Conversation: Cities, Cars and the Environment

Model answer: To my mind, it comes down to whether ordinary daily life feels easy. That means reliable public transport, plenty of green spaces and streets where you can walk without being deafened by traffic. A city with lively markets and neighbourhoods where people actually know each other will always feel more welcoming than one full of impressive but empty skyscrapers.

Model answer: It's realistic only if good alternatives exist. Telling people to leave their cars at home is pointless unless buses and trains are frequent, safe and affordable. Several European cities have shown that it can be done, but it required years of investment and the political courage to withstand a good deal of early criticism.

Model answer: I think the choice is a false one. A city that freezes its past becomes a museum, whereas one that ignores it loses its character. The sensible course is to protect buildings of genuine value while allowing sympathetic new uses, so that old streets stay alive with shops, homes and workshops rather than merely being admired.

Model answer: Ultimately, I'd argue that governments must set the framework, because individual choices alone can't solve problems on this scale. Companies, meanwhile, have the greatest capacity to change how things are produced. That doesn't let individuals off the hook, but it would be unfair to expect households to compensate for decisions made far above them.