- Authoritarian governments can make absolute decisions about "green"1)I call these "green" as opposed to Sustainable, because I don't believe a project which doesn't incorporate democratic and/or participatory decision-making can be Sustainable infrastructure without all that pesky "consulting of the public" or "convincing anyone besides the leaders its a good idea" (which leads to things like empty buildings).
- Everything is bigger in China. China has over 4 times as many people than the USA with more than 160 cities of over 1 million so of course it is going to need more of everything to even stay the same on a per capita basis.
- I have doubts about the truth on the ground. Not that democratic governments are always trustworthy (see Bush II and Iraqi WMDs),2)The trust we have is built on a vibrant civil society providing independent data, verification etc.) but I have very little faith in the accurate reporting of Chinese governments-particularly on the sub-national level (even the Premier has his doubts).
Footnotes [ + ]
|1.||↑||I call these "green" as opposed to Sustainable, because I don't believe a project which doesn't incorporate democratic and/or participatory decision-making can be Sustainable|
|2.||↑||The trust we have is built on a vibrant civil society providing independent data, verification etc.|
|3.||↑||It is worth noting that he also links to an article from the South China Morning Post which claims that their are 650,000 bikes in these programs in China. Did I say something about unreliable data.|
|4.||↑||I used population totals based on "urban" areas, whose definition is only approximately the same from country to country and may not be necessarily define the relevant population for the bike sharing operational area (e.g. Citibike's in Manhattan being useful for Staten Islanders) but is should give us a better idea of the potential reach of these new initiatives.|
|5.||↑||Biking may not always be the best option to promote depending on geographic and climatic conditions.|