PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

149
Table 4.3 “Brown” Agenda versus “Green” Agenda Environmental Policy
“Brown Agenda”
“Green Agenda”
Problem perception
regarding
- First order impact Human health >> “Society”
- Timing
Immediate
- Scale
Local
- Worst affected Lower-income groups
- Economy Focus on problems related to
poverty (affordability)
Attitude towards
- Nature
- People
- Environmental
Services
Aspects emphasized in
relation to transport
Manipulate to serve human
needs
Work with
Provide more
Local Pollution, Noise
Traffic Accidents
Access & affordability problems
Ecosystem health,
Biodiversity >> “Nature”
Delayed
Regional and global
Future generations
Focus on problems related to
affluence
(over-consumption)
Protect and work with
Educate
Use Less /
Use more efficiently
Impact of infrastructures on
natural habitats and species
Global warming,
Global emissions
for disadvantaged groups
Typical Proponent “Urbanist” “Environmentalist”
Discursive Framework Political Economy Radical version: Renunciation
Managerial (weaker) Version:
Ecological Modernization
Source: Adapted and expanded from McGranahan and Satterwaite (2000)
4.5.2 Political Economy as a Framework for EU Transport Policy
To researchers and theorists coming from a society-oriented political economy
perspective, the differential access and mobility constraints of people depending on
income, age, class, race or gender are crucial aspects of sustainability analyses. A few
examples from the general transport literature serve to illustrate the approach. For one,
many studies show that poor people are typically also transport-poor, i.e. either
dependent on inadequate public transit or walking. Even for Los Angeles, the epitome of
the 20 th century car-city, Meyerhoff, Micozzi and Rowen (1992:153) found that “for the
very poor, accessibility to transportation is a major factor influencing the capacity to
satisfy even the most rudimentary needs, such as food, shelter, employment, and medical