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.

Do the meek inherit the galaxy?

This is a short, easy read article that came out recently after the whale attack at Sea World. It's one I frequently re-read (I've got a terrible short term memory).

Do the meek inherit the galaxy?

I find it to be a fascinating perspective on what it means to be intelligent life and the context of humanity on this planet and in the universe. We might not be an anomaly afterall, but merely a standard blip on the universe's radar.

After reading pieces like this it is also frightening to me that we still treat the other forms of intelligent life so poorly (and also unintelligent but we won't get into that now). Given that dolphins and primates have the intelligence and emotional capabilities equivalent to that of human toddlers and greater, it boggles my mind and saddens me that we haven't done more to protect them from humans (from those we see in The Cove to those who shell out the benjamins to swim alongside them at aquariums). But in the end they might be the ones who come out ahead, as the recklessness and destruction we exhibit toward them and the rest of the planet ultimately brings about our demise.

And now, one of my favorite songs to stave off the depression that ultimately comes with these conversations...

Living in the Monkeysphere

Has anyone heard of Dunbar's number? Or the more informal term, the "monkeysphere"? It's an incredibly interesting phenomenon and I would like to write about it sometime in relation to sustainability issues.

Essentially our cognitive abilities limit us to being capable of focusing on about 150 people at one time. Outside of that, we lose empathy and interest. It helps to explain why we are much more impacted by the death of one in our community rather than a city wiped out by a war or famine. Perhaps this can be used to understand and tailor sustainable movements to become more meaningful to those in need of a behavioral change. This relates to the research done by Meadows in Limits to Growth on the perspectives of households and Brown's comment on focusing on making sustainability issues relevant for this generation, rather than just future generations.

Overviews of this phenomenon can be found in serious format or humorous and perhaps, at times, vulgar format (you get what you pay for with Cracked).
So take your pick:
Serious.
Humorous.

Take that, Drill Baby Drill

In Bob Berkebile's lecture in Indianapolis last week, he brought up the reality we must all face with peak oil. Berkebile mentioned that even if you don't believe we have reached the peak, we cannot deny that we are currently using more than we are extracting - which requires us to address the problem of oil in the same way. My first thought upon hearing this was, I bet my parents could somehow find a problem with this. They would say that's why we need to move into Alaska.

So today I was happy to find this article. I will be interested to see if this doesn't begin happening more frequently on our search for Texas Tea.

Little boxes on the hillside

Pete Seeger anyone?

Urban design is one piece of our society that is frequently forgotten by the general population. We forget that these communities didn't pop up from nowhere with no planning, that it could look different, and if designed better it could change our lives. We go about our daily lives as though the decisions are put forth by some man behind a curtain determining what roads should look like and how many cul de sacs should confuse us when driving through an unfamiliar neighborhood. And to a certain extent there is, but this idea leads people to believe they have no right to decide what their communities should look like and what amenities should be provided.  For example, in my hometown in Arizona the city has forgotten that its citizens have legs and, therefore, provide no support for those who would prefer to stretch them rather than drive their cars.

My neighborhood street. Characteristic of the design genius of the Southwestern suburb

Street sidewalks are barely wide enough for two people and are lined by cinder-block walls rather than shady flora. Walking down this narrow corridor -interrupted by a traffic light every quarter of a mile- only serves to invite jeers by obnoxious passengers as you walk down this narrow, isolated corridor. Parking lots radiating heat stand between you and your destination, but at least provide a refuge from the automobiles racing down the road at 10 miles over the 45 mph speed limit. But it never occurred to me to think, how could this be different and what is it that's keeping me from walking to the mall rather than driving? I simply assumed my fate had been decided for me, once I turned 16 I needed a car to survive.

I'm aware that this system of urban design had good intentions, for the most part. Individuals wanted the security and cleanliness of the suburbs, with the comfort and convenience of the automobile. Urban designers found the suburban layout to be either cost effective, in good taste, or an efficient way of organizing a city around these desires. The residents, however, neglected to sufficiently express their desire for inter-connectedness (between the buildings and the people), clean air, and physical activity level. Perhaps during the suburb craze many didn't even know they desired these things (and just assumed drinking martinis and crying at the kitchen table once the kids left for school was normal). But as the masses are rediscovering their desire for connected communities and wanting to opt out of the systems that come along with this package of the American Dream, the time has come to retrofit these communities to meet the demands on today's generation. The time has come to pull that curtain aside, and confront what's behind the curtain: bad zoning ordinances.

I came to realize what an important role aggressive zoning codes play in the design of our built environment after taking a course in urban dynamics in my undergraduate career and participating in my professor's research analyzing which specific zoning codes that help to characterize to a "good city" and a "bad city" (according to the APA's designation of good communities). An example of a good city and ordinances observed is pictured. As discussed in my Phoenix example, the way cities decide the rules by which we must build can have a significant effect on our lifestyle and the ways in which we impact the environment. Considering the infeasibility of ripping out and replacing these poorly planned cities, altering the zoning ordinances to reflect the infrastructure we value provides a way to transition into more connected communities. As we continue to build, these new ordinances can be used to adjust our communities and encourage more sustainable practices.


Examples of these ordinances include:

• Building height minimums which encourage density rather than increased land use
• Maximum parking spaces or minimum parking spaces for a larger footage
• Minimum sidewalk widths, decreased driving speeds in pedestrian areas
• Maximum building setbacks to encourage building storefronts to line the sidewalks
• Pedestrian scaled lighting and signage
• Allowance of sidewalk furniture

Comprehensive zoning reforms are capable of implementing these piecemeal ordinances in one fell swoop. Overlay districts outline areas within a city that require more progressive municipal codes that support and conserve desired community attributes. These include cultural overlays, transit overlays (supporting amenities like lightrails and bus systems), and historic overlays. Cities that adopt a package of form based codes can foster community connectedness by requiring new development to fit in with the desired urban form rather than to separate development by use. Cities are able to regulate development according to design with greater judgment, increasing the aesthetics and layout of the public realm.

So while altering the built infrastructure is a tall order, there are measures that can be implemented that allow for greater freedom while simultaneously supporting the urban form desired by the community. By requiring developers to operate within these measures, we can create a system that allows for flexibility and greater use of our outdoor space.

Transitioning into a veg diet

A few of us veg's were recently asked our perspective on consuming fake meats. Doesn't that go against everything for which we stand? I stumbled upon this article that discusses the merits and drawbacks of relying on faux meat products as a supplement to one's vegetarian/vegan diet. A look at fake meats

During our discussion the other day, I mentioned that fake meats are an easy way to make a transition to a plant based diet. The idea of becoming vegetarian can be completely overwhelming initially, because everything you once knew about feeding yourself has gone out the window. Learning to shop (and what to shop for), cook, scour labels, etc. suddenly becomes more work than it should be - particularly for those who were raised in carnivorous families. Given that my mom was unable to teach me how to make rocking tempeh tacos or barbecue seitan, I pretty much starved for the first year of being vegetarian. And then, like manna from heaven, Morning Star Farms released an extensive line of faux meat products.

As I became more comfortable and simultaneously bored in the diet over the years, I explored more vegan restaurants and deli counters (I dearly miss my Phoenix haunt Green) . I discovered that the variety and quality of vegan food far surpasses that of vegetarian food. We just make lasagnas without the meat, or swap a portabella for a hamburger patty, or, obviously, use processed fake ham in our club sandwiches. No wonder no one wants to come to the dark side - we've got nothing to offer but a pat on the back. Vegans, on the other hand, have to get creative as they have less with which to work. Rather than doctoring a previously meat filled dish to be less than we remember, they completely revamp old favorites to be delish for carnivores and veg's alike (see. vegan eggplant rollatini which is pictured above) or they create new dishes specifically for those looking to celebrate the vegetable. This discovery ultimately led to the presumptuous notion: if they can make meatless food good, so can I! And with that, I was able to transition from relying on fake meats and all of their processed goodness to food that has less impact on the environment and less impact on my thighs.

So for those who are interested in making a transition, or just eating some really amazing food no matter what your diet happens to be, I would recommend picking up or using Google books for a copy of the Veganomicon -which not only has recipes but also handy tips for finding and cooking with new the ingredients- or perusing the Post Punk Kitchen website. The authors of the Veganomicon post recipes here regularly. For those who have less time to spend in the kitchen, Skinny B****, in the Kitch is a great starter cookbook. They use fake meats in some of their recipes, but provide a great jumping off point as they explain veganism from a practical and humorous standpoint. -Want to look hot AND eat like a whale?

From here to there

For the record, the following will all become null and void once teleportation is perfected.

Transportation is a topic that piques my interest because every person every morning is faced with the decision of what we will do once we step outside the door. Unless we happen to be bed-ridden or have the luxury of living in a retirement community, this is an unavoidable process that has high costs associated with maintaining the status quo or choosing to use a different system - whether in time, energy, or money. But rather than operating with a system that reduces these costs (isn't this what we're all about in growthland?), we have opted for an automobile dependent society which seems to come with the high costs in all three of those categories. And rather than create a system that is more resilient to changing needs, habits, and desires -a resilient system- we have chosen one that requires massive inputs on (what feels like on commutes up the road through construction sites) a never-ending basis.

Unfortunately the transportation problem does not exist in a vacuum and has ramifications for other areas of our lives: our cities' infrastructures, our health, and our sanity. One obvious consideration few make when discussing transportation are the lives that are lost on a regular basis because this system has too much room for error. In 2005, there were over 43,000 deaths associated with traffic accidents and over 2,700,000 injuries (according to Aaron Golub, the transportation expert at Arizona State University). We have so much to lose from this system but we have invested so much into it already. So how do we move away from personal vehicles?  Given that we probably won't be pulling up this major infrastructure in the next few years (as much as I love getting to use my jackhammer) we must retrofit our systems to reduce automobile use and encourage alternatives.

When attempting to discourage automobile use, road pricing depending on current capacity has been used in Singapore since the 1970's to reduce automobile use as one leg of a comprehensive transportation plan. Roseland mentions a town in Germany that has banned automobiles altogether (and so does the New York Times). -Although this weekend I was told by a relative that he heard they were going to test this idea in a town in the U.S. I tried to contain my excitement as this was not alright by him. "What if I wanted to drive to Kentucky?" Fortunately for us, not many do. har har. Critical Mass is another movement with which I'm sure most are familiar. Bicycles turn out to overpower automobiles on the road.




Unfortunately, this also helps to raise animosity between bicyclists and drivers, and bicyclists and police officers. Residents in Portland are also trying to defeat the automobile by opposing freeway installments.

While all of these measures are helpful in striding toward the reduction of automobile use, it is important that educational measures are provided in tandem with these movements. Change is difficult for people, especially when asked to change something that affects their daily lives. A new lightrail was just installed in Phoenix and it was incredible how many were opposed to it for trivial, short-sighted reasons, yet many of these same people were outwardly excited when discussing their first time taking the rail downtown.

Whether in conversation, marketing, or presentations it is important to stress how much we are at a loss by depending on automobiles and how change needs to be demanded by those living in suburbs and on the outskirts if we want to see the system altered. Those dependent on automobiles aren't the enemy in this situation, but are also the victims and need to be treated as such if we expect them to come on board. They too are getting fat, have relatives who have died in car accidents, have increased rates of asthma, pay too much for insurance, repairs, and their lease, and are slowly going crazy from sitting in traffic all day. We need to direct them toward the realization that this doesn't have to be a necessary evil in their lives, but can be changed by demanding a new system or a series of systems that supports their needs and desires.

Science Friday

Good afternoon everyone,

I recently heard a story on NPR's Talk of the Nation: Science Friday that discussed students on college campuses voluntarily "going green". Given the prolific negative rhetoric of older generations criticizing the values and behaviors of the younger, it was refreshing to hear some praise for those in our peer group that are looking beyond themselves to reduce their footprints. Some of the initiatives mentioned would test my sanity, but they're pushing to do what's best despite their comfort levels. One house opted to keep their heat at 58 deg during the winter!

For those who don't follow the show I highly recommend poking through the archives on a regular basis. They have a lot of interesting topics that are frequently relevant to our work. You can easily download the files and load them onto your mp3 players or listen to them on your computer.

I'm your host, Ira Flato

Waste Not..

The Roseland and Reader pieces on waste reduction and recycling provided, once again, insights and guidance regarding the way we handle our materials as communities. Waste production is a topic that I find particularly interesting and compelling. Given the extent of our “growth mania” it surprises me how quickly this externality of our lifestyles is forgotten. Perhaps this is because we assume that when the garbage truck comes, all of our expendables are no longer our problem. We pay for our responsibility to be absolved when we pay our sewage and waste removal bills. But this concept that we can throw something “away” is one that resounds in this topic, along with our treatment of water that we discussed previously in class. We quickly forget that we are in a closed system, albeit a very large one, and the waste we produced goes somewhere. But what would the implications be if we dealt with our own waste? If our closed system was much closer to home – say our backyards, would we, as a society, be so quick to opt for the garbage can rather than compost bin? Would we alter our purchasing behavior knowing that we would have to live with the build up of non-degradable packaging and products on our property? Perhaps this would increase the practice of the two forgotten R's – reduce and reuse. I know that since I have had to drive to the recycle center, rather than suffer the luxury of curbside pickup, I have been more conscious about reusing items and opting for reduced-packaging items (thank you Amazon).

However, given the realities of our society and the buildup we've created there is a need to address the waste that has already been produced (in tandem with our reduction practices). One way to do this is to convert the waste into energy.... While incineration and methane produced during waste degradation are used to convert garbage into something of use to society, they are not the ideal solution to our trash woes. One company in Japan is venturing toward an interesting technology that converts plastic resin back into oil – one of many initiatives set on solving the problem of plastics.

The catchment and recycling of our sewage can also be used to convert the linear metabolism of the built environment into a closed loop system. Phosphorus stores are being rapidly depleted while we shift nitrogen and phosphorus out of the agricultural systems and into the sewage systems that go on to contaminate water supplies and feed algal blooms that destroy ecosystems and their biota. Treating sewage locally can restore these life-sustaining nutrients to the systems that are desperate for them.

Another topic within this arena that I find disconcerting is the fames Garbage Patch floating in the North Pacific Gyre, plaguing all the ecosystems with which it comes into contact. For further information see

Plague of Plastics Chokes the Seas

and

Stephen Colbert's interview with Captain Charles Moore, who discovered the gyre.

Water water everywhere, except here.

Bloomingtonians have reason for concern regarding their water supply, but they do not share this burden alone. Coming from a region where we live in perpetual drought, it was upsetting the first time we discussed that Bloomingtonian's don't register water availability as a possible issue. Many regions of the U.S. and throughout the globe face the prospects of limited water availability. The perspective that clean water is abundant is a luxury of living in a first world country, and the idea that it's here to stay is short-sighted and neglects to display an understanding of nature - that it cannot be contained. For this reason everyone should be concerned about water supply.

During the short period of time it blesses our communities, we should be carefully maintaining our water supplies for as long as we are able. This should be done by pricing water according to its true value, encouraging conservation (which we have already discussed at length), and searching and implementing alternative technologies that allow for more efficient uses of water (because individuals no longer obtain water on their own but are dependent on systems over which they have little control). Because water is a natural, dynamic system, ownership of water shifts over time when it falls into another lake or drains into another aquifer. So we must also show water stewardship toward our neighboring regions to ensure access to water after it has left our regions - something Atlanta (p.30) and Arizona have yet to learn in their regional water dealings.

Our new spaceship?

So this is interesting, though I imagine we won't get to one any time soon:

Earth-Like Planet Can Sustain Life

Class follow ups: Humor fixes everything

Occasionally in class I have "Oh man, I saw the best article about that!" moments along with, I'm sure, everyone else. So here are two that stuck with me that I wanted to share.

The first pertains to our discussion about how we may bridge the gap between climate change 'believers' and 'nonbelievers', and Marty's great suggestion on how to broach the topic. I find that there are people who try to use climate change to differentiate between us and them (which is also frequently done with hot topic issues in politics). They use it as a measure for how our ideologies match up and how to best judge the book by its cover. So if I'm outed as a sustainabilitarian, I do my best to articulate these ideas - though usually to no avail:

The next one helps to put things in perspective. It's not easy having to be sustainable. Filling your house with recyclable trash and driving it to the recycle center gets old quickly. But if anyone is going to put us in our place during times of weakness, it's the Onion. How bad can throwing away one bottle be?

Wetlands and water

During the summer, President Obama attempted to deliver an positive message to the public regarding the havoc unleashed in the Gulf of Mexico which severely impacted the wetlands lining the coasts from Louisiana to Florida. He stated that damaged wetlands would be thriving once again, their birds would return, their fish would come back and spawn, within a season or two (I attempted to find a citation for this, but all I can tell you was that this message was heard on NPR). I was stunned to say the least. During a time when the witch hunt for those responsible should be escalating (everyone loves a good, old fashioned burning at the stake) because of the gravity of the mistakes made, he was telling us to calm down because soon enough everything would be back to normal. Obviously, he has not read the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment on wetland ecosystems. If he had he would understand how grossly misinformed he sounded.

As the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report discusses, wetlands provide innumerable benefits to humanity but they are also one of the most sensitive ecosystems on the planet - lucky us. If they ever do recover (one damaged by the spill in the early 1900's in California has yet to still fully recover), it will take years for these systems to return to their full capacity. But oil spills are not the only event that should worry us. It seems that almost every externality of unsustainable human development negatively impacts these ecosystems in some way. These include urban and agricultural runoff, increased land use, urban heat island, over-consumption of water, and climate change. Many of the services they provide are what keeps our other systems resilient. It cleans up a lot of our water pollution, regulates climate, is a hotbed of biodiversity, and buffers the coasts from natural disasters. But once our populations reduce their capacity to provide these services, the negative impacts of development escalate at accelerating rates.

On separate but related note, Roseland's chapter on water and sewage provided a thorough listing of ways water policy can be attacked and implemented. I was surprised to read that throughout North America stormwater combines with sewage water before it's treated. This strikes me as rather odd and a waste of our energy and resources. Why are we contaminating unused water before we treat it? This seems ludicrous. But given our current perspectives on the value of water this should not be surprising. Just like in home systems, where we use perfectly clean water in our toilets and on our lawns, we are not concerned with efficiencies. It's important to implement the small and big efforts it will take to correct our systems and use before the shift in water availability becomes too severe to adapt to. Not only will this prepare us for the change that looms ahead but it may delay the need for more drastic changes in water use. Sponge-baths anyone?

Peak Oil in Bloomington

Going through the peak oil report from Bloomington's Peak Oil Task Force, I was surprised to see the city put show much effort into this issue. The comprehensiveness of the study was impressive.
The task force considered all of the uses of oil, and was sure to include a thorough analysis of almost every use of energy. When others are focusing primarily on individual transportation, the task force looks at uses like transporting water and how the layout of our cities impact energy use.

It was also clear that the task force wasn't looking to justify easy solutions to the problem of peak oil. They offered recommendations that were creative and unique (like the LETS program to establish local currency). They also didn't fall into the trap of supporting alternatives that are potentially riddled with the same problems we have with relying on oil. This was made evident in their dismissal of using ethanol as a cure-all substitute. They recognized that the benefits of using biofuels do not necessarily make the community more resilient, but had heavy tradeoffs as well, and suggested other alternatives.

The report states that recommending alternative fuels isn't within the scope of the report, they focused primarily on mitigation efforts and would suggest incorporating greater amounts of alternative energies into the city's generation portfolio. I would, however, find their ideas on how to increase resilience in the supply of fuels (or other forms of energy generation) to be valuable. I hope that they would do a follow up piece that analyzes the kinds of energies should be considered due to the natural resources found locally. But again, I do appreciate that they did not make this the primary focus of the report, as it is easy to get caught up on maintaining the current system without appropriately addressing the core issues associated with relying so heavily on one fuel source and so much energy to maintain our communities.

At least the prisons in Norway have windows: A systems perspective on sustaining our sanity

I really appreciate all of the arguments that come along with the need to green a city. Roseland discusses the decrease in energy costs, reduction in urban heat island, the absorption of pollution, drainage, and on and on. I particularly appreciate the appeals raised toward our inter-connectedness with nature. I think we frequently forget that we have this biological need to be in contact with the environment -much like we forget that things like taking time for ourselves, sleeping, listening to good music, eating well, exercising, etc. are necessary to our sanity. Instead we are willing to trade it off for the structures of the urban environment, or see landscaping as another example of government wasting tax money on something frivolous. But this way of thinking leads us to miss out on the tangible benefits nature provides. Dr. Brown mentioned on the first day that individuals are more productive in a room when there is a window to the outside world. But heaven forbid we hire artisan architects that consider these facets when working with a university budget. This would be considered luxurious, and we are really going more for austerity in our ivory towers. We same to have this underlying notion that focusing on quality of life is frivolous. Perhaps this is because quality of life is a relative term, but is no less important.

It seems like in many of our societal systems (always with exceptions) there is little regard given to the humanity that operates within the system (or the quality side of things). In prisons, we focus on enforcing punishment rather than rehabilitation. In businesses we focus on profits rather than productivity and customer relations. In cities we focus on the automobile rather than the pedestrian. In hospitals we focus on eradicating illness rather than creating people that are well. Education has become more about standardized tests than learning and cultivating thought. I will note that the end result is with the organization and efficiency of the community as a whole in mind, but it's important to at least recognize what we are losing along the way. And perhaps there are other systems that could address the problems we face as a community. In Norway, they have decided it's worth their time to try other systems that are inclusive of the human element (something that isn't so hard when sitting on the savings from oil reserves - which relates to the stead-state economy we discussed). In a deleted scene from Michael Moore's Sicko (I know, I know), he ventures to Norway and finds that the country hires an ethicist to advise the government on how to invest funds in an ethical manner. I don’t think Dick Cheney would like this guy. And their adoption of an alternative prison system, based on restoring dignity to individuals through trust and responsibility, is a prime example of restoring quality to our public systems. I'm not suggesting this model is appropriate for everyone, but it's worth considering ideas that attempt to approach problems we all share as communities from alternative angles.

While many would argue that these are pie in the sky approaches to complex problems, it's being done! Without bold ideas such as these (bold ideas that don't include violence and genocidal tendencies) we are unable to advance beyond the societies we know today. And without advancement, we will fail.

Doing the hardest thing first and Bloomington policies

The ecological footprint works as a measure of how one's lifestyle fits into the services provided by our ecosystems. If everyone lived the way you lived, how would humanity fare? If everyone lived the way you lived, how many earths would it take to support the population? More specifically, the measure looks at the amount of land and water it would take to satisfy your needs and clean up your mess in hectares -essentially analyzing if your lifestyle fits within the carrying capacity of the earth's ecological systems, but this isn't as eloquent as saying “You have big feet”.

To see how many planets I need to appropriate in order to meet my hedonistic tendencies, I visited two footprint calculators (as many of them differ in their assessments). The first calculator I used was the Ecological Footprint Calculator hosted by the Center for Sustainable Economy. I liked this calculator because it asked detailed questions regarding my transportation, shopping tendencies, size of my home, etc. -Although it didn't ask my the type of car I drive, so as far as it knows I own a Hummer or a Smartcar. The calculator also tallied my rates as I went so I was able to see the weight of each behavior. My results are below:

The calculator rated my consumption according to four categories: carbon use (electricity and transportation), food, housing, and goods and services. In total, I require about 3.1 earths. It's nice to see that I'm below the national average, but given the lifestyle of most Americans that doesn't say much. I need to start pricing space ships.

The second calculator I used was with the Global Footprint Network. It was a more interactive model, and depicted the infrastructure needed to support the different aspects of my life (eg. grocer, bus system, powerlines). All in all, with this calculator I need 4 earths. While the questions were different from the previous calculator, it assumed more about my lifestyle than seems accurate. It didn't ask about individual personal behaviors, like composting or using low flow fixtures.

But even when I was able to see how those individual behaviors impact my footprint, it was also frustrating to see that all the little things I try to do to conserve (like recycling and carpooling) don't significantly reduce my individual impact. This was most apparent in the first calculator where I could see my number dropping as I selected conscious behaviors. - I recognize that small individual actions shouldn't be discounted, because millions of people engaging in these behaviors is certainly beneficial -. I've been chewing on the idea though that we focus too much on the low hanging fruit rather than attempting to make significant changes that really shape our ecological impact. The writer/artist Franke James discusses this in her visual essays. When she and her husband recognized their need to change, they decided to "do the hardest thing first" and sold their SUV. But not just their SUV, they sold the luxury of having a personal vehicle. Rather than buying a hybrid or a Smartcar, they tore out their driveway to build a garden (after a battle with their city and their zoning ordinances). While I'm a student who has a demanding schedule, don't own my own home, and manage to function on a very limited budget, James inspires me to find big ways I can change my imprint. Everyone has constraints with which they must work. It's about time I address the behaviors I have that are responsible for my need for so many earths.
       
The Bloomington Commission on Sustainability is currently considering policy initiatives on energy, water, and local food issues. Focusing specifically on the water policies, the commission approved an increase in the water pricing for the city, but is currently waiting for approval. It is surprising something that is fairly controversial in other regions would be passed without much noise. Perhaps this is because Bloomington residents aren't aware that water should be a policy priority in the first place. The commission recognizes a strong need to raise awareness regarding water conservation throughout the city and hope to make this policy initiative a priority.
  The current indicators being used to analyze water usage in Bloomington include the water usage as percent of average available water supply (which provides the ability to gauge the actual level of water and need for conservation) and water price as percentage of annual income (which may no longer be useful if pricing is raised to apply real value to water or the benchmark should be adjusted to meet the goals of this policy measure). Water contamination levels and number of local water bodies with fish advisory warnings are also indicators.

Week 3.1: Bus passes and insane water policies

  In Virginia Maclaren's article, Urban Sustainability Reporting, she outlines the importance of measuring the health of the community using appropriate sustainability indicators. With these mechanisms one is capable of gauging the state of the urban environment, progress and setbacks resulting from sustainable initiatives, policies, and other drivers. According to Maclaren, there are four characteristics around which all urban sustainability indicators should center. They should be integrative, forward-looking, distributional, and developed using input from a variety of stakeholders. She notes that it may not be possible to meet all four characteristics for each indicator, but within an index of indicators all characteristics should be accounted for.

   In Bloomington's 2008 Sustainability and Trends Assessment Report (STAR), a large set of indicators are used to measure the state of the community. One indicator measured in the transportation subset of the report is the cost of a bus ticket as percentage of median income. This measure is integrative, as it links economic and social welfare, the ease with which the typical Bloomington resident can afford alternative transportation, to environmental dimensions, the availability of alternative transportation to reduce automobile emissions. This indicator is also forward-looking to the extent that providing alternative transportation reduces environmental, air, and water quality degradation, preserving these resources for generations to come. As mentioned previously, this cost accounts for the ease with which one can afford to utilize alternative transportation. Rather than deciding to list the flat fee associated with riding the bus, using the percentage of median income provides more information about who is capable of purchasing these passes. Therefore this measure, at the very least, makes room for distributional analysis (accounting for those in different spatial locations, generations, gender, income, etc.). This technique, however, could be irrelevant should it be determined that median income is not evenly distributed among different factors. Finally, according to the STAR report, these indicators were developed by the commission that developed the report, the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability. This violates what Maclaren calls the one characteristic every indicators should have. It should be generated from multiple stakeholders within the community. The commission recognizes that it is important to receive input from community stakeholders in future reports, and also encourage readers to contact them. Because this indicator meets the at least two of the three other characteristics, it would not be unreasonable to consider

this indicator an appropriate measure within the transportation subset of the STAR report.

         

 In Phoenix, one of the fastest growing cities in the country and my lovely little hometown, policies currently support unconstrained growth despite the environmental constraints that come with supporting large populations in an arid, desert ecosystem. Planners and politicians associate physical growth with economic growth, and nothing should stand in the way of economic growth. Afterall, construction, real estate, and tourism account for large portions of the state economy. But suburban, low density sprawl, supported by extensive highway systems are placing immense pressure on the surrounding ecosystems and water availability, and increase city temperatures as the result of the urban heat island effect (But it's a dry heat!). More importantly, water availability is becoming limited.

  Despite the blindfolds worn by those watering their GRASS lawns at midday, those spending summer afternoons at waterparks, those repairing and refilling the artificial lake in the heart of the Phoenix-Metro area, and those reaping the financial rewards of Grow, baby, grow!, this.is.not.sustainable. Literally, this level of growth cannot be sustained - at least not at the low costs of development Arizona sees today. The state has been in a drought for the last twenty years and Arizona, along with California and Nevada who share the Colorado River as a large supply of water for their residents, will soon be facing the costs of water depletion. Arizona politicians do not bring these issues to the table, as they are afraid it could negatively affect economic development. If Arizona politicians and residents want to avoid the water crisis looming on the horizon, action should be taken today to avoid the type of growth that places greater constraints on what is left of Arizona's resources.
  Using Roseland's policy instruments to enact sustainable change, it is not difficult to find several mechanisms that can assist in this process. First, the Arizona Department of Water Resources issues permits to water rights practically indiscriminately according to loose criteria. Instead, the issuance of permits should be suspended. The permits currently available should be designated as tradable permits, allowing those who wish to develop to purchase permits from those no longer using their water rights. As implemented in Oakland, plumbing standards should be administered to require low-flow toilets and faucets to reduce the amount of water wasted. Information should be provided to the public regarding drought current drought levels and the need to avoid behaviors that contribute to water waste. Most importantly, pricing (a hot topic among those who dare to mention it in mixed company) should be adjusted to reflect the true value of water. Prices can be adjusted according to threshold levels so that water for basic needs is kept relatively low. Water used for keeping grass, filling pools, and spitting out of shower heads at 2.5 gallons per minute are priced at higher levels according to the actual value of using it as an amenity rather than a resource necessary to survival and quality of life. This will discourage many of the undesirable practices associated with water depletion and may rule out a need for several other policy tools, allowing those in Arizona to maintain a higher quality of life (let us not forget the majority of the world does not have clean water) over the long run.

Week 2.2: Declarations on Our Common Future and The End of Nature

Sustainable Reader

  As mentioned in the introduction of the Brundtland Commission's piece, the report is most concerned with humans rather than their environmental counterparts. There is still much debate regarding the weight human welfare has over environmental welfare. Is the planet merely here to sustain human life or does it have intrinsic value of its own? The Commission provides an interesting idea for why it was appropriate to use the anthropocentric perspective in the report. The report is addressing people, as improvements will come from the changes made in human behavior. By appealing to the individual's desire for self-preservation, perhaps using anthropocentric arguments will make a more significant impact, leading to an increase in change.

  In Agenda 21 the definition of the "enabling approach" in section 7.3 is unclear. Is this considered financial investment in the community (e.g. World Bank loans rather than donated goods)? 

       

 

   The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development in the 1987 report, Our Common Future, as “development that meets the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The commission worked to develop a definition that encompasses the many values and aspects of sustainability, the definition has still come under fire. It has received criticisms for neglecting to address issues that contribute to inequity, over-consumption, and degradation, like continued, conventional economic growth and global power struggles. But, as mentioned in the article, this definition and the report is a compromise among many individuals different backgrounds and perspectives.

   In making their case for the importance of sustainable development, the commission states that “The Earth is one but the world is not.” This recognizes the existence of division between the systems, values, desires, and goals of different individuals and communities. These groups, however, all depend on the same body of resources – the biosphere and the atmosphere. For this reason, these groups are bound together and must align to ensure that this one earth is preserved.

   Poverty results in environmental degradation as individuals in poverty are forced to overuse their natural resources in order to survive. This creates a feedback loop, as the environmental degradation further impoverishes the community.

   The commission recognizes that environmental utilization is inevitable. It is important that the environmental exploitation is planned with regard to water use, soil erosion, and genetic losses to ensure that the complexity and interdependency of ecosystems are sustained. The commission does not recommend the prohibition of nonrenewable resources, but suggests responsibly consuming these resources according to their availability and need.

  In Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, the processes and drivers of climate change are outlined and discussed. One mechanism by which the earth is warmed is the greenhouse effect. The energy radiating from the earth is trapped by atmospheric, greenhouse gases. This energy is then re-radiated into the lower atmosphere. The greenhouse gas carbon dioxide traps infrared radiation, which contains high amounts of energy that can be damaging to the biosphere. The upper layer of the oceans that interact with the atmosphere exchange carbon and temperature at equilibrium. So as the atmosphere heats, the oceans absorb these changes as well.

Scientists have calculated that the atmosphere before the Industrial Revolution contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide.

  Today the atmosphere contains 360 parts per million of carbon dioxide and is growing at an annual rate of 1.5 parts per million. Carbon dioxide accounts for .035 % of the earth's atmosphere, which is considered a safe level necessary for maintaining life. Scientists are concerned that moving this concentration up, even slightly, will have irreversible feedbacks. The burning of fossil fuels for energy contributes significantly to the increase in greenhouse gases. Coal is one of these fuels that produces the most carbon dioxide, and is a fuel that is relied on by the state of Indiana for its energy needs. Agricultural processes throughout the globe are another significant source of greenhouse gases. This includes the burning of forests to clear land which releases carbon dioxide (and is no longer available to absorb carbon dioxide), the methane produced by termites that digest the logs that are cleared but not burned, and the methane produced by livestock in their digestive processes.

Week 2.1: The elusive American dream, limits to growth, and economic hierarchies

Sustainable Reader
  The introduction to Limits to Growth provided an important component that is frequently missing in the interaction between those who understand the global issues faced by the human race and those who do not understand those issues. Meadows lends a calm sense of urgency to these problems and provides reasonable conclusions should they go unaddressed. She does not make overly ambitious statements about the fate of humanity should we choose to place our plastics in the waste bin rather than the recycle bin or if we do not turn the water off while brushing our teeth. Meadows simply states that changes will come and it will get harder to reverse their impacts the longer we wait to implement changes.
  In today's sound bite era, where gloom and doom characterize many of the sustainability problems we face, only black and white ultimatums are given and many seem outrageous. As a general example, “If you do x,y, or z the earth won't be here in 50 years”. Such drastic ultimatums overwhelm individuals, and, for many, leads them to reject that the problems exist altogether. But Meadows provides a reasonable middle ground in which the issue is no longer “'do or die”, rather “do now or later, but it would be tragic and foolish to do later”. Should more experts and professionals communicate sustainability concepts to the public in a more reasonable manner, that allows the individual to feel they are making a rational decision, perhaps sustainability would be a less hot button issue for the general population.
While it was manageable to follow the ideas in the Development of Underdevelopment article, it was difficult to follow the terminology and conclusions Frank drew from the analogy he created regarding the metropolis and satellites. What does he mean by weak ties, and what would be a weak tie in the real-world system? What does it mean for a metropolis to be autonomous? What does it mean for the metropolis to hold monopolistic power over the satellites?
          
   Ian McHarg's perspective on development is closely related to the ideas of Ebenezer Howard. McHarg also recognizes the biophilia of humanity, and how the city should work to find common ground between the built environment and the natural environment. McHarg also graphically characterizes the space between urban life and rural life, the suburbs, as a destructive failure of land use and shallow monuments to the American dream. But those who sought nature by moving onto the fringe of the city were eventually swallowed by those who came after, also looking for a piece of nature. This concept still characterizes many council meeting arguments regarding zoning. Someone moved into a neighborhood attracted by the view of the mountains or a water feature, only to lose that benefit and their increased property value once a new developer squeezes in between their home and the natural world. Unfortunately for this individual they forget that they were not the first victims, but were the transgressors of another homeowner upon their arrival to the neighborhood.

   McHarg differs from Howard, however, in that he recognizes the need to build with nature and to respect and capitalize on natural features that provide ecosystem services to local populations. These features include surface water, marshes, floodplains, aquifers, aquifer recharge areas, steep lands, prime agricultural lands, and forests and woodlands. McHarg used satellite images to map these features in order that communities might use the maps to develop according to the topography. This would allow the preservation and utilization of these processes by the surrounding communities.

   Andre Frank, in the Development of Underdevelopment, argued that development assistance provided by wealthy nations to third world nations was used to make the economies and social structures of poorer nations dependent on wealthier nations. Frank posits that development resulted in a hierarchy of economic systems that leave poorer nations (or 'satellites') on the bottom of the chain and wealthier nations (or 'metropolis') on the top. Some may argue that economic policies and mechanisms that support free trade between developed and third world nations helps to perpetuate this effect. Among other effects, this drives down prices and wages of those in poor economies for those making purchases in the wealthier ones.

   In the introduction of Limits to Growth, Meadows provides a compelling model that depicts the level of concern individuals' have for different units of society over different scales of time. The results indicate that individuals are primarily concerned with their family unit over the scale of the week (or perhaps the two week period in between paychecks), and the level of concern dissipates as the time period lengthens and the unit of society extends to greater populations. In developing this model, Meadows and the research team used the scientific method and computers. This was the first time such methods were used to analyze the future of humanity.

   The study resulted in three conclusions. If consumption and environmental depletion continue unchanged from the current patterns, the humanity will reach the limits to growth within the next one hundred years. Humanity is capable of avoiding this outcome by pursuing environmental and economic stability. Lastly, the sooner these changes are made, the greater are their chance for success. Waiting to enact changes, the more difficult it may be to observe meaningful results.

   After considering new data and running the models again twenty years later, Meadows found that the results of this conclusion held true. Today we can observe these results picking up speed. Over-fishing of the world's oceans is leading to the rapid depletion of wild fish. Climate change threatens to alter the world's ecosystems. Stores of phosphate rock, a nonrenewable but key ingredient in industrial agriculture, have been almost entirely exhausted. We are approaching these and many other limits to growth, but many in the mainstream view these as isolated events rather than the result of our unsustainable systems.

  Herman Daly defines growthmania as the attitude that the thirst for consumption can never (and should never) be quenched. Growth is infinite and desirable. Today, the Gross National Product (GNP) is used to measure spending and growth in the United States. While national economic advisers recognize that there are costs associated with the growth of the GNP, there is no attempt to seriously measure those costs to see if they outweigh the benefits of GNP growth. Not only is there no measurement, but those costs are in turn added to the GNP as a part of growth. Oil spill clean ups, health care costs, and military expenditures during wartime are all added in the GNP – again, the measure of all things economically good and holy. So despite the fact we are producing things detrimental to our health and society, we are encouraged to continue in such behavior as it reinforces this inappropriate measure. 

  Daly proposes the implementation of a steady state economy after the environmental steady state. He states that the world is finite and successfully operates in equilibrium. Because our economy relies on the environment, we in turn are not capable of physical infinite growth.
  While I find this to be a reasonable idea that addresses environmental constraints face to face, instead of playing a smoke and mirrors game regarding costs and benefits, the barriers to transformation are enormous. It will take a public and obvious disaster to gain enough support and momentum to switch from one system to another. Recently we have seen enormous fall out from hypergrowthmania in the housing market. But rather than addressing the core problems in the economic system that drove this disaster, we scold financial leaders and 'fiscally irresponsible' homeowners but enact no real reforms that will prevent future growthmania fallout. Also, in a society that is quick to point to anything that seeks to limit income, spending, or a shared resource as socialist, it would be social, professional, and political suicide to pursue this system head-on. But this shouldn't stop anyone who finds it to be solution to growthmania.

Toward Sustainable Communities
  One important component and obstacle in pursuing sustainable development is the need to bring all of the stakeholders to the table to devise solutions that are effective and meaningful to the community. Roseland discusses this in his section on mobilizing citizens. He specifically mentions environmental organizations and activists finding trouble relating their work into the larger sustainability movement. It can be argued that it's difficult for anyone in a professional niche to feel they fit into the larger sustainable development picture, it is interesting that Roseland picks on this group specifically. Environmental organizations and activists, due to their profession, are predisposed to bias regarding the topic for which they are advocating. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that they find it particularly difficult to address the needs of other actors at the negotiating table and agree to compromises, especially when the topics at hand are personal and emotionally/passionately embedded. This is the reason why many non-governmental organizations with similar missions do not frequently partner, despite the fact they have strength in numbers. But as Roseland notes, if these groups are earnestly interested in environmental protection, it is vital that they work with other groups across disciplines and sectors despite their differences. If they don't, they risk duplicating efforts and miss out on the significant benefits of collective action.
        

 

   Roseland defines sustainable community as one that maintains social and economic resilience by continually adjusting to meet the community needs while maintaining the environment used to support it.

   Where some heavily criticize urban areas for the plight and pollution associated with them, more are recognizing cities as a part of urban ecology with benefits that can outweigh the benefits of living on the fringe of cities and in rural areas. Cities cover less land, provide more opportunities for community connections and mobilization due to proximity, discourage sedentary lifestyles, allow one to live and work in their neighborhood thereby increasing a sense of place within the community, and can provide shared infrastructure (transportation, municipal centers, sewage, electricity, and broadband) at a low cost. On the other hand, the amount of concrete in cities raises the temperature, a process known as the urban heat island effect. Many cities lack the green space needed to maintain the temperature and also lack the green space needed to provide for the individual's desire to interact with nature. The runoff from cities that lack permeable infrastructure collect pollutants and contaminate the groundwater. The pollution from condensed transportation increases health care costs. Also, cities are generally not self-sufficient. Roseland states that cities “appropriate carrying capacity from..rural and resource regions”. They import food, materials, water, and energy. Then they export environmental degradation through the methods of energy extraction and the creation of pollution and garbage. A northern city is different from a southern city in that the residents of a northern city are over-consuming and the southern are barely consuming. In the northern city the residents get ill from over-eating and in the southern residents get ill from a lack of food. In a northern city residents have the infrastructure needed to protect against rampant disease, but pollution rates are significant.

   Roseland states that cities in North America were built on the assumption that energy and land would be infinitely abundant. While I agree with that many carry this perspective (like those pursuing the American dream), I imagine that the economists, financiers, and developers investing in North American cities were not occupied with the limits to growth, but were interested in the vast sums money to be made meeting the demands of Americans for single-family plots. Indianapolis and most of Bloomington follow this model, which essentially centers around low-density housing, compartmentalized zoning, and the use of the automobile for daily activities.

   These unsustainable building and consumption patterns in North American cities have resulted in enormous ecological footprints. The footprint, the amount of land and water (in hectares) required to support a defined human population indefinitely, of this region is about four to five hectares per person. Should every city live like the average North American it would take the resources of two additional earths to support the planet's population.

   Roseland suggests using alternative development mechanisms to make urban environments more sustainable. He recommends making more walkable communities by installing attractive urban design and calming traffic, allowing for increased pedestrian activity. Other tools should vary based on the location and individual characteristics of the community. Low-density cities are prime for solar panel installation and urban gardens, while high-density cities can reduce their footprints through the use of mass transportation.