Search results

As the land transport task, especially road is expected to increase significantly, by 2015, it would hardly be surprising that many policy makers will look to some form of urban transport environmental control long before this date. One method is via the introduction of a set of operational environmental hurdles. This is not a new concept. However, this paper proposes a new environmental initiative for urban transport operations. The scheme which is simple for both operators and regulators proposes an effective and meaningful operational rating system which reflects the efforts an operator may go to in their internal fleet environmental policies in purchasing equipment, daily workload planning, waste disposals policies etc.

The three tiered environmental operator performance rating scheme, the E-plus scheme has three levels of operator segmentation. A good basic auditable level of environmental compliance, an E rating, an excellent rating E plus, and an exceptional rating would be an E double plus. Probably no fleets currently in Australia would earn a double plus rating at this time.

Why should there be a road transport operator environmental rating scheme? Firstly as a measurable benchmark for the community and the fleet operators themselves. Secondly and a factor of growing importance is for the customers who are the buyers of freight services. Already customers are specifying in their tender requirements that transport operator environmental competencies and capabilities be listed. This may aid the selection of an operator for a specific task. For example; food sensitive freight handling may require specific food certification scheme adoption such as the HACCP classification system. Similarly an urban courier contract may specify, environmental credentials which sit under an ISO 14000 framework. However, what more specific operator differentiation criteria can be requested by the customer? The E plus system is being designed for this very purpose. In Australia some regulators and teaching centres have begun to take an interest in this transport operator framework.

Long haul freight transport imposes huge negative environmental externalities on society. Although these can never be entirely eliminated, they can be reduced. The purpose of this chapter is to analyse some of the many mitigating measures, or interventions, that can be used.

The approach used in this chapter is to review the literature and provide an overview of the main theoretical and practical mitigation measures available to transport operators.

There are literally thousands of possible mitigation measures and combinations that can be used by operators to reduce their environmental footprint. Each of these measures warrants a separate chapter. This chapter can only present an overview of the principle available measures. Although some mainland European examples are used, it is acknowledged that the examples used are somewhat skewed towards the United Kingdom.

The value of the chapter is in bringing together some of the many measures and approaches that can be used to reduce the environmental externalities of long haul freight transport. Much of the information on such interventions is based on industrial and EU project sources rather than purely academic research and so is less likely to be found in academic journals.

Basing himself on the premise that present economic progress cannot follow the ‘Business as usual paradigm’ and hope for continued and unlimited progress, the author holds that we need to look into the larger dimensions of growth and development, which include social, environmental and other complex factors. So in this chapter, the author makes some pertinent suggestions for a sustainable growth model inspired by green growth and degrowth.

The first section evaluates the salient features of green growth and its drawbacks. It is followed by a discussion on the notion of degrowth, with its challenge to change the direction of growth (economic, ecological, social and cultural), without which human civilisation, as we know it today, may not survive. Finally, in the concluding chapter, based on these two notions of green growth and degrowth, an all-inclusive and sustainable regrowth model is propounded.

By creating an awareness of the need to shift development goals and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), the author argues that we could use economic regrowth strategically and responsibly to make the world more sustainable and viable. Responsible corporates will make their contribution to such an organic, resilient and sustainable regrowth and their CSR activities could be the starting point for this change, without which humanity's future is seriously threatened.

Finally, the author acknowledges that humanity has profited from the tremendous technological and economic progress we have made in the last four centuries, learnt from its mistakes and are ready to reorient ourselves individually and collectively towards a sustainable economic regrowth.

Before starting research in the field of ethics, a few common assumptions need to be cleared up. The first is so common that it needs very little space at all: Ethics is a scientific discipline. This accurately describes its location and the problems it covers in a modern, functionally differentiated society. As a branch of philosophy and a normative science, its frame of reference is initially located in a world of possible competing reasons. The basic problem is that of trying to explain good reasons – and the horizon is the sayability of ethical sentences which, even when they reflect an ethical practice, open up a scientific horizon. Ethics is therefore a science – and like every science it can only solve scientific problems (see Luhmann, 2002, pp. 79–93). Practical problems are also the scientific problems of ethics – and that is not a deficiency, but rather a consequence of the basic structures of modern society. A modern society cut loose from political, economic, legal, scientific, artistic, educational and medical problems, on the one hand, allows these disconnected spheres to relate radically to each other, while on the other hand making them logically incompatible. A modern society could not exist any other way (see Luhmann, 1998, pp. 1–21; Nassehi, 2005a). This should first be understood before venturing into research on ethics.