To Curb Climate Change, Cities Need the Right Design
By Jeffrey Raven
Over 300 mayors recently promised to uphold the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement. This pledge proves that cities are leading America’s fight against climate change.
This spring, Salt Lake City promised to cut its carbon footprint in half by 2030. New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have set similarly ambitious targets.
Meanwhile, Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jack Seiler recently authorized the installation of 100 tidal valves to protect against rising tides. In Norfolk, Va., officials are planning to raise roads and improve storm-water drainage systems to reduce flooding.
These efforts are laudable. But these actions demonstrate that policymakers see mitigation and adaptation as mutually exclusive. That’s a mistake. Sometimes, even successful efforts to mitigate climate change can lead to more local warming. And climate change could render the most forward-thinking adaptation efforts obsolete.
To ensure that cities remain livable, mayors and urban leaders — together with urban designers — must simultaneously cut emissions and help residents adapt to a warming planet.
Consider the push to boost the number of energy-efficient buildings. Such efforts are only successful if planners also keep cityscapes cool, as efficiency doesn’t always reduce energy use.
In Hong Kong, for example, a series of tall, wall-like buildings have blocked the flow of air. By cutting off a natural source of cool air, these buildings have increased local temperatures and thus lifted demand for air-conditioning, even in the city’s newest, most energy-efficient buildings.
Or look at the drive to increase population density in urban centers. Such moves reduce emissions since people can forego automobiles and tend to like public green space.
But dense urban areas also tend to contain lots of heat-absorbing materials like asphalt. That can make them much hotter than their surroundings. This “heat island effect” can leave city residents with little choice but to crank up their air conditioning — and consequently, increase emissions.
Focusing exclusively on adaptation, meanwhile, is short-sighted. The climate will continue changing — and the long-term impact of climate change will be too severe to manage by simply adapting.
Cities that embrace “adaptive mitigation” — those that reduce CO2 emissions while also helping their residents adapt to a changing climate — are better positioned to remain livable.
Again, take density. Smart cities intersperse green spaces and parks throughout building-heavy, highly populated areas. This vegetation absorbs harmful air pollutants. One tree can absorb as much as 26 pounds of CO2 in a year.
The shade provided by trees can also help lower temperatures. Further, water vapor evaporating from plant surfaces cools the surrounding air.
Glasgow, Scotland, has increased its green areas by 20 percent. Consequently, the city is poised to cut its urban heat island effect in half by 2050.
Similarly, pedestrian and cycling corridors can reduce emissions and cool cities through extra ventilation and shade.
Such climate strategies don’t require expensive technologies or sustained political will. Yet they’re often overlooked when city leaders focus exclusively on carbon emissions or adaptation.
Two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities by 2050. Most of the urban spaces these individuals will inhabit have yet to be designed. So the design decisions we make today will have extraordinary consequences on our climate for generations.
But they’ll also affect the culture of the planet’s growing urban population. As mayors and urban leaders plan for a warming planet, they shouldn’t forget that, above all, cities are for living.
Jeffrey Raven is an associate professor and the director of the Graduate Program in Urban and Regional Design at New York Institute of Technology.
Peace and Good Will
By Dr. Glenn Mollette
December is here and for many Americans that often means craziness.
There is so much to do!
Decorating – Do you put lights outside your house? Outside decorating can mean most anything from a wreath on the door to lights hanging from the gutters, covering the bushes and adorning all your outside trees. If you’ve watched Christmas Vacation and most people have then you know outside decorating can become intense.
Grocery Shopping – Cooking Americans know the workload involved in preparing for a Christmas meal but also the other days of the month. Family coming in early or stopping by normally invokes the call for extra cookies and snacks around the house. How many trips can any good soul make to the store in a month? The aisles of the stores and checkout lines can be tedious this time of year. Beware and don’t wreck your grocery cart while hurrying to get through the check out!
Buying gifts – Obviously America’s stores count on Christmas holidays to financially see them through the year. Christmas spending is a big chunk of your local mall’s budget each year. Most Americans enjoy giving but commonsense should always be employed. Don’t overdo it. Don’t break the bank giving stuff to people who may not need what you are buying. Even if they may need it you should only give what you can afford. Don’t buy on a credit card that might take you a year to repay the debt.
Go For Quality – Quality time seems to have vanished in the modern age. We have more communication’s technology before and less communication. We can email, text message, face time, Skype, email, post on social media and then of course there are cell phones and old fashioned mail and landline phones still exist. Yet, people are talking less and visiting less than ever it seems. There is only so much of you to go around but try to find some meaningful moments with the real people in your life. Real talking one on one and doing something together with family or close friends are Christmas moments usually remembered.
Charitable Giving – You have plenty of places to give your money. Your church, Salvation Army and many other places appreciate your gifts. Try to remember giving to those people who are all around you that are working to serve you. Give something to the person who carries your groceries to the car. Give a little extra to the kind restaurant waiter. Give something extra to the person who styles or cuts your hair. There are people who may serve you in various ways throughout the year and are struggling to make a living. Remember these people. We give often to needs and crisis that are across the ocean or are in another town and we should help others. Help those who are right under your nose, trying so hard to just survive.
Celebrate the meaning of Christmas. The world has defined Christmas a lot of different ways. Regardless, it’s still the day billions on the planet celebrate the birth of Jesus. During this season of the year please find time to take a closer look at the baby in the manger that Christians around the globe celebrate. The world is desperate for some real peace on earth. We need calm on the planet and in the hearts of the people. With so much war, terrorism, poverty, violence in every American town, broken homes and broken lives could we not all benefit from the message of the Biblical story? Upon the birth of Christ the heavenly host declared, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.” Peace and good will….now there is something we can all give and use.
Dr. Glenn Mollette is President of Newburgh Theological Seminary, Newburgh, Indiana and his syndicated column is read in all 50 states.
FDA Can Help Vulnerable Patients Take
“Last-Resort” Medications
Imagine you’re diagnosed with a rare cancer. There are no FDA-approved treatments. But after frantically searching the internet, you discover hopeful news — a pharmaceutical company is developing a possible cure.
Unfortunately, the drug is in the early stages of development. It’s not FDA approved — at least not yet. There’s no guarantee the medicine will work. There might even be serious, unknown side effects. But, of course, you’re eager to try it — the alternative is certain death.
The good news is that under current law, you could petition the company for permission to try the experimental drug. If the company agrees, you would then have to seek permission from the FDA.
Some members of Congress believe the FDA should be taken out of the equation. They complain that the agency bogs down the review process and prevents terminally ill patients from accessing potentially lifesaving treatments. They recently introduced the Trickett Wendler Right to Try Act of 2017, which would allow “unrestricted possession and use” of experimental drugs. It passed the Senate in early August.
Lawmakers’ hearts are in the right place. But they’re misinformed. The FDA doesn’t delay the process — and cutting out the agency would be dangerous.
When it comes to reviewing patients “expanded access” applications, FDA officials do not drag their feet. From 2012 to 2015, the FDA reviewed nearly 5,800 expanded access requests and authorized 99 percent of them, according to the Government Accountability Office. The FDA approved emergency requests in less than a day, on average. It generally approves regular requests in four days.
The FDA had good reason to deny the one percent of applications. Some applications were incomplete, others requested drugs that did not demonstrate “efficacy for its intended use” and others asked for medicines to treat diseases for which there were already available treatments. If the FDA were not required to review these applications, then many patients might find themselves taking experimental drugs that do more harm than good.
The FDA also recently simplified the application process.
Previously, physicians had to provide 26 types of information and complete seven attachments to recommend a patient’s expanded access request. Filing out sometimes took more than 100 hours.
The new application, launched in summer 2016, only asks for eight types of information and one attachment. Physicians can complete it in 45 minutes.
There’s not much room for improvement in the expanded access application process. But there’s still a way for the FDA to increase sick patients’ treatment options.
The agency could encourage doctors to prescribe more medications “off-label.” That means using a drug approved for one disease to treat a different condition.
Many physicians already prescribe drugs off-label, since many medicines effectively treat conditions that aren’t listed on the prescribing label. One in five prescriptions is issued for off-label uses.
Current FDA regulations bar manufacturers from promoting the off-label uses of their drugs. As a result, many physicians and patients remain unaware of these uses or are hesitant to try a drug off-label. Allowing drug makers to share truthful, accurate and non-misleading information about off-label uses could help physicians and patients make better treatment decisions.
The FDA already provides patients with safe, quick access to experimental treatments. There’s no reason to cut the agency out of the process. Lawmakers would better serve vulnerable patients by allowing the FDA to ease off-label prescribing regulations.
By Peter J. Pitts
Peter J. Pitts, a former FDA associate commissioner, is president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.
