The Urban Environmental Accords -- Environmental Justice for Some

With more than half of the world's population currently living in cities, and developing countries expected to account for 93% of urban growth over the next quarter century, the notion of “sustainable cities” has come to the forefront. Urban populations consume 75% of the world’s natural resources and produce 75% of its waste, making cities a prime cause for environmental concern -- and action.

This week, at the United Nation’s World Environment Day festivities in San Francisco, urban mayors from around the world will come together to sign the Urban Environmental Accords. The vision for the accords is “to create a grassroots political movement through public citizens’ ability to influence Mayors who are already responsible for tackling many urban environmental issues,” according to the WED official site.

The accords include a set of 21 actions that signatory cities commit to taking. These “are proven first steps toward environmental sustainability,” says the U.N. They are grouped into seven main categories -- energy, waste reduction, urban design, urban nature, transportation, environmental health, and water -- and include specific proscriptive actions. For example, in the energy category, signatories commit to:

• Adopt and implement a policy to increase the use of renewable energy to meet 10% of the city’s peak electric load within seven years.

• Adopt and implement a policy to reduce the city’s peak electric load by 10% within seven years through energy efficiency, shifting the timing of energy demands, and conservation measures.

• Adopt a city-wide greenhouse gas reduction plan that reduces the jurisdiction’s emissions by 25% by 2030, and which includes a system for accounting and auditing greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s a start. The accords will help bring about a much-needed environmental renaissance in some cities.

But some of the biggest urban environmental problems aren’t addressed. Concern about environmental justice issues -- those that inequitably affect the poorest urban dwellers around the world -- aren’t evident in the accords.

True, the accords' “environmental health” section commands cities to “Every year, identify one product, chemical, or compound that is used within the city that represents the greatest risk to human health and adopt a law and provide incentives to reduce or eliminate its use by the municipal government.”

But that’s likely of little help to those in my home town of Oakland, California, where one in five children in West Oakland suffers from asthma. They are victims of the more than 9,000 diesel trucks that drive through their neighborhoods each day on their way to and from the Port of Oakland (the Port hopes to double that number by 2010). A child in West Oakland is more than eight times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma than her peers in the rest of the state, according to the Pacific Institute.

And the accords probably will be cold comfort to the parents of kids who ride each day in school buses in cities across America. A recent study found that the air inside school buses can be even more polluted than the air outside.

Those are just two examples of urban environmental issues. There are hundreds more throughout the United States -- and thousands more around the world: heavy industry polluting poor urban areas; siting of landfills, incinerators, highways, and toxic dumps near high-density residences and schools; poor dilapidated neighborhoods harborning pests and illness; and much more.

Will the Urban Environmental Accords help mayors address these problems? According to my reading, probably not.

Comments

[Ed]

These accords may not address all of the problems that are out there, but you have to start somewhere. You can go from zero to perfect in one step. The accords represent a good beginning. The key is for cities to keep improving and expanding upon this first step.

[tony]

I believe we can call the accords a success, if for no other reason, the initiation of a discussion of a different framework for measuring the health of our communities than economic or growth related aspects.

I agree that it is a start, somewhat flawed, and aimed at incremental improvement. I also recognize that all points on the curve... from the early adopters to the 'cold-dead-fingers" crowd all need to be moving in the same direction, and efforts like this are an integral piece, in my opinion, to such holistic change.

Thanks for the views and the opportunity to comment.
tony