Final thoughts and definitions: It's time to get serious

But not this serious.

Spending this semester studying sustainable communities with a diverse group of individuals and a diverse range of topics in a new community has provided a wealth of opportunity for reflection that are all over the map.

First, on a very basic level, this has been a fantastic opportunity to become intimately acquainted with Bloomington and to feel as though I'm a community member rather than some imported Southwestern hack. By considering the facets of the community here, their goals and barriers, working with the Commission, and being involved in university activities, I feel closer to calling this town my home. This is probably made easier by the fact that Bloomington is a relatively progressive and connected city. While it's by no means perfect, I'm thoroughly impressed. And while this all may sound quaint or dull, developing one's sense of self within their environment is a central tenet in building on social capital within a sustainable community.

This course also allowed me to build on my theoretical, academic, and experiential understanding of just how sustainability works and just what it is. It's so easy to get up on our academic/ethical high-horses and hurl fist-fulls of jargon at the masses with the hope that this will inspire us to be better (I know it's easy because I do this every morning out of my window before class). But after getting to interact with individuals in the community and hear from thought leaders on sustainability issues, I'm coming much closer to understanding what's at the heart of these issues and how to connect to people who aren't getting to spend their afternoons studying what I am. Being from such a disconnected metropolitan area I didn't know this was even feasible.

Moving into the heart of sustainability, it's such a confusing topic because the political is personal and vice versa (though we don't need to go burn our bras, that would release toxins). A significant amount of introspection and honesty is needed to assess what we need as a community, what's feasible, and what's the correct thing to do. And I've been having a doozy of a time trying to figure out my personal philosophy beyond these issues are not black and white, but we're in a lot of trouble if we don't do something quick and what my role is in the bigger scheme of things. The insights gained from spending time at the class events in Indianapolis and hearing from Wendell Berry and Scott Russell Sanders were particularly helpful in processing these things.

Berry's provided perspective on what sustainability means. It's simply the principle that we need to conserve and encourage frugality for the same reasons we used to. That's the basic principle and the one that is most intuitive. Sanders gave guidance regarding what we can should do on an individual level. We need to clearly identify what it is we care about and then behave accordingly and let the way we live speak to our principles. The perspectives of these two individuals, coupled with the readings and discussions we have had in class have brought me long way to forming my own narrative about sustainability, and more importantly life.

In the interest of not reinventing the wheel, I would like to reuse a definition of sustainable communities given by Sanders in his presentation at the Themester closing ceremonies - that I have every intention of adopting as my elevator speech for sustainability. Sustainability is the pursuit of thriving within our means. This can be applied to our behavior as individuals, communities, and beyond. I think this beautifully sums up the road we're attempting to venture down - one that increases our quality of life by taking care of our home.

Indiana has a coalmance

Sustainable Governance

  As I move through my studies and am starting to see how the 'real world' works, I'm finding more and more that the really terrible quip about relationships can be applied to governance. Government. Can't live with it, can't live without it.

  It seems like in almost any suggested solution we provide to sustainability problems we plan for some form of government intervention. But through the very limited amount of work I have done in local government, it's easy to see that this is muuuch easier said than done. Backroom (or backyard) politics, industry agendas, time constraints, resource constraints, differences in values, lack of information, lack of participation, yada yada prevent initiatives from getting off the ground just as much on the local level as on the state and national levels. The one thing I am thrilled to see, however, is the interest residents have here in maintaining their community. In Phoenix there is a disconnect between neighbors, suburbs, businesses, etc. Everyone operates in isolation due in part to the metropolitan landscape of the city (there exist only a few neighborhoods that carry a sense of place and every node is in competition with one another while simultaneously dependent on those nodes - we're very confused). There is no sense of unity around any cause - even the cause of building social capital. Bloomington, however, has a community environment that fosters a sense of community and ownership which leads to an increase in individual responsibility.

  The thing that makes local different from senior levels of government is that the community aspect can be capitalized upon and participation among neighbors and businesses is more feasible. As Tom Friedman said, while we might be digital, politics are still analog. And since we can't all be in Washington D.C. with our lobbyist friends, we can be at formal and informal community gatherings addressing this issues (whether that's over a glass of wine with friend or over a podium microphone is up to you).

  What I appreciate about the Roseland Chapter on governance is, as usual, the practical guide they give toward implementing local change and beyond. I've been asked before to draft a plan for how to implement an initiative and it is daunting to attempt to formulate a method for political and community penetration without working or volunteering in these sectors. While I'm sure it can't be practically boiled down to only a few components, a general outline provides a guide for one's plans on how to move through political issues without getting bogged down in the details and the Debbie Downers.

  On a related note, I would like to acknowledge that Ontario has a guide for dealing with NIMBY's - the thorn in the side of local government (typically not in a good way, considering the current views of the public on the environment and growth). Awesome.

Visions and San Francisco's Zero Waste Initiative

The edge of the Santo Domingo landfill in the Dominican Republic

As mentioned in class today, San Francisco has established a vision and goal to become a zero waste city. I'm excited to see that they aren't doing this simply by installing more recycling centers, but are working toward cutting down consumption and beefing up reuse and composting programs. Most would say that their goal to be waste free desirable but not feasible, however, they are taking strides to prove those doubters wrong.


In my journey through studying sustainable initiatives, I've noticed that when we approach sustainability issues we frequently get stuck in the potential problems we see arising rather than stating exactly what it is we would like to see (as Prof. Brown put it we tend to look for desperational solutions not aspirational). In a course I took last Spring we were assigned to draft a vision for the future state of a system. It was like pulling teeth for us to put pen to paper on our ideas because we kept tripping up on the details. "But the technology might not be available".."But this might raise the costs of other forms of transportation".. We didn't realize that the vision wasn't the plan, but simply a desired end state to guide the plan.

Kristen touched on this today when she brought up the idea of addressing population. Because we don't know how to solve such a touchy subject, we frequently choose to not even bring the vision itself to the table. We're afraid to say that we want to see population at manageable levels, even though this is something about which everyone is concerned. This doesn't mean that by stating that vision we must institute Draconian law that we will kill second borns. Perhaps this will come about through other circumstances (a manageable population, not killing children), as Natalie mentioned, or through round-about incentives that can be provided to make bearing less children economically desirable (like removing subsidies on industrial agriculture that cheapens food like crazy). The point is that we can't be afraid to say what we desire simply because we can't see the pathway to success at this moment.

Envisioning the ultimate goal provides a challenging and much needed exercise for thinking about the ideal and what the ultimate purpose of our investment is. Without knowing what it is we want to attain, how do we know what we're working towards? Perhaps we are too afraid we will fall short of that vision that we prefer to pretend we don't have these desires in the first place. Thankfully for us we have groups like the city of San Francisco who aren't afraid to dream big and attempt to implement their visions that can inspire us to do the same.

Saving on the thermostat

With the weather turning god awful this past week, discussions have arisen regarding itchy trigger fingers on the thermostat. Is it better to turn the thermostat down when you're doing home (or awake) or does that use too much energy to reheat the house? I always assumed that it should remain constant (though not a high constant).
Well here's an answer to that and more from The Straight Dope. It appears I had it all wrong.

Themester Events: Scott Russell Sanders and Gandhian Food Democracy

On November 16th, Scott Russell Sanders spoke on the making the switch from the culture of consumption to the culture of conservation.

While his talk covered compelling topics, I recognized that his talking points are the same ones made in any overview of sustainability - which provides a great foundation for beginners. In the Western World we consume too much. Our footprints are outrageous. We eat ourselves to death while others starve. But rather than discuss what it means to live in a culture of conservation, how this can be attained, etc, he instructed us to read his book. Not cool.

Despite my disappointment, it is important to highlight the tweaks he made in the typical sustainability argument. He indicated that rather than using the terms climate change and global warming, we should refer to the phenomenon as climate disruption. This provides a more accurate and compelling description of what a change in global temperature means for the world's inhabitants. This allows the layperson to connect events such as prolonged drought with climate changes on a more intuitive level.

He also weaved, what some might call, words of wisdom into the presentation that I found to be valuable and upon which I'll reflect when analyzing the role I play within the sustainable movement at different periods of my life. His perspective on the individual contradicts Friedman's position that only big solutions count. Sanders believes that it is through the individual behavior that movements grow, but not in a way that we should be overwhelmed by the responsibility. He stated "The task is not to save the world. The task is to understand the situation, consult your own values, and to act accordingly." While that might not be easy, it's a principle I hope to live by.

--

I would like to note that I attended the Gandhian Food Democracy lecture, but it was nothing to write home about. 

The man.

She discussed Gandhi's philosophy on development and democracy and local ownership. Gandhi was strongly outspoken regarding the relationship between freedom and ownership of one's means of survival.  -Well, she didn't really discuss. She read from her working paper the whole time. So while that background was interesting to hear, I could have read about it from the comfort of my own home. Then she provided some pictures of Indian co-housing/co-ops that she visited in her travels. 

In addition to my disappointment in her reading the presentation rather than engaging, it was disappointing that she also provided little in the way of solutions - or, at least, no solutions that could be applied to America's food model or the food models of other developing nations. Frameworks were promised on the lecture description. But no frameworks were given that day. This seems to be a continuing theme with many sustainability experts. They are still in the frame on mind that they are educating others about the problem, but haven't realized that those they've educated are ready to be equipped on the next level. Perhaps there's a reason for this that I have yet to put my finger on. Maybe these problems are too isolated and vary in their solutions on a case by case basis (though I doubt this to be true, as I've met people who have answers within their sustainability discipline and the Roseland book does a fantastic job in providing tools to use in urban planning). Or maybe these simply aren't the people to talk to about how to address these issues. Either way, I've been ready for a while to learn these problems from the solutions side and will be eager to greet them upon their arrival.

An evening with Tom Friedman: A Themester event

The use of Bosch seems particularly appropriate.

This past Thursday was the Themester event "Friedman-palooza", which featured Tom Friedman (foreign affairs columnist for the New York Times and author of Hot Flat and Crowded) in a q&a session hosted in Woodburn, dinner with Caitlin in which we chatted about Friedman though he did not join us (despite the number of voicemails we left with his agent), his lecture which drew quite a crowd, and the reception that followed.

Given that I have only read Friedman's work in the New York Times and have yet to crack open any of his books, I hadn't realized he was an "energy guy" -but not just that, he's also an "energy policy guy". And when anyone brings up sustainability policy with the straight-forward, no bullshit rhetoric the way Friedman does, I'm tempted to immediately switch my major into policy. Thankfully, the program office was closed by this time of night.

So for those unable to make it, here are the major points of discussion he covered:

• Why green energy and sustainability initiatives have been slow to get off the ground.
• No one protests to have burdens placed on themselves but instead protest to have burdens lifted, like in rights movements. Also those affected have yet to be born (debatable) and so the effects are not as visible as they will be for generations to come. 
• The results of politics and science clashing. 
• Politics pollutes the science when it would otherwise not be an issue. 
• He gave the example that no one questions if the apple fell on Newton's head, because no one had anything to lose in that observation.  
• Population control. 
• Is there a morning after pill for shopping too much? A prophylactic for Macy's? Those with higher birthrates, as we've read, consume nothing compared to those in Western countries. Until this changes, we have no argument. Rather, we need to provide family planning education for every community so that there are options available but the rest is their own business.
• China and India are going to own us if we don't get on the ball. 
• The US is teeming with new developments and initiatives, but there's no real direction or backing, just political posturing, so we can't get off the ground. These countries and their economies are growing rapidly and are beginning to seize the opportunity to be leaders in the next technology wave.
• How these issues can be discussed with skeptics. 
• It's important to make connections between the war in Afghanistan and people driving their cars. If people really want to support their troops they need to be for clean energy that doesn't help to prop up "petrodictatorships". A byproduct of addressing climate change is increased national security. 
• It should be noted, however, that while we are supporting these groups, we do get the majority of our oil domestically and from Canada.
• Have you ever been to a revolution where no one got hurt? 

• The "green movement" is being advertised as if everyone wins. And while humanity and the environment as a whole benefit, individuals benefiting from the status quo may get hurt along the way. This applies to those profiting from oil to those who have to suffer the inconvenience of walking to work rather than driving. Rather than making sweeping changes, we are opting to find the low hanging fruit and patting ourselves on the backs. Friedman took a minute to mention titles of inane books touting how easy it is to "go green". Sustainability is is an issue of enormous scale, and therefore our responses must be enormously scaled. It should be mentioned, however, is that the impetus for change comes from individuals taking small steps and making demands on those capable of making those sweeping changes (like in research and development).

During the last q&a session at the end of his lecture, Friedman was asked what we can do to become more involved and stir things up. His reply was Rosa Parks didn't blog about taking the bus. Advocates of these issues have been lulled into thinking that hiding behind their computers while making criticisms and arguments is an effective method of public discourse (meanwhile, the crazies still show up). But Friedman mentions that while we have all gone digital, politics are still analog and getting face time with our representatives and becoming visible in the community is more important than ever. He also mentioned that initiatives like the Green Energy challenge are important in gaining visibility and being active as a campus. It's important to note that the winners of the challenge were announced and SPEA was one of them! Woo!

The winners of the Green Energy Challenge: If you squint, you can see Professor Brown fourth from the left.