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.

Week one of discussion: Garden cities and funeral towers

  In reading Ebenezer Howard’s optimistic piece on the Garden City, I was surprised and unsettled by his motivations behind these developments. His plan was thought out well for that age and he sounded genuinely convinced that this would be the solution to urban plight. Should I have been present during this period, without observing the fallout that has come from suburban thinking, I might have found his development to be just the thing we needed to escape the “smoke fiend”.

  What I find to be unsettling, however, is how such novel and seemingly appropriate plans to address real problems can transform into the problem itself. How could Howard have known that this way of thinking -the compartmentalization of cities- would spur drastic and damaging changes in land use cover when the population boomed? This unnerves me as an individual interested in approaching the types of problems Howard undertook. Addressing sustainability problems comes with an immense responsibility to future generations, but must be balanced by the need to address urgent issues when the future can only be planned for, not predicted.

  Howard’s placement of undesirable populations between the allotments and the center city seem to isolate these groups. Is there some social reason for doing so? Are there zoning codes in practice in the U.S. that still implement this form of rigid social compartmentalization (besides those we see between classes)?

Howard's Garden City complex was one of 250,000 population in a circle 10 miles in diameter with a central city and six ringed residential centers all linked by boulevards, canals and rail lines.
  One of Howard's primary motivations in creating the garden city was to connect the country with the city, which was appropriate in that it identified humanity's innate desire to be connected to nature -something industrialized cities of his era lacked. While the garden city has aspects that one can identify as 'sustainable' (like protecting local agricultural land and mass transit infrastructure) the idea that a city would be designed and then implanted, rather than grow and spread organically, is not ideal for building community. A sustainable community incorporates the desires and values of its members, rather than relying simply on the judgments of outside planners.

  Jane Jacobs focuses her arguments on this concept in "Orthodox Planning and the North End". Change should come from the people, and when it does not the community members are the ones who suffer the consequences. She finds that frequently planners misdiagnose community vitality using shallow and misdirected indicators. Jacobs equates the science of urban planning to the science of blood letting. Despite the lack of evidence that traditional planning techniques do not work, they are continually utilized to the detriment of the residents.

  In Mumford's critique on the design of cities, in "Cities and the Crisis of Civilization", he argues that human life support systems that are integral to our health and sanity are now organized around the city system (represented as the "cult of death"), rather than organizing the city system around human processes (the "cult of life").

  To increase environmental stability and protection Aldo Leopold describes the need for ethics that govern the treatment of land. This ethic states that when an action works to protect and sustain the health, integrity, and beauty of the environment it is correct. When it works to degrade the health, integrity, and beauty it is incorrect. While I appreciate the notion of the land ethic, it is a complicated ethic by which to live. Because humans, like every other form of life, need to extract resources for survival, it is difficult to identify what level of extraction maintains ecological integrity and which do not. Many actions surrounding the utilization of natural resources clearly fall into the right and wrong categories, but many are more difficult to judge.

  Leopold compares humanity's relationship to land to Odysseus's relationship to his slave girls. Because Odysseus owns the girls, his treatment of the slaves is not considered moral or immoral. He has no obligation to spare the girls despite the benefits he receives from their services. The ownership of land operates in the same way. People reap benefits from the land, but have no ethics regarding the maintenance and protection of the property.

  In Roseland's Toward Sustainable Communities, the way in which Roseland highlights the need for stable economic capital insightful. Rather than simply focusing on the need for job growth and investment within the community, he mentions the importance of living off of interest or income. This is frequently discussed and advocated, specifically regarding the economic recession. Living on income and interest is then quickly contradicted as community leaders call for incentives that increase consumption to bolster the markets, but continue to reduce the resilience of consumers.

  Living on economic stocks can also be paralleled with Roseland’s argument for the need to live off of natural stocks. By returning to this behavior communities are better able to stabilize our life-support systems.

  Strong and weak sustainability are two topics that appear simple to understand, but unclear as to how they are implemented, if at all. Are stocks of assets, whether environmental or human-made, left for future generations quantified and assessed (I assume not)? Or are these two concepts merely different perspectives on how to pursue inter-generational equity? If the latter is the case, do strong sustainability and weak sustainability have implications on the ways in which sustainable development is actually implemented?