In conversation with Ana Toni, Chair of the Board of Greenpeace International
With the rise of the megacity, it is easy to imagine cities as being the biggest threat to the environment. Yet Ana Toni, Chair of the Board of Greenpeace, believes that cities can drive positive environmental change throughout the World.
You are living in Rio de Janeiro – it is not really an example for sustainability or environmentalism, is it?
Ana Toni: If we look at sustainability in the broad sense, Rio has great potential to lead on sustainability. We have the mountains, a big forest and a huge bay. Our energy source is already quite green. As with every city, we have challenges and also great opportunities. Nature has been very kind, but we havn’t done a very good job of preserving nature.
Can Rio be seen as an example for the problems that big cities will face in the future?
A. T.: The challenges we have are ones that any major city in a developing country has. We have better opportunities to tackle them because nature has been so generous to us. We have issues with traffic, urban mobility and urban planning, but Rio has a real opportunity to deal with them.
Why are cities still so attractive for people? Why are more and more people moving there?
A. T.: In Brazil, we have around 86 per cent of the people living in cities. This is due to social and economic opportunities and the lifestyle is perceived to be better than in the countryside. I think if it weren’t for the economic and social opportunities, people would prefer the countryside. The flow to the cities has stopped and there is a slight move back to the countryside.
As an environmentalist, do you see cities with more scepticism? Is living in the countryside environmentally better?
A. T.: I think that the closer we live to nature and the better we understand how essential nature is to us, the better environmentalists we will be – but we don’t all have to move to the countryside for that. We tend not to know where our food or our energy comes from. We tend to use nature without truly being conscious of it. However, many solutions can help change this reality: urban and peri-urban agriculture, distributed solar energy generation with photovoltaic panels, urban planning that favours non-motorised transportation, or policies for the re-use of water.
What role do cities play in the worldwide struggle against climate change?
A. T.: Perhaps the most important role of all. Cities are the places where important action against climate change needs to be taken. We have been targeting climate change at an international and national level, but it’s really at city level where we will be able to translate climate change for people. Cities are the main consumers of energy – as well as of agricultural products and of goods that lead to the destruction of forests, two other issues at the heart of the climate challenge. So I believe that we will win or lose this battle at city level.
Has the significance of cities reached the mind of the people responsible yet?
A. T.: No, not yet. The UN system doesn’t yet have a prominent place for cities. Cities don’t have a strong say on climate change laws in countries. Even at governmental level, we haven’t been able to incorporate cities, let alone the people.
For the cities, where do you see the most significant starting point to reduce emissions?
A. T.: I would start with urban mobility, then urban planning, distributed solar energy generation and parks. Spending less time in traffic and in polluted air and more time walking or cycling, generating your own energy.
Many people treat environmentalism as equivalent to hostility against progress: in your opinion, which role does technology play when the aim is to create more sustainability?
A. T.: Technology plays an important role but not by itself. Many groups think that technology can be a solution to changing people’s mindset, to changing patterns of consumption: this is not true. Technology is just complementary to all those changes. Naturally technology is a vital component but not by itself, it really needs to come together with political, social and consumption changes.
How do you assess the idea of Smart Cities and are they only possible in rich, highly industrialised countries?
A. T.: Smart Cities are made for people rather than cars or technologies. Cities that have active and public mobility; and cities that put people and their well being at the centre of their planning. All cities can become Smart Cities, not just the wealthy ones. Rio just needs to do a few things to become a Smart City. More investment in public transportation is key because it will change the way people relate to the city.
Is Greenpeace part of a Smart City project?
A. T.: Yes, we are starting to look at megacities like Mexico City, Beijing and São Paulo in more detail. By changing these cities, which concentrate a lot of economic and political power, we can help lead to broader change across the world. We are starting some interesting work on reclaiming the city for the people by addressing crucial issues such as mobility, water, solar energy, green spaces, and food production and distribution, working with other NGOs, social movements, academics and members of governments. By doing campaigns like this we can bring real immediate benefits. Traditionally, we have been good at campaigning for the Arctic or the Amazon or against specific products or transnationals. Cities are much more complex and you need different campaigning tools. We are now developing these new tools. We are open and excited to engage in this area.
You are not only active in environmentalism but also for human rights and against poverty as well as being a social and economical scientist. Can Smart Cities contribute to these areas as well as fight for more democracy, equal rights or against poverty?
A. T.: Yes. In my opinion, the divisions between development and the environment or between human rights and the environment are false, they don’t exist in real life. When we talk about urban mobility, are we talking about the right to mobility or about climate change or health issues? Clearly we are talking about all these issues at once. So I do see myself not only as an environmentalist but also as a human rights activist and as a women’s rights activist: They are all connected. We need to focus on areas where you can leverage the most changes. Cities are a wonderful place to do that because of the needs for sanitation, sewage, pollution, urban mobility and housing. You can tackle all these issues at once.
Do you fear that the volume of data that is collected in Smart Cities can be used against people’s interest?
A. T.: The problem isn’t necessarily the collection of data, but making sure that everyone clearly understands who collects it, how is it collected and how is it used. When data is collected and used in a transparent way and for the public, that’s great.
Is there already a city that represents your ideas of a sustainable, environmentally friendly city?
A. T.: I really like Hamburg, the mix of modernity and nature. Of course there are cities with a stronger environmental track record, and air quality is an issue, but it’s one of the greenest cities in Europe. It is great for mobility with walking and cycle lanes. While Hamburg has its share of challenges, it is the closest to a Smart City for me. Rio could be a Smart City with some better planning. It’s a nice challenge to make Rio a Smart City. We should aim for it.
Can you imagine moving to Hamburg soon?
A. T.: Absolutely, I lived in Hamburg for three years, loved it and I would go back immediately.
Talking in about 50 years’ time: What is your perfect picture of a city?
A. T.: It’s a city where all inhabitants can fulfil their rights and live comfortably without harming nature. Fortunately, my family has full access to what the city offers, and I wish that everybody could enjoy the same thing – all in a sustainable way.
(picture credits: Fotolia: marchello74; Unsplash: Nick Scheerbart, Vanessa Bumbeers, Victor Abrantes)
