PLANNING FOR A SUSTAINABLE EUROPE? - TU Berlin

216
5.6 Conclusions and Open Questions
EU documents referring to sustainable development and sustainable transport exhibit
a clear tendency to adhere to the underlying rationales of ecological modernization, i.e.
they express confidence that economic growth, environmental protection and social
equity are somehow complementary goals. When forced to set general priorities, EU
policy-makers emphasize growth before ecology and equity.
However, we also have to conclude that, in the end, the EU is not always strictly
adhering to the discursive framework of ecological modernization in its formulation of
policy objectives. Instead, the EU borrows rather freely from a variety of rationales, be
this the result of intentional strategizing or unintentional multifaceted rationalizing on the
part of EU decision-makers. So in the end, EU policy statements on sustainable transport
remain inconsistent. Statements coming out of the DG Environment are often more
environmentally ambitious than formulations coming from DG Transport and Energy.
Some formulations are openly contradictory, and the exact nature of these internal
contradictions needs to be more closely investigated in ensuing chapters.
Moreover, in the real world, actual transport infrastructure investment decisions bring
forward not only theoretical but also practical controversies. Baeten (2000) made the
important point that throughout Europe, many examples of large scale transport
investments can be found that demonstrate the “deeply contested ways and means
through which transport infrastructures are being planned and developed.” So at times,
overly optimistic sustainability discourses even render a disservice to the opposing
factions. Often, diametrically opposed mobility interests are at work which cannot, and