Weekly 12

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/01/MNF316N0CV.DTL

Almost 2,000 restaurants, 2080 large apartment complexes, and 50,000 single family homes are making San Francisco a greener place to live. Each participant places compost (old food, grass clippings, etc.) in a green bin for garbage trucks to pick up daily. The compost is then taken to farmers who use it for fertilizer for their crops. In one year, 105,000 tons of waste turns into 20,000 tons of compost for over 10,000 acres of farming. This measure has substantially decreased waste and farming production costs. The crops that are grown return to feed the bay area—thus, the food comes full circle. The compost also stores carbon, which prevents it from destroying the atmosphere. San Francisco also sells the compost (at a low cost) which creates an additional source of revenue for the City.

This policy was enacted at a City level but its affects reach a regional and state level (some of the farms were not in San Francisco) As a City measure, San Francisco wants to eliminate ¾ of waste from making it to landfills by 2010: food constitutes 1/3 of that waste. Other cities and counties around San Francisco, seeing the obvious logic and efficiency in the project, are following suit: largely to abide by a California state law that requires all cities to substantially decrease waste going to landfills. Thus all three regions are affected, but again, it is the City that is officially enacting the sustainable measure.

Waste Management is largely a City duty for good reason. The state is far too large, and demands vary too much, for an effective waste management system to exist at a state level. Furthermore, although this policy really affects the regional level, as Wheeler pointed out “…this is the weakest level in terms of government institutions and public understanding.” Thus, citizens or cities as a whole might not abide by a regional sustainable act. Regions simply do not have as much political power as individual cities.

However, both of these governments can do a lot to help the cities. Laws can be passed at these levels (and perhaps some funding and support can be accrued) to aid local governments. As Wheeler pointed out in chapter 9, states wield an incredible amount of power that can influence the enactment of sustainable measures. Cities are already responding to the state law of reducing waste going to landfills. Thus, it is reasonable to assume, that cities will also respond if states mandate that each city pick up compost items from willing participants daily—especially if some form of incentives were involved. Regions can further facilitate the process—like spreading information about the program and getting more farmers outside of San Francisco involved, and perhaps more participants as well.

Again, as this measure largely affects a regional area, it would be ideal if it could be enacted at this level. And in time, it might be. The downside of a city implemented plan is that many cities do not have farms in or around their communities—thus the city cannot as effectively pick up waste and distribute compost as a region could. However, this is really a bottom-up measure (individual citizens did this on their own before the City picked it up) and as more people become involved and passionate about this form of sustainable living, it may very well allow regional governments to become more involved and influential.

Weekly 11- International and National Sustainability

ARTICLE 1

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30155400/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11china.html?_r=1&ref=world

To control a population that seemed to be splurging out of control, and in an attempt to “modernize,” Chinese leaders instituted a one child policy beginning in 1970’s. They were afraid that resources, particularly land, would not be able to support a large growth of people. The policy, though effective in reducing population (from what it would have been if the policy was not implemented, an estimated reduction in 400 million births) has a serious backlash. Males are coveted more than females in mainstream Chinese culture, especially in rural areas. Sons, unlike daughters, carry on the family name and have an obligation to take care their parents in old age. Furthermore, sons are more valuable in a rural setting because of the manual labor required. Many female fetuses are either aborted, or are subjected to infanticide once born. A preference for sons over daughters had led to a large gender gap, around 32 million excess males in the reproductive age group according to the 2005 Census report.

I label this as a “national planning” issue. Wheeler mentioned that national planning comes from four sources: national constitutions, and legislative, court and executive bodies. This issue comes from an executive source, as Wheeler claims, “executive branch agencies implant and enforce policy, and carry out substantial planning activities in their own right” (Wheeler 2004, pg 115). However, this article outlines a potion of a national sustainability issue that Wheeler has thus far failed to address: all the affects of sustainability policies —including the backlashes. It’s not all rainbows and cleaner air. It also entails a substantial, borderline communistic increase in national government jurisdiction (and hence several losses of personal freedoms), as well as critical unexpected policy outcomes, such as the one depicted above, reverberating on a nation-wide scale. I truly believe that true, and long-lasting sustainable polices come from the bottom-up, and not the top-down. A measure Wheeler touched on in Chapter 4, but in further reading has seemed to favor direct federal government intervention as, “lower levels of government do not have the perspective, resources, jurisdiction, or political will to effectively bring about change” (Wheeler, 2004, pg 122). Though the above quote is partially true, it leaves the most important stakeholders out of the policy-making realm—everyday people: subjecting them to the elitist views of the elected and bureaucrats.

Different types of sustainability have, in some measure, been reached because of the One Child Policy. No doubt decreasing family size has had a positive environmental effect—fewer cars are on the road, less food is produced, and hence less soil and water pollution, and resources are extracted and utilized to a smaller extent. This environmentally benefits both the existing Chinese population and the inhabitants of the world. But what’s the cost?

Numerous people are affected by this sustainability agenda; first and foremost the Chinese, especially the family units. Several reports have surfaced about the affects of this policy: for example, not only does one child have two parents to encourage and guide them, but two sets of devoted grandparents as well—this has led to the term “Little Emperors” for Chinese (probably upper-class) children because of the vast amounts of attention and money they receive from family members (the richer the parents are the more they can afford tutors for their child, and hence that child will earn more money because he/she was afforded more opportunities—thus violating Wheeler’s most beloved notion of sustainability-- equity) Further, all six people (parents and grandparents) are dependent on the child to do well. Thus, a lot of pressure is placed on small children to succeed in school, which has led to increase rates in anxiety and suicide. Also, because there are excess males, as the article pointed out, scholars fear there will be an accompanying increase in crime as men, without the influences or even prospects of female companionship, will turn to devious measures to divert their attention. Other nations are affected as well. Some scholars believe that not only will crime increase because of excess males, but the Chinese culture is in danger of becoming more militaristic on an international level. All of this, on top of the fact little girls are subjected to infanticide and abortion.

No doubt Wheeler strongly disagrees (except about abortion) with these adverse affects; however, how can they be averted? Policy backlashes are inevitable, and even the most well-intentioned plans can go awry. National sustainable measures may seem good on the outset, but always question the cost. Is sustainability, as a group of experts define it, worth it?

ARTICLE 2

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30093861/

Fishermen off of the coast of the Philippines have caught a rare shark, only one of forty known to exist in the wild. The captured megamouth shark weighed approximately 1,100 lbs and was 13 feet long. The shark was accidently caught by fishermen’s net and dragged to shore. The World Wildlife Fund begged the fishermen not to butcher and eat the shark—shark meat is a local delicacy. However, the WWF’s plead was ignored. The shark was caught in deep waters—an ecosystem that is filled with other endangered species, such as the whale shark, and is thus in need of international protection.

Because endangered species, especially those captured in international waters, are important to all inhabitants of this world, this issue is labeled as “international planning.” Several groups are affected by this policy; first, the entire world and future generations of the world. All species are part of a delicate ecosystem, and the elimination of one can carry significant consequences. Also, local residents are affected as well; many coastal communities are reliant on the abundance of their surrounding ecosystem to provide a living for themselves, and food for their families. Further, the fishermen were directly affected (as well as stores that sold the shark meat) as ignoring the pleas of the WWF more than likely increased, at least temporarily, their economic well-being.

Wheeler (2004) stated that “consciousness of global interdependence is one of the hallmarks of recent ecological thought and efforts for sustainable development” (pg 102). And indeed, so it seems. Our world is becoming increasingly interconnected, and the environmental actions of one nation can substantially affect those of another. The elimination of the megamouth shark, or other endangered species, can have profound effects on the world as the whole—not only are megamouth sharks found off of the coast of the Philippines, but have been observed in areas off of Hawaii and other Pacific Islands. Annihilating this species could cause an explosive growth in shrimp (their prey) and this in turn could winnow out other species (as they compete for food sources), and thus give rise to other problems. Global markets, especially those relying on the current balance of the ecosystem, could be near destroyed; leaving some local fishermen and their families in poverty.

Another point demonstrated in this article is the power of international institutions. Wheeler (2004) claimed that international institutions are gaining power. I fail to believe this, unless international sustainability issues also promote, or are connected to, a national agenda. As Wheeler himself claims, international institutions are often in conflict with one another, and dominant western cultures are reluctant to give power to international bodies. This case is illustrated in this article—the WWF can plead as much as they please, but they simply have no enforcing ability. International bodies have to rely on national support to give them legitimacy. Thus, though necessary, it may be impossible to rely on international institutions to decide environmental policy unless individual countries, for their own reasons, support their decisions.

Weekly 10-- Sustainability

Definition

The definition of sustainability that I liked best was given by the Brundtland Commission, “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Wheeler, 2004, pg. 24). As Wheeler (2004) stated, the majority of other definitions contain phrases that are hard to define, such as what “carry capacity” means or what the word “needs” asserts. Thus, the wrong definition in the political realm could lead to years of fruitless debates which will result in nothing being accomplished. Please note that I am not suggesting that definition of sustainability should be void of debate. Debate is what makes a democracy. But the definition should be void, as much as possible, of a term that scientist, politicians, and interest groups, could grabble about for years. I fully realize that the definition of my choice has such a potential, but I strongly believe that if it was enacted at a local/grassroots level, the problems inherent in it would disappear.

Environmental policies, I believe, are strongest and more engaging when enacted at a local level. Admittedly, many environmental problems are national or even global in nature—but because of the politics, or lack thereof of these realms, it is harder to achieve sustainability goals. The world needs to start somewhere, and the best place to start is within each of our communities. As the power of these local organizations grow, they can branch out to encompass much larger and more troubling environmental issues. The power of local environment issues is that everyone cares (or should) about what happens to their immediate surroundings. Citizens are passionate about what they can immediately see. The above definition of sustainability ensures that policy-makers, and the citizens that vote them into office, continually think about the future. What will our children and grandchildren need in our community? Clean air, supplies of water, sustainability patterns of development, trees? All of us can agree (with the exception of a few knuckleheads) that we want to give this type of Earth to our children.

Another reason why I like this definition is because it leaves room for our tastes and preferences, the economy, and our extraction of earth’s resources to change. Granted they will not change much, but using what Wheeler defined as “technology optimism” I believe that our extraction rates of resources will alter accordingly as well as what resources we prefer to extract.

Difficulties

There are three huge problems with making sustainability a policy goal: its long term nature, its global implications, and the redistribution of resources. First, sustainability is very much a long run effort. Policy-makers, because they have limited terms and limited term limits, are not looking to be popular thirty years from now; they want to be popular now. Growth boundaries tend to not be very popular (especially with landowners who are not included in the zoning), as well as limiting house sizes, redistributing resources, limiting traffic, and so forth. The citizens who are the loudest will be the very ones opposing these types of policies. No politician wants to be caught in the cross-fire.

Also, sustainability is largely a global problem: ocean degradation, air pollution, species endangerment, global warming, nuclear waste disposal, and so forth. The problem is no institution or country is powerful enough to enforce other nations to obey environmental codes. And even if these codes could be enforced, who is going to make them? National governments are very territorial over their own jurisdictions—many of them do not like other nations or international institutions enforcing laws on their land.

Lastly, and what I have the biggest problem with, is the massive, pseudo-global redistribution of resources that many people’s definition of sustainability (including Wheeler and Goodland) calls for. In order for the world to be truly sustainable, the rich would have to stop being rich, in order to make the poor stop being poor. Thus, it will call for a massive increase in federal government jurisdiction- this will of course decrease freedoms and liberties, as well as entrepreneurship, and innovation. If the inventive cannot keep the fruits of their labor (whether or not people think they are deserved) they might be enticed to not develop at all. An increased government has the propensity to squash innovation and replace it with inefficient and ultimately ineffective systems. Indeed, massive government oversight of redistribution of resources may, because of unforeseen effects which always occur in policy-making, hurt the very people it set out to protect.

In truth, in order for sustainability to really take hold, it will have to come from the bottom-up. It will not fare well as a top-down policy. The citizens will have to enact it.

State Environmental Agency

Although I am with the state government (and I truly believe this should be a citizen-led effort), I would immediately reach out to local governments to help me create a citizen-based environmental framework. Citizens would be the root, the end-all-be-all of this program. Wheeler (2004) mentioned that planners could enact citizen involvement with every step of their planning. This, of course, would be time-consuming but ultimately many citizens would feel like it was worth the effort. Surveys, focus groups, and urban design “charettes” could illicit citizen involvement. I would include experts in this framework as well, but only to advise the citizens, not to create policy. I would further use experts to identify potential products and run analysis once a project has been implemented. I would include experts, citizens, and policy-makers of all perspectives. Wheeler argues that objectivity in sustainability planning is not rational (Wheeler, 2004). But I believe it is vital in order to institute a health, and strong democracy

Everything related to sustainability on a large county or city level would be put on the ballot, in an unbiased and easily readable manner. I would perhaps send out volunteers to inform citizens, of all socio-economic levels, of the implications of certain sustainability policies in an impartial manner. Again, citizen involvement and action would be the root of this program. All other branches of this framework are in place to serve the citizens. I believe that people will choose the best environmental policies, whether it be ecological, social, or economic, for their community. Naturally, their opinions will conflict, but having citizens come together at the drawing board will increase commitment to sustainability, help erode social lines, and overall create a stronger community.

Short Term v Long Term

The best way to achieve any long term goal is to break it up into smaller, more manageable parts. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. That said, I believe that the long-term nature of sustainability is the easiest of the difficulties I just mentioned to conquer. Every policy or development procedure has milestones; you just have to look for them. For example, it might be to construct smaller house sizes in a certain neighborhood, or start citizen groups that inform other citizens about sustainability measures (membership in the group can be set milestones each year), or decrease the waste in dump fields by a certain percent each year, increase public transportation by three buses a year, and so forth. All of these efforts combined, and amplified over time, will create a much more sustainable and livable community.

Another milestone which might be of interest (I got this idea while reading the Wheeler chapters) is to increase overall civic involvement in the community. Wheeler believes that one of the root problems of sustainability is that people have lost their sense of community. So, the city could create more civic recreation programs, or give subsidies to artists to settle in downtown areas, or musicians to perform in the city square every weekend. All of these efforts would make citizens more proud to be part of their unique, vibrant community and in turn increase their desire to make it more sustainable.