In the coming days, the US will make a critical decision that has the potential to change the US' standing in the world: whether to approve a US$537 million grant that will help make New York City the first environmentally sustainable megacity in the 21st century.
Officials at the US Department of Transportation must appreciate that their decision to fund New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's visionary project, called PlaNYC, will determine the quality of air that more than 10 million New Yorkers breathe daily and the amount of carbon dioxide emissions the city coughs into the atmosphere.
Already, New York City produces more carbon dioxide emissions than all of Norway. More importantly, officials must realize that their actions will shape the US' response to the global challenge of unparalleled urbanization and carbon-induced climate change.
This year, for the first time in history, more people will live in urban areas than rural communities. In the US, the urban population has grown from 97 million in 1950 to 222 million in 2000. Today, nearly 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas. Such unprecedented and unplanned urbanization wreaks environmental havoc by increasing carbon emissions, since higher population density results in greater automobile and energy use.
PlaNYC encourages the use of public transportation systems by creating powerful disincentives to automobile use. The plan's proposed congestion charge on automobile use during peak times in certain parts of the city would reduce traffic and generate revenue that would go toward improving public transportation.
Mayor Bloomberg's plan comes at the right time for a city burdened by worsening traffic and pollution problems. Vehicles cause nearly a fifth of New York City's carbon dioxide emissions.
Traffic congestion, in particular, is not only environmentally detrimental, but also imposes substantial time and resource costs on drivers. Americans lose around 3.7 billion hours and 8.7 billion liters of fuel sitting in traffic jams.
This implies an annual cost of around US$200 billion. Because of congestion, New Yorkers face the longest commutes in the US and their children have the highest rate of asthma hospitalization.
PlaNYC would impose the congestion charge on the 4.6 percent of New York City residents who drive to work, while its benefits would accrue to everyone. New Yorkers would enjoy cleaner air, shorter average commuting time and better public transportation. Neither the economy in general, nor the retail sector in particular, should be adversely affected. In fact, service and delivery providers in Manhattan, among others, would benefit from shorter travel times and fewer delays.
However, despite its many advantages, congestion charges face some skepticism. Fortunately, we can learn from other cities such as Stockholm, Singapore and London, which have successfully implemented them. In all of these cities, carbon dioxide emissions declined sharply and congestion was significantly reduced.
These cities have also benefited from more efficient public transportation. In London, bus travel rose by 46 percent. According to an independent report, almost 60 percent of businesses in London judged the program's impact on the economy as positive or neutral.
Automobile-dependent countries like the US need smart solutions to ensure environmentally sustainable development. Having one of the largest urban populations and the highest per capita carbon dioxide emissions, the US has the responsibility to lead the world on this front.
If the US does not act soon, its cities will lag behind not only European capitals, but also developing country cities such as Bogota in Colombia and Curitiba in Brazil, which are already implementing innovative environmentally friendly solutions.
New York City has always been a global leader in finance, the arts and many other fields. It is an ideal candidate for creating a blueprint for cleaner and more efficient urbanization in the US and the rest of the world.
James Wolfensohn is a former president of the World Bank and former special envoy of the Quartet to the Middle East.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS