[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: P2 and National Security
- Subject: Re: P2 and National Security
- From: "Wendy Fitzner" <email@example.com>
- Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 16:12:37 -0500
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- List-Name: p2tech
- Reply-To: "Wendy Fitzner" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Here's an email I got recently that may be of interest to those taking part in this discusssion, or just "listening":
One of the odd and troubling ideas that crossed the nation in the weeks
after September 11 was the notion that as a safeguard against terror, urban
sprawl might be a good thing after all.
With the murderous collapse of New York City's tallest buildings, both
proponents and critics of the useful work to contain sprawl can be excused
for wondering whether skyscrapers have outlived their usefulness and
spreadout suburbs are a safer bet. But according to this latest commentary
from the Elm Street Writers Group, viewing dense city neighborhoods as
somehow an easy target and the suburbs as a haven from terrorism overlooks
some of the underlying causes of the Sept. 11 attack. Continuing to spread
out across the landscape will only aggravate the situation.
The Elm Street Writers Group is a corps of accomplished writers whose work
has helped to shape the nation's growing movement to stem sprawl, rebuild
cities, improve economic opportunities, conserve farmland, and improve the
quality of life. The group's work, edited by the Michigan Land Use
Institute, is nationally syndicated in newspapers and on the Web.
Our best wishes for a safe and happy holiday season,
Keith Schneider, program director, Michigan Land Use Institute
Wendy Fitzner, Supervisor
P2 Program Management Unit
Environmental Assistance Division
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 30457
Lansing, Michigan 48909-7957
>>> "Burton Hamner" <email@example.com> 12/06/01 08:06PM >>>
Hello all. I am doing some thinking about Pollution Prevention and national security at request of a colleague and also for a workshop in March. Is there an obvious connection? Or some more subtle ones? Here are some of my thoughts:
- Toxics reduction: P2 can mean fewer toxic chemicals around for people to make trouble with.
- Minimum requirements for resources: P2 can reduce the amount of water and energy that people need to get by, so they are less vulnerable perhaps in event of disruption of supply. Reducing use also makes distributed generation of power and clean water more feasible so systems have fewer vulnerable points.
- Carbohydrate chemistry and chemical substitutions and reduction can reduce the need for imported oil (tho this is hardly likely to make any difference).
Does anyone have other ideas to share? It may be that this is all just reaching a little too far for relevance to national security. But that's what listservs are for - reaching way far!