terms of policy analysis today 00:05:26.630 --> 00:05:28.400 align:middle line:84% and for transportation systems, I 00:05:28.400 --> 00:05:29.990 align:middle line:84% want to talk about three case studies, 00:05:29.990 --> 00:05:31.740 align:middle line:84% and those three case studies will use this 00:05:31.740 --> 00:05:35.580 align:middle line:84% as examples of different kinds of policies and other analyses. 00:05:35.580 --> 00:05:37.160 align:middle line:84% The first one is global aviation, 00:05:37.160 --> 00:05:39.260 align:middle line:84% which we've talked about in this class more. 00:05:39.260 --> 00:05:41.438 align:middle line:84% I think it's an exciting topic for us to talk about 00:05:41.438 --> 00:05:42.980 align:middle line:84% because as I've argued to you before, 00:05:42.980 --> 00:05:45.110 align:middle line:84% I think it's a cultural blind spot 00:05:45.110 --> 00:05:47.210 align:middle line:84% for many committed environmentalists 00:05:47.210 --> 00:05:50.420 align:middle line:84% who are relatively high income and educated. 00:05:50.420 --> 00:05:53.060 align:middle line:84% We'll talk about the case study from the Mimi Sheller 00:05:53.060 --> 00:05:56.900 align:middle line:84% paper on walking, bicycling, and transit in Philadelphia. 00:05:56.900 --> 00:05:59.750 align:middle line:84% And we'll just touch briefly on Los Angeles's efforts 00:05:59.750 --> 00:06:02.630 align:middle line:84% towards clean air, which led to the California Air Resources 00:06:02.630 --> 00:06:03.350 align:middle line:90% Board. 00:06:03.350 --> 00:06:05.120 align:middle line:84% That chapter is a great chapter just 00:06:05.120 --> 00:06:08.480 align:middle line:84% to reinforce questions about how long does it take 00:06:08.480 --> 00:06:12.400 align:middle line:84% or how do we achieve public policy over time. 00:06:12.400 --> 00:06:15.910 align:middle line:84% So just talk about global aviation for a moment. 00:06:15.910 --> 00:06:19.920 align:middle line:84% If you look at the growth of air transport over the last 50 00:06:19.920 --> 00:06:23.340 align:middle line:84% or 60 years, this is from the International Civil Aviation 00:06:23.340 --> 00:06:25.650 align:middle line:84% Organization, you can see that they've basically 00:06:25.650 --> 00:06:28.950 align:middle line:84% charted a fairly constant upward trajectory. 00:06:28.950 --> 00:06:33.960 align:middle line:84% You see minor blips in the upward growth for the 1970s oil 00:06:33.960 --> 00:06:37.500 align:middle line:84% crisis, the Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf war, 00:06:37.500 --> 00:06:40.680 align:middle line:84% the Asian monetary crisis in the 1990s, 00:06:40.680 --> 00:06:44.520 align:middle line:84% the 9/11 terrorist attack in 2001, SARS, 00:06:44.520 --> 00:06:45.840 align:middle line:90% and the world recession. 00:06:45.840 --> 00:06:48.690 align:middle line:84% Those all have some effect on the growth in air transport, 00:06:48.690 --> 00:06:52.110 align:middle line:84% but if you had to summarize over the last 70 or so years, 00:06:52.110 --> 00:06:54.600 align:middle line:84% you could basically say that there's been an uninterrupted 00:06:54.600 --> 00:06:59.100 align:middle line:90% growth of air transport. 00:06:59.100 --> 00:07:05.340 align:middle line:84% Here I think it says it's a 7.1% growth rate versus 2014. 00:07:05.340 --> 00:07:08.490 align:middle line:84% That is in terms of revenue passenger kilometers 00:07:08.490 --> 00:07:14.100 align:middle line:84% and freight ton kilometers both have grown fairly relentlessly. 00:07:14.100 --> 00:07:17.310 align:middle line:84% Of course, we're talking about this in 2022. 00:07:17.310 --> 00:07:21.030 align:middle line:84% This is one year after the, perhaps, greatest decline 00:07:21.030 --> 00:07:25.530 align:middle line:84% in world history in world air passenger traffic. 00:07:25.530 --> 00:07:28.740 align:middle line:84% You can see the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic 00:07:28.740 --> 00:07:31.560 align:middle line:84% has had the effect that all those previous crises did not 00:07:31.560 --> 00:07:34.150 align:middle line:90% have on air travel. 00:07:34.150 --> 00:07:37.270 align:middle line:84% We can discuss-- or we will discuss in class whether or not 00:07:37.270 --> 00:07:39.910 align:middle line:90% this is a good thing. 00:07:39.910 --> 00:07:44.030 align:middle line:84% I'm sure we can agree that COVID-19 was not a good thing. 00:07:44.030 --> 00:07:46.150 align:middle line:84% But the question is, after COVID-19, 00:07:46.150 --> 00:07:49.210 align:middle line:84% is air travel going to simply resume and go back to the level 00:07:49.210 --> 00:07:52.540 align:middle line:84% that it was in 2019, and will it continue 00:07:52.540 --> 00:07:54.430 align:middle line:90% to resume its upward growth? 00:07:54.430 --> 00:07:58.090 align:middle line:84% Some forecasts estimated that aviation and transportation 00:07:58.090 --> 00:08:01.900 align:middle line:84% will be 30% of our total greenhouse gas emissions 00:08:01.900 --> 00:08:03.100 align:middle line:90% in 2050. 00:08:03.100 --> 00:08:06.580 align:middle line:84% We obviously cannot sustain that growth if we also want to try 00:08:06.580 --> 00:08:09.400 align:middle line:90% to achieve decarbonization. 00:08:09.400 --> 00:08:12.100 align:middle line:84% And of course, just to talk about behavior and culture 00:08:12.100 --> 00:08:13.060 align:middle line:90% change. 00:08:13.060 --> 00:08:15.520 align:middle line:84% Over the last five years, The Economist 00:08:15.520 --> 00:08:19.900 align:middle line:84% I think up to 2019 or 2020 had a graph of airline passengers 00:08:19.900 --> 00:08:22.570 align:middle line:84% in Sweden, and they call it flygskam, 00:08:22.570 --> 00:08:27.280 align:middle line:84% which I think is not quite the right pronunciation, 00:08:27.280 --> 00:08:29.830 align:middle line:84% but it basically translates as "flying shame." 00:08:29.830 --> 00:08:33.730 align:middle line:84% And you can see that the number of passengers at Sweden's 10 00:08:33.730 --> 00:08:36.890 align:middle line:84% busiest airports had declined for a number of years. 00:08:36.890 --> 00:08:38.350 align:middle line:84% You can also attribute this perhaps 00:08:38.350 --> 00:08:40.840 align:middle line:84% to Greta Thunberg making great efforts 00:08:40.840 --> 00:08:43.780 align:middle line:84% to publicize the hypocrisy, perhaps, 00:08:43.780 --> 00:08:47.860 align:middle line:84% of flying, and choosing to take a boat to the conference-- 00:08:47.860 --> 00:08:50.260 align:middle line:84% climate conference in New York to avoid 00:08:50.260 --> 00:08:52.970 align:middle line:90% being charged as a hypocrite. 00:08:52.970 --> 00:08:54.980 align:middle line:84% "Flying shame" has been translated 00:08:54.980 --> 00:08:56.110 align:middle line:90% to a number of languages. 00:08:56.110 --> 00:08:58.390 align:middle line:84% I think this is actually a cultural shift 00:08:58.390 --> 00:09:01.060 align:middle line:90% that we may be seeing. 00:09:01.060 --> 00:09:03.490 align:middle line:84% Just to talk about why global aviation is 00:09:03.490 --> 00:09:08.375 align:middle line:84% an important factor in climate action or climate change. 00:09:08.375 --> 00:09:09.000 align:middle line:90% This Lee et al. 00:09:09.000 --> 00:09:12.110 align:middle line:84% 2021 paper is not one that I assigned in the syllabus. 00:09:12.110 --> 00:09:13.780 align:middle line:84% But if you have the PDF slides, I 00:09:13.780 --> 00:09:16.090 align:middle line:84% encourage you to click on the link. 00:09:16.090 --> 00:09:19.630 align:middle line:84% And it's important to note what this paper says. 00:09:19.630 --> 00:09:23.950 align:middle line:84% This paper basically argues that the greenhouse gas emissions 00:09:23.950 --> 00:09:27.460 align:middle line:84% from plane engines themselves are not their only contribution 00:09:27.460 --> 00:09:30.400 align:middle line:84% to radiative forcing or the greenhouse effect. 00:09:30.400 --> 00:09:32.710 align:middle line:84% The contrails created at a high atmosphere 00:09:32.710 --> 00:09:36.460 align:middle line:84% also result in additional greenhouse gas warming. 00:09:36.460 --> 00:09:41.320 align:middle line:84% In fact, aviation is about 3.5% total of the total radiative 00:09:41.320 --> 00:09:43.330 align:middle line:90% forcing, estimates this paper. 00:09:43.330 --> 00:09:45.670 align:middle line:84% You might see the oft quoted number of 2%, 00:09:45.670 --> 00:09:49.090 align:middle line:84% aviation is only 2% of global emissions. 00:09:49.090 --> 00:09:52.840 align:middle line:84% First, I would press you to find out where that number actually 00:09:52.840 --> 00:09:53.500 align:middle line:90% comes from. 00:09:53.500 --> 00:09:56.560 align:middle line:84% I know industry has circulated that number at various times. 00:09:56.560 --> 00:09:58.330 align:middle line:90% But also that number has-- 00:09:58.330 --> 00:09:59.710 align:middle line:90% I think is relatively old. 00:09:59.710 --> 00:10:02.860 align:middle line:84% But also to point out it doesn't include this relatively large 00:10:02.860 --> 00:10:04.870 align:middle line:90% non-CO2 effect. 00:10:04.870 --> 00:10:07.340 align:middle line:84% If we considered aviation to be a country, 00:10:07.340 --> 00:10:09.100 align:middle line:84% it would be the fifth or sixth biggest 00:10:09.100 --> 00:10:11.800 align:middle line:84% contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. 00:10:11.800 --> 00:10:13.750 align:middle line:84% And of course, that country would be a pariah 00:10:13.750 --> 00:10:17.200 align:middle line:84% if it didn't take efforts to try to reduce its emissions. 00:10:17.200 --> 00:10:19.510 align:middle line:84% And so just to reinforce this point a little bit 00:10:19.510 --> 00:10:22.990 align:middle line:84% about how global aviation is inequitably distributed 00:10:22.990 --> 00:10:24.820 align:middle line:90% among the flying population. 00:10:24.820 --> 00:10:28.300 align:middle line:84% This is from the Gossling and Humpe 2020 paper. 00:10:28.300 --> 00:10:30.520 align:middle line:84% And it basically divides the world population 00:10:30.520 --> 00:10:32.980 align:middle line:90% into four income brackets. 00:10:32.980 --> 00:10:36.100 align:middle line:84% The low income countries, about 700 million people; 00:10:36.100 --> 00:10:39.820 align:middle line:84% lower middle income countries, about three billion people; 00:10:39.820 --> 00:10:43.510 align:middle line:84% upper middle income countries, about 2.7 billion people; 00:10:43.510 --> 00:10:47.810 align:middle line:84% and 1.2 billion high income people. 00:10:47.810 --> 00:10:51.760 align:middle line:84% What they do is simply take numbers from the World Bank, 00:10:51.760 --> 00:10:54.730 align:middle line:84% type in the number of flight passengers per country, 00:10:54.730 --> 00:10:56.440 align:middle line:84% they calculate how many passengers there 00:10:56.440 --> 00:11:00.400 align:middle line:84% are per capita, and they assume that if every single person who 00:11:00.400 --> 00:11:05.680 align:middle line:84% could fly, flew, then they can calculate a theoretical maximum 00:11:05.680 --> 00:11:06.230 align:middle line:90% relation. 00:11:06.230 --> 00:11:10.150 align:middle line:84% So if you take 0.03 passengers per capita, 00:11:10.150 --> 00:11:13.030 align:middle line:84% assume only people take one flight-- 00:11:13.030 --> 00:11:16.660 align:middle line:84% you should get to a maximum of only 1.63% of the population 00:11:16.660 --> 00:11:17.650 align:middle line:90% has flown. 00:11:17.650 --> 00:11:19.570 align:middle line:84% Of course, in high income countries 00:11:19.570 --> 00:11:22.270 align:middle line:84% since we average about two flights per capita 00:11:22.270 --> 00:11:25.750 align:middle line:84% in high income countries, they assume that the total maximum 00:11:25.750 --> 00:11:28.270 align:middle line:90% flying population is 100%. 00:11:28.270 --> 00:11:30.040 align:middle line:84% Obviously, that doesn't actually reflect 00:11:30.040 --> 00:11:31.660 align:middle line:90% the number of people who flew. 00:11:31.660 --> 00:11:33.260 align:middle line:84% We'll talk about that in a second. 00:11:33.260 --> 00:11:35.818 align:middle line:84% But this is just getting to a maximum flying population. 00:11:35.818 --> 00:11:37.360 align:middle line:84% And already, you can see that there's 00:11:37.360 --> 00:11:39.910 align:middle line:84% a global inequity between who flies 00:11:39.910 --> 00:11:42.400 align:middle line:90% or who even could possibly fly. 00:11:42.400 --> 00:11:47.260 align:middle line:84% Of the 2.1 billion people who have flown, the maximum-- 00:11:47.260 --> 00:11:51.370 align:middle line:84% or 2.1 billion perhaps flights, the maximum 00:11:51.370 --> 00:11:54.700 align:middle line:84% flying population includes all the flying countries, 00:11:54.700 --> 00:11:57.220 align:middle line:84% and that's approximately 100 times what 00:11:57.220 --> 00:12:00.790 align:middle line:84% the maximum flying population is of the low income countries. 00:12:00.790 --> 00:12:04.630 align:middle line:84% Similarly, if you adjust it for the non-flying share 00:12:04.630 --> 00:12:07.990 align:middle line:84% of the population, because some people in many countries 00:12:07.990 --> 00:12:10.120 align:middle line:84% or even high income countries do not fly, 00:12:10.120 --> 00:12:11.680 align:middle line:84% you can calculate this through again 00:12:11.680 --> 00:12:14.560 align:middle line:84% and you can find out that roughly 40% 00:12:14.560 --> 00:12:17.740 align:middle line:84% of the flying population in high income countries flies. 00:12:17.740 --> 00:12:21.400 align:middle line:84% 0.7% of the flying population in low income countries-- 00:12:21.400 --> 00:12:22.240 align:middle line:90% I'm sorry. 00:12:22.240 --> 00:12:25.970 align:middle line:84% 0.7% of the population in low income countries 00:12:25.970 --> 00:12:26.860 align:middle line:90% could be flying. 00:12:26.860 --> 00:12:29.470 align:middle line:84% And of course, you also get these drastic inequities 00:12:29.470 --> 00:12:32.650 align:middle line:84% where high income countries approximately 00:12:32.650 --> 00:12:35.470 align:middle line:84% have 100 times more flying population than low income 00:12:35.470 --> 00:12:38.260 align:middle line:84% countries regardless of the total population 00:12:38.260 --> 00:12:40.210 align:middle line:90% in these income brackets. 00:12:40.210 --> 00:12:41.810 align:middle line:84% And so just to reinforce this point, 00:12:41.810 --> 00:12:43.900 align:middle line:84% again, it is not just rich countries 00:12:43.900 --> 00:12:45.320 align:middle line:90% versus poor countries. 00:12:45.320 --> 00:12:48.010 align:middle line:84% It's actually people who are flying more 00:12:48.010 --> 00:12:49.360 align:middle line:90% in all these countries. 00:12:49.360 --> 00:12:51.040 align:middle line:84% The distributions in table one do not 00:12:51.040 --> 00:12:52.850 align:middle line:84% consider that there's a significant share 00:12:52.850 --> 00:12:55.330 align:middle line:84% of the population in every country that does not fly, 00:12:55.330 --> 00:12:57.100 align:middle line:84% while some air travelers participate 00:12:57.100 --> 00:12:59.343 align:middle line:90% in one, two, or multiple trips. 00:12:59.343 --> 00:13:01.510 align:middle line:84% If you can look at all these countries it was quoted 00:13:01.510 --> 00:13:05.530 align:middle line:84% in the paper, you can see that the National surveys indicate 00:13:05.530 --> 00:13:08.590 align:middle line:84% that in high income countries, between 53% and 65% 00:13:08.590 --> 00:13:11.900 align:middle line:84% of the population will not fly in a given year. 00:13:11.900 --> 00:13:14.740 align:middle line:84% This actually indicates that a majority-- actually, a fairly 00:13:14.740 --> 00:13:16.690 align:middle line:84% large proportion population, almost two thirds 00:13:16.690 --> 00:13:19.480 align:middle line:84% of the population doesn't fly in a given year. 00:13:19.480 --> 00:13:21.340 align:middle line:84% I want to reinforce this point, because I 00:13:21.340 --> 00:13:24.310 align:middle line:84% think in academic settings and educational settings, 00:13:24.310 --> 00:13:26.710 align:middle line:84% we tend to assume that most people are like us. 00:13:26.710 --> 00:13:28.630 align:middle line:90% They fly all the time. 00:13:28.630 --> 00:13:31.960 align:middle line:84% That's actually not the case in many high income countries, 00:13:31.960 --> 00:13:33.190 align:middle line:90% also. 00:13:33.190 --> 00:13:35.590 align:middle line:84% To show this again for the United States. 00:13:35.590 --> 00:13:37.570 align:middle line:90% This is from the-- 00:13:37.570 --> 00:13:44.710 align:middle line:84% I think the Air for America or the Airline Industry Trade 00:13:44.710 --> 00:13:46.750 align:middle line:84% Association did a similar survey. 00:13:46.750 --> 00:13:51.140 align:middle line:84% And they find that in a given year, 53% of adults do not fly. 00:13:51.140 --> 00:13:56.620 align:middle line:84% Either 35% of adults in a given year take one to five trips, 00:13:56.620 --> 00:13:59.650 align:middle line:84% and 12% of adults, or one eighth of the population, 00:13:59.650 --> 00:14:01.960 align:middle line:90% take about six trips or more. 00:14:01.960 --> 00:14:05.440 align:middle line:84% I'll let you think back on your last few years before COVID 00:14:05.440 --> 00:14:07.600 align:middle line:84% and think about what your flying behavior has been. 00:14:07.600 --> 00:14:09.460 align:middle line:84% This is something I've certainly considered 00:14:09.460 --> 00:14:13.120 align:middle line:84% as I've been trying to increase my efforts towards reducing 00:14:13.120 --> 00:14:16.490 align:middle line:90% my greenhouse gas emissions. 00:14:16.490 --> 00:14:19.780 align:middle line:84% And most importantly, if you look at the forecast from here 00:14:19.780 --> 00:14:23.020 align:middle line:84% to 2050, this is a 2020 paper where 00:14:23.020 --> 00:14:27.830 align:middle line:84% they look at 2018 numbers and 2050 numbers. 00:14:27.830 --> 00:14:29.890 align:middle line:84% And you can see that this is also 00:14:29.890 --> 00:14:33.400 align:middle line:84% quite inaccurately distributed across regions of the world. 00:14:33.400 --> 00:14:37.870 align:middle line:84% North America is the lion's share of the emissions 00:14:37.870 --> 00:14:40.180 align:middle line:84% now from commercial air passenger 00:14:40.180 --> 00:14:42.430 align:middle line:90% transport, along with Europe. 00:14:42.430 --> 00:14:44.200 align:middle line:90% It's much lower in-- 00:14:44.200 --> 00:14:47.990 align:middle line:84% I guess Asia-Pacific is also quite high. 00:14:47.990 --> 00:14:51.280 align:middle line:84% But on a per capita basis, overwhelmingly flying 00:14:51.280 --> 00:14:53.860 align:middle line:84% occurs in North America and Europe, 00:14:53.860 --> 00:14:56.980 align:middle line:84% to a lesser extent in the Middle East with perhaps much 00:14:56.980 --> 00:14:58.240 align:middle line:90% lower populations. 00:14:58.240 --> 00:15:01.360 align:middle line:84% And the population on a per capita basis, 00:15:01.360 --> 00:15:04.300 align:middle line:84% even though Asia does have a lot of air passenger transport 00:15:04.300 --> 00:15:07.670 align:middle line:84% and is expected to apparently quadruple in this forecast, 00:15:07.670 --> 00:15:11.983 align:middle line:84% it is still much lower than North America and Europe. 00:15:11.983 --> 00:15:13.900 align:middle line:84% And so this brings me to the homework problem, 00:15:13.900 --> 00:15:16.870 align:middle line:84% just to give you a sense of how we might achieve 00:15:16.870 --> 00:15:18.700 align:middle line:90% different transportation modes. 00:15:18.700 --> 00:15:24.280 align:middle line:84% This is a figure from MacKay's book, figure 2023, chapter 20. 00:15:24.280 --> 00:15:27.940 align:middle line:84% The vertical axis is in kilowatt hours per passenger 00:15:27.940 --> 00:15:29.560 align:middle line:90% per 100 kilometers. 00:15:29.560 --> 00:15:32.050 align:middle line:84% And on the horizontal axis, you can see the speed 00:15:32.050 --> 00:15:33.520 align:middle line:90% in kilometers per hour. 00:15:33.520 --> 00:15:35.320 align:middle line:84% As I said to you in the last lecture, 00:15:35.320 --> 00:15:37.090 align:middle line:90% mobility is a super power. 00:15:37.090 --> 00:15:39.640 align:middle line:84% It gives us the ability to access jobs, 00:15:39.640 --> 00:15:42.370 align:middle line:90% leisure, housing, travel. 00:15:42.370 --> 00:15:44.950 align:middle line:84% And so as you think about our transportation modes, 00:15:44.950 --> 00:15:47.410 align:middle line:84% you can see that all of these different modes 00:15:47.410 --> 00:15:50.860 align:middle line:84% of transportation, the red ones I think all being ground 00:15:50.860 --> 00:15:53.020 align:middle line:84% transport, the green ones being ocean 00:15:53.020 --> 00:15:55.540 align:middle line:84% transport or water-based transport, 00:15:55.540 --> 00:15:58.510 align:middle line:84% and the blue ones being air transport. 00:15:58.510 --> 00:16:01.120 align:middle line:84% They all have different energetic implications 00:16:01.120 --> 00:16:03.790 align:middle line:84% along this vertical axis and different speed implications 00:16:03.790 --> 00:16:05.332 align:middle line:90% along the horizontal axis. 00:16:05.332 --> 00:16:06.790 align:middle line:84% So what I wanted to do the homework 00:16:06.790 --> 00:16:11.100 align:middle line:84% was to calculate simply, if you had a choice between traveling, 00:16:11.100 --> 00:16:15.330 align:middle line:84% let's say, by train or by turboprop plane, 00:16:15.330 --> 00:16:16.770 align:middle line:84% which one you should take and what 00:16:16.770 --> 00:16:18.510 align:middle line:84% the energy implications of that are, 00:16:18.510 --> 00:16:22.060 align:middle line:84% because energy is closely linked to greenhouse gas emissions. 00:16:22.060 --> 00:16:24.810 align:middle line:84% So I asked the homework to compare taking a turboprop 00:16:24.810 --> 00:16:28.560 align:middle line:84% plane versus high speed train, assuming 00:16:28.560 --> 00:16:31.710 align:middle line:84% that in the United States if you want to take a turboprop plane, 00:16:31.710 --> 00:16:34.620 align:middle line:84% you have to go to the airport and check into security, 00:16:34.620 --> 00:16:37.078 align:middle line:84% and I think it's a reasonable assumption that it would take 00:16:37.078 --> 00:16:38.220 align:middle line:90% three more hours to travel. 00:16:38.220 --> 00:16:40.980 align:middle line:84% So the key to this problem is setting it up 00:16:40.980 --> 00:16:44.020 align:middle line:84% so that they travel the same distance. 00:16:44.020 --> 00:16:46.860 align:middle line:84% And you can see, you take from the train's perspective, 00:16:46.860 --> 00:16:50.610 align:middle line:84% the plane has a higher speed but gets, 00:16:50.610 --> 00:16:54.280 align:middle line:84% let's say X number of hours minus three hours to travel. 00:16:54.280 --> 00:16:56.430 align:middle line:84% And that is probably the equivalent of distance, 00:16:56.430 --> 00:16:57.930 align:middle line:84% because you crossed out the hours, 00:16:57.930 --> 00:17:01.630 align:middle line:84% as a train going 200 kilometers per hour, 00:17:01.630 --> 00:17:03.150 align:middle line:90% traveling for X hours. 00:17:03.150 --> 00:17:06.630 align:middle line:84% And you simply solve for X and you do the algebra. 00:17:06.630 --> 00:17:09.359 align:middle line:84% And you can see that the train, from the train's perspective, 00:17:09.359 --> 00:17:15.060 align:middle line:84% it takes 4.27 hours by train and you go 855 kilometers. 00:17:15.060 --> 00:17:17.250 align:middle line:84% If you set it up from the plane's perspective, 00:17:17.250 --> 00:17:21.369 align:middle line:84% you simply put the three hour difference on the other side. 00:17:21.369 --> 00:17:24.869 align:middle line:84% You can see that we're traveling X hours by plane. 00:17:24.869 --> 00:17:27.510 align:middle line:84% The train gets a three hour head start. 00:17:27.510 --> 00:17:29.130 align:middle line:90% You calculate it through. 00:17:29.130 --> 00:17:33.270 align:middle line:84% The plane only takes 1.27 hours but only goes the same distance 00:17:33.270 --> 00:17:36.170 align:middle line:90% of 855 kilometers. 00:17:36.170 --> 00:17:39.340 align:middle line:84% So you want to then calculate the energy, 00:17:39.340 --> 00:17:42.580 align:middle line:84% you can look back at that graph from MacKay 2023, 00:17:42.580 --> 00:17:44.710 align:middle line:84% and look at how much energy required 00:17:44.710 --> 00:17:45.920 align:middle line:90% to go a certain distance. 00:17:45.920 --> 00:17:50.410 align:middle line:84% So if 38 kilowatt hours per passenger per 100 kilometers 00:17:50.410 --> 00:17:55.000 align:middle line:84% to go 670 kilometers per hour for a turboprop plane. 00:17:55.000 --> 00:17:58.810 align:middle line:84% And for a high speed train, it requires four kilowatt hours 00:17:58.810 --> 00:18:00.790 align:middle line:84% per passenger per 100 kilometers to go 00:18:00.790 --> 00:18:03.370 align:middle line:90% to 200 kilometers per hour. 00:18:03.370 --> 00:18:05.140 align:middle line:84% And so if you multiply through, you simply 00:18:05.140 --> 00:18:07.810 align:middle line:84% take the 38 times the 836 kilometers, 00:18:07.810 --> 00:18:12.340 align:middle line:84% you get to 325 kilowatt hours per passenger. 00:18:12.340 --> 00:18:18.250 align:middle line:84% For high speed train, it is four times 856 or 34 kilowatt hours 00:18:18.250 --> 00:18:21.940 align:middle line:84% per passenger, because you cross out the 100 00:18:21.940 --> 00:18:23.810 align:middle line:90% kilometers in the bottom. 00:18:23.810 --> 00:18:28.750 align:middle line:84% You can see that it's roughly a 10x or exactly a 9.5x 00:18:28.750 --> 00:18:30.150 align:middle line:90% difference between the two. 00:18:30.150 --> 00:18:32.650 align:middle line:84% And you can see it because they use the exact same distance, 00:18:32.650 --> 00:18:36.830 align:middle line:84% the key numbers here are the 38 and the four. 00:18:36.830 --> 00:18:40.160 align:middle line:84% So this brings us to Mackay's question in Appendix C, which 00:18:40.160 --> 00:18:42.260 align:middle line:90% is, can we improve planes? 00:18:42.260 --> 00:18:46.340 align:middle line:84% And he argues in this chapter that engine efficiency can only 00:18:46.340 --> 00:18:49.460 align:middle line:84% be boosted a tiny bit by technological progress. 00:18:49.460 --> 00:18:51.920 align:middle line:84% The shape of the plane is already highly efficient, 00:18:51.920 --> 00:18:53.570 align:middle line:84% and argues that there's little that can 00:18:53.570 --> 00:18:55.430 align:middle line:84% be done to improve the transportation 00:18:55.430 --> 00:18:57.170 align:middle line:90% efficiency of planes. 00:18:57.170 --> 00:19:01.040 align:middle line:84% I will defer to my colleagues in Aero-Astro or students 00:19:01.040 --> 00:19:02.030 align:middle line:90% in that area. 00:19:02.030 --> 00:19:04.280 align:middle line:84% It looks like there are some possible ways 00:19:04.280 --> 00:19:07.082 align:middle line:84% to try to improve the efficiency of planes. 00:19:07.082 --> 00:19:08.540 align:middle line:84% So this reminds me of this headline 00:19:08.540 --> 00:19:10.590 align:middle line:90% I saw last year on CNN. 00:19:10.590 --> 00:19:15.200 align:middle line:84% This is the long-awaited Celera 500L bullet plane. 00:19:15.200 --> 00:19:18.680 align:middle line:84% You can see that it's taken a number of measures, the bullet 00:19:18.680 --> 00:19:22.430 align:middle line:84% shape, the small, stubby wings, the placement of the engines 00:19:22.430 --> 00:19:25.250 align:middle line:84% are all designed to increase efficiency, 00:19:25.250 --> 00:19:26.910 align:middle line:84% It's got this turboprop in the back. 00:19:26.910 --> 00:19:31.220 align:middle line:84% And this article says that it gets 18 to 25 miles per gallon 00:19:31.220 --> 00:19:34.490 align:middle line:84% compared to two to three miles for a comparable, small, and 00:19:34.490 --> 00:19:36.960 align:middle line:90% presumably private jet. 00:19:36.960 --> 00:19:40.530 align:middle line:84% So just to calculate these in a rough way. 00:19:40.530 --> 00:19:42.780 align:middle line:84% Assuming it uses gasoline or at least energy-- 00:19:42.780 --> 00:19:45.120 align:middle line:84% the density of gasoline, though this probably 00:19:45.120 --> 00:19:47.730 align:middle line:84% used as a particular fuel for a private jet, 00:19:47.730 --> 00:19:49.950 align:middle line:84% we have the 10 kilowatt hours per liter 00:19:49.950 --> 00:19:53.380 align:middle line:84% we used for gas engines in the previous lecture. 00:19:53.380 --> 00:19:55.890 align:middle line:84% We divide it by 2.5 miles per gallon, 00:19:55.890 --> 00:19:58.380 align:middle line:84% inverting the miles per gallon factor. 00:19:58.380 --> 00:20:01.170 align:middle line:90% And we get to a figure of 961. 00:20:01.170 --> 00:20:05.490 align:middle line:84% 961 kilowatt hours per 100 kilometers. 00:20:05.490 --> 00:20:09.210 align:middle line:84% If you calculate that like we did last week 00:20:09.210 --> 00:20:11.250 align:middle line:84% for the internal combustion engine of an SUV. 00:20:11.250 --> 00:20:14.580 align:middle line:84% The only change we made here is we use the same energy 00:20:14.580 --> 00:20:18.390 align:middle line:84% density of the fuel, but we've made this SUV 22 00:20:18.390 --> 00:20:19.770 align:middle line:90% miles per gallon-- 00:20:19.770 --> 00:20:21.450 align:middle line:90% that seems relatively generous. 00:20:21.450 --> 00:20:24.810 align:middle line:84% And you get to almost a factor of nine less. 00:20:24.810 --> 00:20:28.505 align:middle line:84% 109 kilowatt hours per 100 kilometers. 00:20:28.505 --> 00:20:31.060 align:middle line:84% And for the Celera 500, which is quoted 00:20:31.060 --> 00:20:33.430 align:middle line:84% to get 18 to 25 miles per gallon, 00:20:33.430 --> 00:20:35.650 align:middle line:84% you can do the exact same calculation, 00:20:35.650 --> 00:20:39.010 align:middle line:84% because we know that 18 to 25 miles per gallon 00:20:39.010 --> 00:20:41.860 align:middle line:84% encompasses our 22 miles per gallon for SUV. 00:20:41.860 --> 00:20:43.510 align:middle line:90% So we get the exact same number. 00:20:43.510 --> 00:20:44.860 align:middle line:90% These are rough estimates. 00:20:44.860 --> 00:20:46.870 align:middle line:84% The reason why we do these is to simply 00:20:46.870 --> 00:20:49.160 align:middle line:90% to try to compare the modes. 00:20:49.160 --> 00:20:51.490 align:middle line:84% And if we assume they all carry about six people, 00:20:51.490 --> 00:20:53.980 align:middle line:84% you could divide this energy use by six 00:20:53.980 --> 00:20:57.550 align:middle line:84% to get kilowatt hours per person, per kilometer. 00:20:57.550 --> 00:20:59.890 align:middle line:84% If you wanted to compare this new calculation 00:20:59.890 --> 00:21:02.170 align:middle line:84% to our previous calculation for the turboprop 00:21:02.170 --> 00:21:04.180 align:middle line:84% plane and the high speed train, you 00:21:04.180 --> 00:21:08.620 align:middle line:84% can see that the private jet is a very high number or amount 00:21:08.620 --> 00:21:12.940 align:middle line:84% of energy per person to go this 856 kilometer trip. 00:21:12.940 --> 00:21:15.490 align:middle line:84% The turboprop plane is roughly one fourth 00:21:15.490 --> 00:21:17.020 align:middle line:90% of what the private jet is. 00:21:17.020 --> 00:21:20.560 align:middle line:84% The Celera or a six person SUV is about half 00:21:20.560 --> 00:21:22.312 align:middle line:90% of what a turboprop plane is. 00:21:22.312 --> 00:21:23.770 align:middle line:84% And of course, the high speed train 00:21:23.770 --> 00:21:26.990 align:middle line:84% is still much lower than all of the other modes. 00:21:26.990 --> 00:21:31.150 align:middle line:84% So this is to say that we have different passenger capacity. 00:21:31.150 --> 00:21:34.450 align:middle line:84% We have different speeds, certainly for all these modes. 00:21:34.450 --> 00:21:36.490 align:middle line:84% But this also calls into question what kind 00:21:36.490 --> 00:21:38.573 align:middle line:84% of infrastructure do you want to build to achieve 00:21:38.573 --> 00:21:39.490 align:middle line:90% these different modes. 00:21:39.490 --> 00:21:42.010 align:middle line:84% If you want to decarbonize and reduce our greenhouse gas 00:21:42.010 --> 00:21:44.380 align:middle line:84% emissions, we are going to have to change 00:21:44.380 --> 00:21:46.300 align:middle line:90% how we take some trips. 00:21:46.300 --> 00:21:49.420 align:middle line:84% And you can see some countries, like China, have essentially 00:21:49.420 --> 00:21:52.240 align:middle line:84% tried to eliminate their short haul aviation 00:21:52.240 --> 00:21:54.850 align:middle line:84% market by building high speed train network. 00:21:54.850 --> 00:21:57.820 align:middle line:84% Their high speed train networks are out-competing many 00:21:57.820 --> 00:21:59.830 align:middle line:90% of their short haul aircraft. 00:21:59.830 --> 00:22:02.050 align:middle line:84% And so apparently the short haul aviation industry 00:22:02.050 --> 00:22:04.240 align:middle line:90% has gone away in China. 00:22:04.240 --> 00:22:06.400 align:middle line:84% And in parts of Europe, some universities 00:22:06.400 --> 00:22:09.610 align:middle line:84% now say that you can't take a plane to a conference 00:22:09.610 --> 00:22:12.220 align:middle line:84% if it's within, I think, 500 kilometers, 00:22:12.220 --> 00:22:14.500 align:middle line:84% because the argument is you can get to that conference 00:22:14.500 --> 00:22:16.510 align:middle line:90% just as quickly by train. 00:22:16.510 --> 00:22:19.120 align:middle line:84% And we are seeing a growth, as one 00:22:19.120 --> 00:22:20.980 align:middle line:84% of our students sent in an article, 00:22:20.980 --> 00:22:23.260 align:middle line:84% of short haul aviation in Europe. 00:22:23.260 --> 00:22:26.770 align:middle line:84% But I would argue that Europe, especially has actually 00:22:26.770 --> 00:22:29.950 align:middle line:84% a lot of opportunities to try to eliminate short haul aviation 00:22:29.950 --> 00:22:31.830 align:middle line:90% flights. 00:22:31.830 --> 00:22:34.890 align:middle line:84% So this brings me to the O'Leary chapter on aviation. 00:22:34.890 --> 00:22:37.800 align:middle line:84% And it's just worth noting what the history of policy actions 00:22:37.800 --> 00:22:39.180 align:middle line:90% are on aviation. 00:22:39.180 --> 00:22:42.540 align:middle line:84% In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol asked all countries 00:22:42.540 --> 00:22:46.080 align:middle line:84% to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5%, 00:22:46.080 --> 00:22:48.750 align:middle line:90% from 1990 to 2012. 00:22:48.750 --> 00:22:50.350 align:middle line:84% The Kyoto Protocol was never brought 00:22:50.350 --> 00:22:52.910 align:middle line:84% before a vote to the Senate by the Clinton administration 00:22:52.910 --> 00:22:55.590 align:middle line:84% in the United States because they thought or knew that it 00:22:55.590 --> 00:22:57.150 align:middle line:90% would fail in the Senate. 00:22:57.150 --> 00:23:00.720 align:middle line:84% When President Obama became president in 2008, 00:23:00.720 --> 00:23:02.340 align:middle line:84% one of the initiatives to try to limit 00:23:02.340 --> 00:23:04.798 align:middle line:84% greenhouse gas emissions would be Waxman-Markey bill, which 00:23:04.798 --> 00:23:07.710 align:middle line:84% apparently included provisions for aviation, 00:23:07.710 --> 00:23:10.740 align:middle line:84% but that actually did fail in the Senate, 00:23:10.740 --> 00:23:13.392 align:middle line:90% even though it passed the House. 00:23:13.392 --> 00:23:16.910 align:middle line:84% In 2012, the European Union introduced an emissions trading 00:23:16.910 --> 00:23:20.120 align:middle line:84% scheme, but preemptively in 2011, the US Congress 00:23:20.120 --> 00:23:22.910 align:middle line:84% passed a prohibition act for the United States 00:23:22.910 --> 00:23:26.150 align:middle line:84% never to join into the same trading scheme as the European 00:23:26.150 --> 00:23:27.900 align:middle line:90% Union. 00:23:27.900 --> 00:23:32.580 align:middle line:84% And in 2016, the EPA found that under the Clean Air Act, 00:23:32.580 --> 00:23:34.620 align:middle line:84% greenhouse gas emissions did endanger 00:23:34.620 --> 00:23:39.240 align:middle line:84% human health, which is what the Clean Air Act protects against. 00:23:39.240 --> 00:23:42.420 align:middle line:84% At the same time in the International Civil Aviation 00:23:42.420 --> 00:23:46.110 align:middle line:84% Organization developed CORSIA, a carbon cap and offsetting 00:23:46.110 --> 00:23:48.300 align:middle line:90% scheme for 2020. 00:23:48.300 --> 00:23:51.060 align:middle line:84% In 2017, they adopted a CO2 standard 00:23:51.060 --> 00:23:55.110 align:middle line:84% for aircraft, essentially kind of a greenhouse gas emissions 00:23:55.110 --> 00:23:57.000 align:middle line:90% limit for planes. 00:23:57.000 --> 00:23:59.430 align:middle line:84% And in 2017, the EU decided this only 00:23:59.430 --> 00:24:01.830 align:middle line:90% applied to intra-EU flights. 00:24:01.830 --> 00:24:04.590 align:middle line:84% The reason also why I want to focus on global aviation 00:24:04.590 --> 00:24:08.070 align:middle line:84% as a policy issue, is that aviation and shipping are not 00:24:08.070 --> 00:24:09.780 align:middle line:84% included in the Paris Climate agreements 00:24:09.780 --> 00:24:12.390 align:middle line:84% in 2016, which is to say, it's one 00:24:12.390 --> 00:24:15.250 align:middle line:84% of our fastest growing sectors of greenhouse gas emissions 00:24:15.250 --> 00:24:17.820 align:middle line:84% but we actually don't have an international policy 00:24:17.820 --> 00:24:19.560 align:middle line:90% to try to limit these emissions. 00:24:19.560 --> 00:24:23.070 align:middle line:84% This, perhaps, brings into a question, 00:24:23.070 --> 00:24:25.200 align:middle line:84% is international policy the right way 00:24:25.200 --> 00:24:27.120 align:middle line:90% to tackle this problem? 00:24:27.120 --> 00:24:28.620 align:middle line:84% The O'Leary chapter I think provides 00:24:28.620 --> 00:24:32.160 align:middle line:84% some really interesting ideas for policy options. 00:24:32.160 --> 00:24:34.320 align:middle line:84% The options include improving the efficiency 00:24:34.320 --> 00:24:37.410 align:middle line:84% of the vehicles themselves, trying to use biofuels, 00:24:37.410 --> 00:24:41.250 align:middle line:84% presumably where those have carbon capture-- 00:24:41.250 --> 00:24:44.460 align:middle line:84% that the carbon is captured or utilized or stored. 00:24:44.460 --> 00:24:47.970 align:middle line:84% We could try to change our operational measures, 00:24:47.970 --> 00:24:50.190 align:middle line:84% increase the efficiency of the system itself 00:24:50.190 --> 00:24:52.170 align:middle line:84% to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 00:24:52.170 --> 00:24:55.122 align:middle line:84% or we could simply try to reduce our demand. 00:24:55.122 --> 00:24:56.830 align:middle line:84% And so we translate these various options 00:24:56.830 --> 00:25:00.970 align:middle line:84% into US policy options that could include a carbon tax, 00:25:00.970 --> 00:25:02.530 align:middle line:90% including aviation emissions. 00:25:02.530 --> 00:25:05.140 align:middle line:84% We could specifically increase taxes on aviation, 00:25:05.140 --> 00:25:06.910 align:middle line:84% just like we tax other things that 00:25:06.910 --> 00:25:12.310 align:middle line:84% have high social impacts, like liquor, guns, and cigarettes. 00:25:12.310 --> 00:25:15.070 align:middle line:84% Or we could introduce an emission standard for planes 00:25:15.070 --> 00:25:18.070 align:middle line:84% to say that only planes of a certain efficiency 00:25:18.070 --> 00:25:20.380 align:middle line:84% are allowed to take flights to the US. 00:25:20.380 --> 00:25:24.445 align:middle line:84% We could require or encourage the use of biofuels for planes. 00:25:24.445 --> 00:25:26.320 align:middle line:84% We could try to reduce emissions at airports, 00:25:26.320 --> 00:25:28.300 align:middle line:84% such as in airport operations themselves, 00:25:28.300 --> 00:25:32.770 align:middle line:84% or reducing taxiing time, that it's like idling for trucks. 00:25:32.770 --> 00:25:36.250 align:middle line:84% We could ask airlines to engage in voluntary emissions 00:25:36.250 --> 00:25:37.660 align:middle line:90% reduction measures. 00:25:37.660 --> 00:25:39.610 align:middle line:84% We could enable or encourage less 00:25:39.610 --> 00:25:41.950 align:middle line:84% flying as a demand reduction measure. 00:25:41.950 --> 00:25:45.100 align:middle line:84% Individuals could purchase high quality offsets-- 00:25:45.100 --> 00:25:49.690 align:middle line:84% this is what MIT is pursuing as a net zero strategy. 00:25:49.690 --> 00:25:53.440 align:middle line:84% Or we could try to reduce our freight emissions. 00:25:53.440 --> 00:25:55.980 align:middle line:84% And so this is something I want to discuss in the class 00:25:55.980 --> 00:25:58.200 align:middle line:84% when we meet, which is, is aviation 00:25:58.200 --> 00:26:00.960 align:middle line:84% a moral or individual issue, and does that actually 00:26:00.960 --> 00:26:03.010 align:middle line:90% translate into a policy issue? 00:26:03.010 --> 00:26:05.730 align:middle line:84% I would argue there are two schools of thought. 00:26:05.730 --> 00:26:07.530 align:middle line:84% The first one argues that aviation 00:26:07.530 --> 00:26:10.770 align:middle line:84% is a red herring, a canard or a waste of time for policy 00:26:10.770 --> 00:26:11.970 align:middle line:90% analysts to talk about. 00:26:11.970 --> 00:26:15.150 align:middle line:84% And some of their arguments are these different lines. 00:26:15.150 --> 00:26:18.837 align:middle line:84% First they argue that our individual emissions or concern 00:26:18.837 --> 00:26:21.420 align:middle line:84% about our individual emissions or individual carbon footprints 00:26:21.420 --> 00:26:23.730 align:middle line:84% is essentially the product of a corporate marketing 00:26:23.730 --> 00:26:28.500 align:middle line:84% campaign from BP or British Petroleum in the 1970s and 80s. 00:26:28.500 --> 00:26:30.187 align:middle line:90% That's been well documented. 00:26:30.187 --> 00:26:31.770 align:middle line:84% And of course, another line of thought 00:26:31.770 --> 00:26:33.870 align:middle line:84% is that 70% of fossil fuels have been 00:26:33.870 --> 00:26:35.902 align:middle line:90% sold by 30 or so companies. 00:26:35.902 --> 00:26:37.860 align:middle line:84% You can see that news headline in the Guardian. 00:26:37.860 --> 00:26:41.820 align:middle line:84% And so they blame corporations for these emissions 00:26:41.820 --> 00:26:43.860 align:middle line:84% from aviation or other activities 00:26:43.860 --> 00:26:46.750 align:middle line:90% rather than consumers. 00:26:46.750 --> 00:26:48.750 align:middle line:84% And of course, there's one other line of thought 00:26:48.750 --> 00:26:50.580 align:middle line:84% that individual actions can demotivate 00:26:50.580 --> 00:26:52.540 align:middle line:84% people towards larger collective actions. 00:26:52.540 --> 00:26:55.950 align:middle line:84% You spend all your time thinking about recycling or bicycling 00:26:55.950 --> 00:26:58.380 align:middle line:84% or vegetarianism, you may have less time 00:26:58.380 --> 00:27:02.700 align:middle line:84% to participate in larger policy or social organizing. 00:27:02.700 --> 00:27:06.630 align:middle line:84% I would actually disagree with that, but some people also 00:27:06.630 --> 00:27:09.120 align:middle line:90% have well documented-- 00:27:09.120 --> 00:27:11.250 align:middle line:84% Shahzeen Attari at Indiana University 00:27:11.250 --> 00:27:12.870 align:middle line:84% has documented how people are very 00:27:12.870 --> 00:27:16.570 align:middle line:84% bad at judging the effects of their actions, 00:27:16.570 --> 00:27:19.290 align:middle line:84% whether or not they are changing lightbulbs 00:27:19.290 --> 00:27:20.730 align:middle line:84% or engaging in energy efficiency, 00:27:20.730 --> 00:27:22.272 align:middle line:84% or buying an energy efficient laptop. 00:27:22.272 --> 00:27:24.660 align:middle line:84% People just don't really understand necessarily 00:27:24.660 --> 00:27:28.680 align:middle line:84% how much implications or how much effect their actions have. 00:27:28.680 --> 00:27:31.740 align:middle line:84% I would argue that we spend a lot of time talking about, 00:27:31.740 --> 00:27:35.220 align:middle line:84% let's say, bicycling or vegetarianism or consuming 00:27:35.220 --> 00:27:38.790 align:middle line:84% less, then we completely offset that 00:27:38.790 --> 00:27:42.480 align:middle line:84% by taking a long flight to another continent. 00:27:42.480 --> 00:27:44.490 align:middle line:84% And finally, there's one school of thought 00:27:44.490 --> 00:27:46.890 align:middle line:84% that COVID has shown us that individual actions aren't 00:27:46.890 --> 00:27:47.882 align:middle line:90% that effective. 00:27:47.882 --> 00:27:49.590 align:middle line:84% We didn't reduce greenhouse gas emissions 00:27:49.590 --> 00:27:52.440 align:middle line:84% that much during COVID even though we didn't fly 00:27:52.440 --> 00:27:55.250 align:middle line:84% and that we need larger policy change. 00:27:55.250 --> 00:27:57.330 align:middle line:84% So these are all arguments why policy changes 00:27:57.330 --> 00:28:00.160 align:middle line:84% are more important than individual action. 00:28:00.160 --> 00:28:03.330 align:middle line:84% Another school of thought, you may have heard my skepticism 00:28:03.330 --> 00:28:08.040 align:middle line:84% about some the arguments, is that addressing aviation 00:28:08.040 --> 00:28:11.160 align:middle line:84% or taking individual action is necessary and essential. 00:28:11.160 --> 00:28:13.020 align:middle line:84% We can blame fossil fuel companies 00:28:13.020 --> 00:28:14.610 align:middle line:84% for selling products to consumers, 00:28:14.610 --> 00:28:16.140 align:middle line:90% but we are consumers. 00:28:16.140 --> 00:28:18.840 align:middle line:84% Every single day, everything we buy, 00:28:18.840 --> 00:28:22.380 align:middle line:84% eat, travel, and essentially use fossil fuels. 00:28:22.380 --> 00:28:25.180 align:middle line:84% I would argue that there's a strong equity component, 00:28:25.180 --> 00:28:29.250 align:middle line:84% especially for people watching this in North America or Europe 00:28:29.250 --> 00:28:33.960 align:middle line:84% where we are relatively rich, developed, and prosperous. 00:28:33.960 --> 00:28:37.560 align:middle line:84% Rich countries consume much more than poor ones. 00:28:37.560 --> 00:28:40.800 align:middle line:84% Rich people consume more than poor people, 00:28:40.800 --> 00:28:42.850 align:middle line:90% even in poor countries. 00:28:42.850 --> 00:28:45.180 align:middle line:84% So there's an equity issue between-- 00:28:45.180 --> 00:28:47.340 align:middle line:84% we're arguing that we don't have to take action. 00:28:47.340 --> 00:28:51.490 align:middle line:84% Is that a privilege for us to be able to argue that? 00:28:51.490 --> 00:28:53.250 align:middle line:84% Another problem is that aviation is going 00:28:53.250 --> 00:28:55.810 align:middle line:90% to be very hard to decarbonize. 00:28:55.810 --> 00:28:58.750 align:middle line:84% We don't currently have a lot of technological options 00:28:58.750 --> 00:29:01.660 align:middle line:84% to reduce the emissions from aviation. 00:29:01.660 --> 00:29:04.990 align:middle line:84% There has been some discussion of electric flying, 00:29:04.990 --> 00:29:06.220 align:middle line:90% electric planes. 00:29:06.220 --> 00:29:08.800 align:middle line:84% Those will only be able to go short haul distances. 00:29:08.800 --> 00:29:11.380 align:middle line:84% I'll talk about that more in the next lecture. 00:29:11.380 --> 00:29:14.320 align:middle line:84% But also, on a more important social level, 00:29:14.320 --> 00:29:16.750 align:middle line:84% I would argue that most people want to participate. 00:29:16.750 --> 00:29:19.900 align:middle line:84% Most people want to try to do the right thing if they 00:29:19.900 --> 00:29:20.950 align:middle line:90% know what that is. 00:29:20.950 --> 00:29:22.960 align:middle line:84% But another thing is that as advocates, 00:29:22.960 --> 00:29:24.970 align:middle line:84% if we're trying to advocate taking action 00:29:24.970 --> 00:29:27.920 align:middle line:84% on climate change, there are research findings, again, 00:29:27.920 --> 00:29:31.107 align:middle line:84% from Shahzeen Attari's group at Indiana University, 00:29:31.107 --> 00:29:33.190 align:middle line:84% that advocates are not taken seriously unless they 00:29:33.190 --> 00:29:34.480 align:middle line:90% abide by the advocacy. 00:29:34.480 --> 00:29:36.430 align:middle line:84% In other words, we can say that we'll 00:29:36.430 --> 00:29:38.310 align:middle line:84% try to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 00:29:38.310 --> 00:29:40.060 align:middle line:84% But if we are not demonstrating that we're 00:29:40.060 --> 00:29:41.860 align:middle line:84% willing to do it ourselves, people 00:29:41.860 --> 00:29:44.770 align:middle line:84% will actually take our advocacy less seriously. 00:29:44.770 --> 00:29:47.170 align:middle line:84% To give you an example, I think every time 00:29:47.170 --> 00:29:49.510 align:middle line:84% Prince Harry flies to a climate change 00:29:49.510 --> 00:29:53.500 align:middle line:84% conference in a private jet, the first thing newspapers 00:29:53.500 --> 00:29:55.360 align:middle line:84% and some people will say is, oh, look, 00:29:55.360 --> 00:29:56.680 align:middle line:90% he's flying a private jet. 00:29:56.680 --> 00:29:59.080 align:middle line:84% He doesn't even understand what his actions 00:29:59.080 --> 00:30:01.420 align:middle line:84% that are resulting in greenhouse gas emissions. 00:30:01.420 --> 00:30:03.040 align:middle line:84% Why should we listen to him talking 00:30:03.040 --> 00:30:04.810 align:middle line:84% about reducing greenhouse gas emissions 00:30:04.810 --> 00:30:07.300 align:middle line:90% or saving the environment? 00:30:07.300 --> 00:30:10.600 align:middle line:84% And of course, from an ecological or physical basis, 00:30:10.600 --> 00:30:14.290 align:middle line:84% our consumption expectations cannot grow infinitely unless 00:30:14.290 --> 00:30:17.980 align:middle line:84% you believe that human ingenuity will engineer our way out 00:30:17.980 --> 00:30:20.720 align:middle line:84% of any environmental problem that we create. 00:30:20.720 --> 00:30:22.960 align:middle line:84% So I would summarize these arguments 00:30:22.960 --> 00:30:27.100 align:middle line:84% as arguing for individual action, not over policy action, 00:30:27.100 --> 00:30:29.020 align:middle line:90% but to complement policy action. 00:30:29.020 --> 00:30:32.410 align:middle line:84% I think we can have this debate, but it's also quite possible 00:30:32.410 --> 00:30:36.340 align:middle line:84% that we need individual and policy action together. 00:30:36.340 --> 00:30:37.970 align:middle line:84% This brings me to the Sheller paper. 00:30:37.970 --> 00:30:39.860 align:middle line:84% And the reason why I assigned this paper, 00:30:39.860 --> 00:30:42.580 align:middle line:84% the title is Racialized Mobility Transitions 00:30:42.580 --> 00:30:45.190 align:middle line:84% in Philadelphia, Connecting Urban Sustainability 00:30:45.190 --> 00:30:46.720 align:middle line:90% and Transport Justice. 00:30:46.720 --> 00:30:48.610 align:middle line:90% It's a 2015 paper. 00:30:48.610 --> 00:30:51.040 align:middle line:84% It describes Philadelphia, a city I know well, 00:30:51.040 --> 00:30:52.155 align:middle line:90% where I used to live. 00:30:52.155 --> 00:30:53.530 align:middle line:84% But it's also important to notice 00:30:53.530 --> 00:30:55.300 align:middle line:84% that some of the things that they talk 00:30:55.300 --> 00:30:57.850 align:middle line:84% on the paper, or Sheller talks on paper, 00:30:57.850 --> 00:31:00.940 align:middle line:84% you can simply substitute transport justice for energy 00:31:00.940 --> 00:31:02.890 align:middle line:84% and it would tie back to a lot of the justice 00:31:02.890 --> 00:31:06.140 align:middle line:84% concerns we talked about a few classes ago. 00:31:06.140 --> 00:31:09.310 align:middle line:84% And so I want us just to put these analogous questions out 00:31:09.310 --> 00:31:11.210 align:middle line:90% there for discussion in class. 00:31:11.210 --> 00:31:13.060 align:middle line:84% How do we think about our transition 00:31:13.060 --> 00:31:15.700 align:middle line:84% to lower emitting transportation technologies? 00:31:15.700 --> 00:31:19.010 align:middle line:84% What would we have to do to make these technologies equitable, 00:31:19.010 --> 00:31:20.080 align:middle line:90% fair, and just? 00:31:20.080 --> 00:31:22.120 align:middle line:84% Sheller does, I think, a really good job 00:31:22.120 --> 00:31:25.510 align:middle line:84% of arguing that for transportation transitions 00:31:25.510 --> 00:31:28.930 align:middle line:84% already occurring in Philadelphia, like from cars 00:31:28.930 --> 00:31:32.590 align:middle line:84% to electric vehicles, or from cars to bicycling and walking, 00:31:32.590 --> 00:31:34.180 align:middle line:84% they are not equitably distributed 00:31:34.180 --> 00:31:35.380 align:middle line:90% among the population. 00:31:35.380 --> 00:31:38.110 align:middle line:84% You have gentrification happening to Center City. 00:31:38.110 --> 00:31:42.160 align:middle line:84% You have young, white people accessing bicycling and walking 00:31:42.160 --> 00:31:45.640 align:middle line:84% and subway modes more, and the bus system 00:31:45.640 --> 00:31:46.900 align:middle line:90% being relatively ignored. 00:31:46.900 --> 00:31:51.340 align:middle line:84% And also, people of color or Blacks not necessarily being 00:31:51.340 --> 00:31:54.760 align:middle line:84% seen as bicyclists, or perhaps their bicycling is seen 00:31:54.760 --> 00:31:57.640 align:middle line:84% as something necessary or because they cannot afford 00:31:57.640 --> 00:31:58.720 align:middle line:90% a car. 00:31:58.720 --> 00:32:02.920 align:middle line:84% This is to say that how people use cars, electric bikes 00:32:02.920 --> 00:32:06.580 align:middle line:84% or bicycles, subway, light rail, walking and buses, 00:32:06.580 --> 00:32:09.160 align:middle line:84% are all quite heterogeneous and distributed. 00:32:09.160 --> 00:32:13.360 align:middle line:84% People don't use the same modes, and in many cases, 00:32:13.360 --> 00:32:16.510 align:middle line:84% their use of different modes is not necessarily fair, equitable 00:32:16.510 --> 00:32:17.410 align:middle line:90% or just. 00:32:17.410 --> 00:32:21.400 align:middle line:84% So the last thing this brings into question, tying us back 00:32:21.400 --> 00:32:24.550 align:middle line:84% to cities, is are land use and living 00:32:24.550 --> 00:32:27.190 align:middle line:90% patterns implicated in this? 00:32:27.190 --> 00:32:31.300 align:middle line:84% The reason why transportation and mobility is a superpower 00:32:31.300 --> 00:32:33.430 align:middle line:84% is that it enables us to live in different places 00:32:33.430 --> 00:32:35.555 align:middle line:84% and allows us to have different patterns of living. 00:32:35.555 --> 00:32:38.380 align:middle line:84% But as we know, cities like Philadelphia and Boston 00:32:38.380 --> 00:32:39.670 align:middle line:90% are highly segregated. 00:32:39.670 --> 00:32:41.530 align:middle line:84% So if we're talking about transportation 00:32:41.530 --> 00:32:43.510 align:middle line:84% and trying to decarbonize transportation, 00:32:43.510 --> 00:32:47.410 align:middle line:84% are we willing to tackle our implications for our land use 00:32:47.410 --> 00:32:50.860 align:middle line:84% and living patterns if we want to give people equal access 00:32:50.860 --> 00:32:53.560 align:middle line:90% to the superpower of mobility? 00:32:53.560 --> 00:32:55.720 align:middle line:84% This brings me to the Mazmanian chapter, again, 00:32:55.720 --> 00:32:57.460 align:middle line:84% something we'll discuss in class. 00:32:57.460 --> 00:33:00.730 align:middle line:84% This article I've always liked, if only because it simply 00:33:00.730 --> 00:33:04.150 align:middle line:84% describes how Los Angeles has been pursuing clean air 00:33:04.150 --> 00:33:07.370 align:middle line:90% over a 50 or 60 year period. 00:33:07.370 --> 00:33:10.450 align:middle line:84% And it says that the saga to achieve clean air 00:33:10.450 --> 00:33:13.500 align:middle line:84% has spanned three different epochs. 00:33:13.500 --> 00:33:17.010 align:middle line:84% And the saga of making long term changes in the automobile 00:33:17.010 --> 00:33:19.410 align:middle line:84% system or land use or regional governments 00:33:19.410 --> 00:33:21.090 align:middle line:84% are all important questions for us 00:33:21.090 --> 00:33:24.450 align:middle line:84% to think about as we think about cities tackling climate change. 00:33:24.450 --> 00:33:26.370 align:middle line:84% We need to ask ourselves, what changes 00:33:26.370 --> 00:33:28.200 align:middle line:90% do we have to start making now? 00:33:28.200 --> 00:33:31.080 align:middle line:84% But the epochs also show you that some of those efforts 00:33:31.080 --> 00:33:33.300 align:middle line:84% haven't been sustained over time because some 00:33:33.300 --> 00:33:34.950 align:middle line:90% weren't politically popular. 00:33:34.950 --> 00:33:37.560 align:middle line:84% The question is, how do we sustain the changes and efforts 00:33:37.560 --> 00:33:39.790 align:middle line:90% over a long period of time? 00:33:39.790 --> 00:33:42.600 align:middle line:84% As I said in the last lecture, the California Air Resources 00:33:42.600 --> 00:33:45.210 align:middle line:84% Board is one of the most aggressive agencies 00:33:45.210 --> 00:33:48.420 align:middle line:84% in the world, helping to shape vehicle efficiency 00:33:48.420 --> 00:33:51.390 align:middle line:84% standards across the world and for global automakers, 00:33:51.390 --> 00:33:53.700 align:middle line:84% as far flung as Korea or Germany. 00:33:53.700 --> 00:33:55.290 align:middle line:84% But even in this chapter, you can 00:33:55.290 --> 00:33:58.350 align:middle line:84% see that the city of Los Angeles, the regional air 00:33:58.350 --> 00:34:01.770 align:middle line:84% quality management district, the California Air Resources Board, 00:34:01.770 --> 00:34:03.810 align:middle line:84% have not always been able to achieve 00:34:03.810 --> 00:34:05.520 align:middle line:84% all the things they wanted to, especially 00:34:05.520 --> 00:34:07.596 align:middle line:90% in terms of land use. 00:34:07.596 --> 00:34:09.179 align:middle line:84% And so on Tuesday, we're going to talk 00:34:09.179 --> 00:34:10.980 align:middle line:84% about how to achieve justice, fairness, 00:34:10.980 --> 00:34:13.710 align:middle line:84% and equity in different urban modes of transport. 00:34:13.710 --> 00:34:16.165 align:middle line:84% And I'll argue that it'll help you 00:34:16.165 --> 00:34:18.540 align:middle line:84% to think about the various readings from previous classes 00:34:18.540 --> 00:34:20.280 align:middle line:90% to do this exercise. 00:34:20.280 --> 00:34:23.580 align:middle line:84% For all the modes in the slide on the Sheller article, 00:34:23.580 --> 00:34:25.770 align:middle line:84% you should be able to argue for the existing status 00:34:25.770 --> 00:34:29.370 align:middle line:84% quo or trajectory of the system we have, or argue 00:34:29.370 --> 00:34:31.590 align:middle line:84% for radical changes to achieve lower emitting 00:34:31.590 --> 00:34:32.760 align:middle line:90% modes of transportation. 00:34:32.760 --> 00:34:35.370 align:middle line:84% I'll let you decide which ones are the status quo and what 00:34:35.370 --> 00:34:37.380 align:middle line:90% you consider radical changes. 00:34:37.380 --> 00:34:40.710 align:middle line:84% But the point of this exercise is to do-- 00:34:40.710 --> 00:34:43.320 align:middle line:84% you may have heard this quote, "The test 00:34:43.320 --> 00:34:45.300 align:middle line:84% of a first-rate intelligence is the ability 00:34:45.300 --> 00:34:49.320 align:middle line:84% to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, 00:34:49.320 --> 00:34:51.449 align:middle line:84% and still retain the ability to function." 00:34:51.449 --> 00:34:53.489 align:middle line:84% This is a quote attributed to F. Scott 00:34:53.489 --> 00:34:56.238 align:middle line:84% Fitzgerald, though there's many other similar quotes. 00:34:56.238 --> 00:34:57.780 align:middle line:84% What I like about this quote, I never 00:34:57.780 --> 00:35:01.170 align:middle line:84% read the second part, which is "One should, for example, be 00:35:01.170 --> 00:35:03.150 align:middle line:84% able to see that things are hopeless 00:35:03.150 --> 00:35:07.570 align:middle line:84% and yet should be determined to make them otherwise." 00:35:07.570 --> 00:35:09.990 align:middle line:84% And so this is the crux of the problem 00:35:09.990 --> 00:35:11.970 align:middle line:90% for land use and cities. 00:35:11.970 --> 00:35:14.740 align:middle line:84% We know cities are big and hard to change, 00:35:14.740 --> 00:35:16.620 align:middle line:84% but we can also see the transportation 00:35:16.620 --> 00:35:20.070 align:middle line:84% system is clearly linked to the entire built environment. 00:35:20.070 --> 00:35:22.233 align:middle line:84% And it seems like a hard system to change, 00:35:22.233 --> 00:35:24.150 align:middle line:84% but we should be determined to make the system 00:35:24.150 --> 00:35:27.450 align:middle line:84% change because it dictates so many other aspects of city 00:35:27.450 --> 00:35:28.990 align:middle line:90% life. 00:35:28.990 --> 00:35:30.800 align:middle line:90% Thank you very much. 00:35:30.800 --> 00:35:33.660 align:middle line:84% I look forward to speaking at the next lecture. 00:35:33.660 --> 00:35:45.000 align:middle line:90%