Moving Planet in Christchurch

Well, alright!...
...where I have to push this country to move it forward?

Today’s entry is going to be dedicated to an ongoingevent in the field of environmental awareness and care. I`m talking about MovingPlanet, an event organized by the international organization 350.org with themain idea of raising awareness about fossil fuels and alternatives. Here in Christchurch it will be organized by 350 Chch in Hagley Park, with local events to get people into bike riding, car alternatives and renewable energies but, asI’m reading on their page, with a real focus on transport issues. There will beplenty of ideas to get rid of the car and a bike workshop.

As they claim (check www.350.org for more info), they are “creating a movement tosolve climate crisis” and take their name because of the 350 ppm. of CO2 which is the maximum safe level.

It sounds like a good idea, right? Well, from an IEM perspective,it can be as well, and is a good example to show how IEM approaches don’t need to come from a formal institution nor been given the IEM-name. Nevertheless,this initiative takes care of the famous triple-bottom line with little actionsthat can have a great impact on a particular person and a community;eventually, if a huge number of people join, this impact will be sawn over theentire global ecosystem, as their main aim is. Let’s take for example, the use of bike, as it’s the main focus point of the Chch Moving Planet:

Does it affect the three lines of the triple-bottom line?

Definitely yes! It affects the environmental sphere inan obvious way, diminishing emissions locally and globally, noise and visualpollution. It affects also the socio-cultural sphere by changing people’s wayto interact with the environment around them, improves their social inclusion by taking part in those activities and meetings and, as it is aerobic activity, it has repercussion over the health, rhythm of life, and general happiness. And finally,it affects the economic sphere, as this substitution improves private budget by saving in petrol and cars (and gyms probably), but also is beneficial for the local and city’s budgets, as it promotes public transport use as a side effect,diminishes traffic congestion and, by enhancing local movement and living,improves small commerce and services sector.

Is it inclusive?

In some areas, the social barrier between people being able to afford a car or not can determine their ability to access jobs and education because of the design of the cities and economic/income distribution.Even if this is not such a sharp problem in New Zealand, this initiative is inclusive as it blows social barriers; there are no divisions among stakeholders, lobby groups, leverage collectives. The favoured are much bigger than the affected ones (car industry as the main group) and the side effects are beneficial for the community as a whole.

Is the problem correctly defined?

Traffic is a main contributor to cities’ pollution ina bunch of places in the world. Despite it’s not New Zealand’s nor Canterbury’s main polluter regarding air quality, the problem of traffic emissions here is seen as a symptom of a much broader problem which encompasses the lack of environmental awareness. I think it’s a good thing trying to see the main picture, and this solution could appear as focused in a small problem but also improves the entire picture. Bikes and cars are quite visible and,consequently, present in our lives; using the bike is a declaration of principles, and can make a significant impact in the way people understandtheir relation with the ecosystem, not only those who bike-ride, but also those who see it and decide to change other aspects of their lives that are affordable to them.

Does it include the other issues related in the given ecosystem to achieve a complete view and reach the best solution?

Well, this is a tricky one. To begin with, the horizontal distribution of Christchurch and transport system cannot be changed nor by a small community, a group of aware neighbours, nor even all the bike riders of Canterbury by their own. It needs institutional involvement, substantial changes in the public transport network, and community development. Nowadays Christchurch is facing the development of its future and the scale of investments, changes and planning has probably no rival in all its history; this is both anopportunity and a threat for the environment (including the people and human environment) and the level of institutional commitment will shape itdramatically.

So, what’s the general conclusion? From an IEM perspective, this event and the initiatives they try to enhance are a very good starting point. Nevertheless, the planning model of the cities cannot bechanged without some institutional involvement, but people’s awareness is a powerful weapon and constitutes the main potential of this event and the entire 350.org’s initiative. Small actions are as important as mammoth enterprises and their repercussion on people’s lives’ improvement shouldn’t be dismissed so easily; after all, mountains are made of a bunch of sand grains, right?

And finally, one proof to show you that it’s not abudget issue, if you cannot afford the whole bike, you can save one wheel ;)

Edited on Monday26^th September:

Having a look at the page, it seems this day had agood tracking and assistance in the main cities it was celebrated, any ideasabout Chch? Please feel free to comment!