Sunita Narain makes a case. Speaking of what she calls the Nano-flyover syndrome (Nano being Tata's new low-priced car), she says:
The question is should we discount the price of motorization so that some (and maybe a few more) can drive a car or a two-wheeler? Or should we pay the real cost of our commute so that the government can invest in mobility for all? The fact is that the government cannot afford to subsidize cars for all. Nor can it afford to invest in both cars and buses.Ultimately, it is not about economics. It is about politics and the imagination needed to build cities in which mobility does not mean cars.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Via a mailing list, Reason magazine has an article claiming that SUV's are better for the environment than hybrid cars:
Spinella spent two years on the most comprehensive study to date - dubbed "Dust to Dust" -- collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a…
My wine co-blogger and dear scientific colleague, Erleichda, and I had hoped to bring you an account of the wines enjoyed at our recent meetup. Erleichda and I have recently had the good fortune of regaining support for our scientific interactions and had a face-to-face conference of the…
Bruce Schneier, the security guru at Wired's Danger Room blog, reminds us of something important:
It's not true that no one worries about terrorists attacking chemical plants, it's just that our politics seem to leave us unable to deal with the threat. (Wired)
The chemical security problem is as…
April is the month that utility shut-offs are resumed in much of the northern half of the country - it is against the law to shut off people's primary heating fuel during the winter, but when they can't pay their bills, generally speaking, April 1 means that you can cut them off. There has been…