Dealing with climate change
I just watched an interesting debate on NRK TV on climate change. We all know the dangers by now, but what can the average Joe citizen do about it? And why is the government so reluctant in doing the things that would matter?
There are things that we can do, many of which aren't even all that much of a hassle. Turning off lights in rooms that aren't in use (no, Norwegians still haven't learned to do that), lowering the temperature indoors to 18-20 degrees, refrain from using terrace heaters in autumn, cycling or walking to work if you don't live too far away. Think before we go shopping for that fifteenth sweater. I'm sure most of us could do a fair bit if we only sat down and thought about it.
But a lot of the things that really would have an impact are up to the government. Norway is not a densely populated country. Most people live on small towns with less than 50.000 people, and are dependent on their cars for a lot of things. Owning a car is expensive, even if it just sits in the driveway. Public transport is also expensive, so when you have a car it pays to use it instead of taking the bus when you can. Lower public transport fares in peak hour would mean fewer cars on the roads. Lower fares and higher frequencies throughout the day and you might just see some people selling their cars. I know I would if public transport had been a viable option.
Bikes are even better than buses, in the few months without sub-zero temperatures. But there are few designated bike paths in Norwegian cities, and sharing the road with cars is not always smart, especially not on small rural roads where the cars speed by in 80 km/H. A small investment here, and people might just drag their bikes from out of the garage. Good for the environment, even better for public health.
Moving people from short-haul flights and on to the train would also benefit the environment. Most air travel between cities in southern Norway could be avoided with a high-speed train network, such as they are building in the rest of Europe. Norway already has the trains, but the high-speed tracks are missing, and there is small chance we'll see them anytime soon. And when the train ride from Oslo to Trondheim not only is over six hours long (compared to a 45 minute flight), but also is twice as expensive as flying, people will of course choose flying, even though planes emit more CO2 than any other form of transportation.
the government has the money to subsidise trains, public transport, bike paths and bio-fuelled cars, what is lacking is the political will to do something that really matters. Norway has earned so much money from oil that we cant' afford to spend any of it, and while the state government has a huge budget surplus, local government only gets crumbs. Hardly enough to cover basic public needs, let alone subsidise public transport or build cycle paths. It probably wouldn't have mattered even if local government had been given sufficient funds. The pre-WW2 days of "building the country" are long gone, replaced by a gang of petrol-crazed polluters speeding down the highway of mindless consumption.
There are things that we can do, many of which aren't even all that much of a hassle. Turning off lights in rooms that aren't in use (no, Norwegians still haven't learned to do that), lowering the temperature indoors to 18-20 degrees, refrain from using terrace heaters in autumn, cycling or walking to work if you don't live too far away. Think before we go shopping for that fifteenth sweater. I'm sure most of us could do a fair bit if we only sat down and thought about it.
But a lot of the things that really would have an impact are up to the government. Norway is not a densely populated country. Most people live on small towns with less than 50.000 people, and are dependent on their cars for a lot of things. Owning a car is expensive, even if it just sits in the driveway. Public transport is also expensive, so when you have a car it pays to use it instead of taking the bus when you can. Lower public transport fares in peak hour would mean fewer cars on the roads. Lower fares and higher frequencies throughout the day and you might just see some people selling their cars. I know I would if public transport had been a viable option.
Bikes are even better than buses, in the few months without sub-zero temperatures. But there are few designated bike paths in Norwegian cities, and sharing the road with cars is not always smart, especially not on small rural roads where the cars speed by in 80 km/H. A small investment here, and people might just drag their bikes from out of the garage. Good for the environment, even better for public health.
Moving people from short-haul flights and on to the train would also benefit the environment. Most air travel between cities in southern Norway could be avoided with a high-speed train network, such as they are building in the rest of Europe. Norway already has the trains, but the high-speed tracks are missing, and there is small chance we'll see them anytime soon. And when the train ride from Oslo to Trondheim not only is over six hours long (compared to a 45 minute flight), but also is twice as expensive as flying, people will of course choose flying, even though planes emit more CO2 than any other form of transportation.
the government has the money to subsidise trains, public transport, bike paths and bio-fuelled cars, what is lacking is the political will to do something that really matters. Norway has earned so much money from oil that we cant' afford to spend any of it, and while the state government has a huge budget surplus, local government only gets crumbs. Hardly enough to cover basic public needs, let alone subsidise public transport or build cycle paths. It probably wouldn't have mattered even if local government had been given sufficient funds. The pre-WW2 days of "building the country" are long gone, replaced by a gang of petrol-crazed polluters speeding down the highway of mindless consumption.
posted by Unknown | 10:29 pm
<< Home