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.