I think this piece by Mike the Mad Biologist helps explain what is going on with the reaction to Mark's Citi-bike piece. The issue is not that this program has a lot of potential to change the climate -- it is a small step in the right direction that can, at most, have marginal benefits. What is remarkable is that such a small program can not only achieve such a strong reaction but that there is actually legal moves afoot to remove these stations from high end neighborhoods.
It is this piece, the degree of reaction to a small change, that really is newsworthy (even if the lede often seems to be deeply buried). In a real sense, this story is directly linked to President Obama's climate change speech. Because if the law can be used as a weapon to remove bike stations then why would we not expect it to be used against the EPA?
The law and the environment is a very unfortunate combination. On one hand, environmental review seems to be linked to delays in critically needed infrastructure. But it has a decidedly mixed record on tackling issues like coal use that have broad external costs that are not borne by the industry.
So, in this sense, citi-bike is a canary in the coal mine for how the larger drama may well play out.
No comments:
Post a Comment