Okay, whether you believe in climate change or not - and, sorry but the scientific orthodxy on this is now melting away - the author could at least have said what she means by "transition towns". I couldn't find a proper definition or example in the article.
As for the author's assertion that we are moving towards "non-politicised discourse", I would disagree with that - a lot of recent discourse seems highly politicised to me - but what does the author mean by this? What is non-politicised discourse? While Ms James is on the subject perhaps she could explain why she is asserting that this form of discourse is on the rise.
If we want to cut emissions in urban living the solution is well known. We have to crowd into apartment buildings all close enough together so that we can all be effectively serviced by public transport.
A resident of New York consumes far less energy than someone who lives in small towns in the North Eastern corner of the US.
I don't think this is what the author had in mind, but it would be nice to know what she did have in mind.

Curmudgeon "If we want to cut emissions in urban living the solution is well known. We have to crowd into apartment buildings all close enough together so that we can all be effectively serviced by public transport."

I don't have the source for the material I saw but I recently read material recently claiming that on it's own that's not the case.

There is similar in http://www.fbe.unsw.edu.au/CityFutures/publications/researchpapers/researchpaper7.pdf (but I've not read the article). From page 19

"While not specifically focusing on dwelling type per
se, research by Foran (2006)14 has show household greenhouse emissions in Canberra and Perth, based upon an assessment of total household energy consumption, is higher in inner city locations compared with suburban locations. This analysis includes both consumed energy for power and transport, but also embodied energy consumption in consumables and the buildings. Foran’s analysis suggests strongly that urban density is positively related to total greenhouse gas
emissions,"
The claim was that inner city dwellers tended to have higher energy/emission profiles than those in the burbs. Public transport was just a part of the equation, inner city dwellers tended to be more reliant on air conditioning, artificial lighting, lifts etc. They also tended to fly more for holidays and their recreational persuits tended to be more energy intensive than those enjoyed by those in the suburbs.

R0bert

RObert - a useful point. Makes more sense than the article. Now I was under the distinct impression that US calculations showed that much less energy was used per capital in NY than in the state's towns but, now that I think of it, heating rather than cooling is the main problem in NY, as opposed to here. However, also we are talking different socio-economic classes and about quite different living densities.. in inner cities in Australia people would still use their cars for most things, and still be in terraces with perhaps a few blocks of flats.. Inner-city NY densities are two or three steps up. But a point worth noting for future research.

The transition town movement is relatively new and for that reason many people are still thinking through what it may mean in practice. The reason I am attracted to the concept is largely because of a relatively little know experiment that has been going on in Mandragon since 1948. Very similar to transition town ideology the local priest decided to set something up that would give the youth of the Spanish town comntrol over their own financial destiny. The movement has grown and it is generally regarded as an example of how market socialism can be made to work successfully. The community is resilient in much the same way as any sound business protects its interests. If your business stands or falls if you lose one or two big accounts then you are not resilient similarly with transition towns, their resilience depends on their capacity to withstand change, be they caused by shortage of oil or by the climate. Given that these movements started in England they are designed for English conditions; what transition towns will look like in Australia remains to be seen

Guys, the ecocity builders have calculated that the RIGHT kind of eco-city can cut energy use in urban areas to 10% of that of normal suburban and city life. What you are forgetting is all the embodied energy in the roads, plumbing, drains, pipes, transmission wires, cableTV & internet, phone towers, and all the extra stuff and energy that goes with servicing all that spread over hundreds of km's of suburban sprawl instead of condensed into walking distance communities.

http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/

If you can create a world that uses, say, 80% less car trips, imagine the energy saved by 80% less cars to build?

My sister-in-law has a Phd in this stuff, and helped design Christie Walk in Adelaide.

Also, see the Village Town concept that is going to be built south of Sydney. This lecture is a 30 minute lecture cut to 15 minutes and delivered to University of NSW. Enjoy! (It was at TEDx Sydney recently).
http://villageforum.com/

Along with Curmudgeon, I remain confused about the actual premise of a "transition town".

With increasing impatience I also skimmed first through this jargon-infested piece for a definition and then went back and read again more slowly, but am still unclear.

Why is the word transition the definiting adjective for the concept. Is it a political movement? A socio-economic schema? A concrete concept or an abstract one?

Anyone able to bring some clarity to this for the uninitiated?

And, Robert, - yeah I have also read material supporting the theory of which you speak, but am damned if I can remember where. I tend to think also, that someone provided a link to a similar article in one of these threads. Can anyone corroborate this?

None of this stuff is new! There was a movement in the 1930's where everyone would live in villages, practise crafts and be self-sustaining. Total twaddle!
Al Gore rolls in in his excutive jet and into his 5 star hotel telling us to use less. The author of course is desperate to get on this band wagon as her and her green mates want the executive jet etc etc.
When Al and the author use less and by definition have less I will take notice. Until then I think they just want less for me so there is more for them and they can tell me what to do! No chance girls and boys!
I will vote against and petion all I can aginst this total fraud!

Which bit is the fraud? The fact that suburbia is one of the most energy intensive, bland, soul-less McMansion McLife ways to live ever invented?

Is it a fraud that people are alienated by 6 lane highways and cars, cars, and cars, and the fact that we work on one side of town, drive to another part of town for "fun", drive to another part of town to "shop" or have "groceries" or go to sports or church, but in reality these are all disconnected and unrelated events? Is it a fraud that isolation and depression has increased out in Sydney's western suburbs? (I used to work in welfare and have studied this stuff).

Face it, suburbia depends on the car. Peak oil is coming, and while I'm fairly optimistic that the MOST important services can still be supported, I'm also fairly convinced that society as a whole will have to live with less personal transport. And it's happening.

Village towns are basically infrastructure projects where people try to create "off the grid" villages that are more resilient to oil shocks, able to supply most needs from local goods & services & produce, and where people actually know each other.

And the best thing? People instinctively realise that there's something wrong with the modern world of driving from unconnected box to unconnected box to work then sleep. What if you could walk down the road, past your favourite coffee shop and bookstores and friends on the way to work?

See the video here, presented to the University of New South Wales.

15 minutes of inspiring video. You'll realise it is NOT about Al Gore telling you to use less, but what you can GAIN by living in a city plan that is "more European than European". I know many people that would JUMP at an opportunity to live like this, and it's not even an eco-village, but a mainstream development occuring somewhere south of Sydney.

http://villageforum.com/

One of the key articles is: Lenzen M, Dey C J and Foran B, Energy requirements of Sydney households, Ecological Economics, 49 (3), 375-399, 2004. Wealthy inner city households in Sydney have something like twice the energy consumption of outer-suburban households, on a per capita basis, even taking transport energy use into account. The larger households found in detached houses in the outer suburbs appear to require less energy per capita, due to increased sharing of resources. Domestic energy and petrol expenditure in the inner city of Sydney is less than half those in the outer suburbs on a per household basis, but comparable on a per capita basis. See also:
http://www.propertyoz.com.au/library/RDC_ACF_Greenhouse-Report.pdf

Hi OC,
it seems to me you're talking at cross purposes. The key seems to be the "wealth" of the inner city occupants, not the town plan. It's the consumerism of the wealthy inner city folk that's the problem, not the physical properties of the town infrastructure of stuff being closer together. As you admit, they use less *transport* energy.

However, maybe the outer suburbs are newer and have slightly better passive-solar thermal and insulation requirements than the older buildings in town? That's not a comment on Urbanism but on "bad" Urbanism and energy inefficient architecture.

Make sure you watch "Grand Designs" ABC 8:30 Tuesday night (tomorrow night) as they are doing the ULTIMATE passive solar & cheap materials, the Earthship.

Combined with "Village towns" or some other form of walking and cycling distance town plan, the Earth-ship makes great sense in that it enables off-grid living. Independent water and energy and sewerage treatment. Zero carbon. Check it out.

Transition towns advocate self reliance, so what happens to the sick, diabled and infirm. It seem a great cop out by Governments not to provide services...any services.

It's not so much a "cop out" but preparing just in case "normal civilisation" as we know it starts to fail. So that means everything from a Greater Depression with Hoovertowns through to Zimbabwe through to Mad Max.

Yes, if the government had money and was not providing normal health care and care for the elderly, yes that's a total cop out. But what if they're having trouble answering the phone and keeping the lights on?

The thinking is as basic as Scout's motto of "Be prepared". Society is far, far too dependent on liquid fuels and long distance transport of goods.

97% of goods are freighted around Australia by truck drivers dependent on diesel. Just how long could normal government budgets last if our fuel was cut by 50%? How would our economy be? What about 60%? What about 90%?

Peak oil is REAL and "more" local living seems inevitable, maybe even attractive? Imagine if, as the Village-Town concept above suggests, 80% of our local economy fed into itself and was immune from world economic fallout. Sounds good hey? Local food, local water, local electricity.... this can all be done economically with today's technology.

Watch "Grand Designs" at ABC1 8:30 tonight (Tuesday 14th July) for passive solar thermal heating in winter and cool insulation in summer. Tyres and old beer bottles, and you can build an attractive, "Hobbit" styled home. We can do this but it's going to take a lot of work.

Eclipse Now, no, it's not just the consumerism of inner city dwellers that is relevant (although that is strongly related in any case, because new housing in inner cities tends to be occupied by smaller, wealthier households due to the nature of construction of new multi-unit accommodation, and they tend to have more consumerist lifestyles: eating out, overseas travel, etc.); it is also that larger (family) households in the suburbs tend to be more efficient users of resources (water, energy - including transport energy) by virtue of increased sharing of resources, as well as having less consumerist liefstyles.

"users of resources (water, energy - including transport energy) by virtue of increased sharing of resources, as well as having less consumerist liefstyles."

So let me get this right: larger McMansions in the suburbs SHARE resources better? Like adjoining walls of townhouses (LOL!) or space (LOL!) or walkable community townships and shops (LOL!) or more efficient use of zoning, plumbing, electrical wiring, cable internet (LOL!)? Excuse me while I choke... that was just too funny.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any real world sense to me at all. New Urbanism/ecocity principles create dense and diverse city functionality that allows commerce, light industry, residential and well designed public space to become an integrated city life that can exist without "as much" car use. Europe demonstrates this in that they use HALF THE OIL we do! Denser zoned (but with plenty of walkable spaces and parks) cities mean *almost* everything you need is walkable. On the rare occasions you need a car, hire one or borrow a friends. Denser zoning means far less wiring and piping and pavement and tarmac per household and per person.

How does spreading it all out as far as possible, and creating THOUSANDS MORE km's of piping, plumbing, wiring, pavements, roads, and the EMBODIED ENERGY all of that *extra stuff* represents make suburbia "share it" more?

It's just plain WRONG!

Eclipse Now, perhaps you should read the science (e.g. from the University of Sydney, CSIRO) on this. It simply does not support your propositions.

I read your ACF & Residential Development Council study. It appears to analyse the *status quo* in Australia, without asking what *could be*.

Summing up the demographic findings in 4 words: "Australian families like suburbs". That's it! Because the current culture says families with kids should move to a McMansion, on a per household basis more people live in suburbs than the singles or young couples that live in the inner city. Well du'h, I'd agree with that! Less people per dwelling = more embodied energy in constructing that dwelling and more energy running costs to maintain that person in that townhouse / apartment.

In other words, it appeared TOTALLY dominated by the demographic pecularities of our context and did not study the potential for different demographics. What if families lived in townhouses or attractive eco-apartments in town? What if the demographics per household in the inner city changed? Not studied. This is a study blinded to Australian family preferences today, and did not once refer to European towns. When it DID refer to Europe it railed against the Soviets? What has that got to do with modern town planning?

But what about European families? Why is it that the average European uses half of the oil of the average American? Traditionally designed city planning, public transport systems, green spaces and town squares all contribute to Europeans living in a more traditional city space and being less oil dependent.

What about embodied energy in all those highways and massive McMansions and building all those cars? I searched, nothing.

One MAJOR fault with the study was that it didn't consider the possibility of oil shocks. I searched "peak oil" and the term did not come up once, whereas other Aussie studies have shown the outer suburbs to be EXTREMELY vulnerable to oil shocks.

Instead we can turn cities from car dependent car-parks into adventure playgrounds for kids and local economies for us.
http://www.ecocitybuilders.org/downtown.html

What's missing in the final shot? The cars! 95% of vehicle use is eliminated. You can't tell me that isn't more energy efficient, not only in the absent fuel consumption but the embodied energy in making the car!

For REAL Studies on this issue try "My other car is a bright green city"
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007800.html

10 things wrong with sprawl
http://newurbanism.org/

Summing up the international moves AWAY from sprawl and the ENERGY SAVINGS in doing so.
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5280

Again, all I can do is encourage you to read the science. As for the alleged link between higher density and reduced fuel use, that is a canard that was put to bed nearly 20 years ago. Read 'Lies, damned lies and automobile dependence' by Ray Brindle in the Australian Transport Research Forum, 19():117-31, 1994. That would be more productive than your quasi-religious entreaties for us all to live in flats and walk to the local shops. (Even the Europeans don't live like that anymore, once you get out of the touristy inner suburbs.) You're clearly a well-meaning amateur, but your solutions would be contrary to your stated aims, and politically and socially impossible to boot.