Defining Sustainability

Sustainable development in growth has gained steam over the last past decade with the heightened awareness of our ability to pollute, waste, and diminish our natural surrounding environment. The concept of sustainable development includes a host of things which can prevent or decrease such problems in our communities. These entail dealing with proper land use and management tactics, curbing our transportation habits, limiting and conserving our energy resource use, and addressing the problems of inequality among the wealthy and low-income. According to Wheeler, “planners in the past often abandoned holistic understanding of urban environments and ignored the realities of political and economic power within society” (Wheeler, 12).

The foundation of sustainable development to some degree originates with the idea of “land ethic” which is a human responsibility to care for particular lands and ecosystems (Wheeler, 20). Coupled with the previous term of land ethic, the thought of this type of emerging development seeks to not add any more distress environmentally on the area that could eventually affect future residents and the community in a negative manner. There are also several different methods to accomplish this such as maintaining natural capital, sustaining human livelihood, and maintenance and improvement of systems within development (Wheeler, 24-25).

With the planning that goes along with sustainable development there are key elements that are present in each project such as long-term goals and objectives, focusing on location and place, realization of environmental limitations, and ongoing community involvement and problem-solving. Additionally, there are what’s called the “three Es” of sustainable planning which include the environment, economics, and equity. Each is critical in having a successful and healthy project for the community and its benefactors. Also, it seeks for social responsibility, a critical factor, in development to allow for accountability of planners, participants, and local entities in the process (Wheeler, 53-62).

Frameworks for Environmental Policy

There are many similar discussion points brought to our attention in Steven Cohen’s “Understanding Environmental Policy. I thoroughly enjoyed his examples of New York City’s solid waste disposal, toxic waste dumping, and simply expansion of individual lifestyles. All three have aided in the process of increases pollution and damaging our local environments. I do believe, as he outlines with the example of San Francisco’s Pay-As-You-Throw program, that there can be innovative measures taken by public entities to combat polluters. Also, I believe he hits home with a great demonstration of how we can be consumed in our own consumption of our private lifestyle, that we become “Jetsoneque”. Meaning of course we are forgetting and neglecting our natural environment due to use and expansion of technology (Cohen, Ch. 2-5).

Furthermore, Cohen emphasizes many of the key issues and historical problems that have been a part of America’s history. These include addressing the problem of pollution through a symptomatic approach rather than an interconnected way. Basically meaning we treat the symptoms of a problem without recognizing that something much larger is at fault and occurring before us. It is almost as if issues are taken in piecemeal form for the majority of the time. This can be attributed to a host of factors including those behind policy making and action implementation. I also find his distinct period labels interesting discussed in three stages; 1970s-1990 “regulating for environmental protection, 1980s-1990s “efficiency-based regulatory reform and flexibility, and lastly 1990-present “toward sustainable communities.” I am curious if there could be potential for a new stage within this series as race forward in renewable energy and technology through these next two or three decades (Cohen, Ch. 6-8).

The American Clean Energy and Security Act

The piece of legislation which I have chosen is HR 2454 The American Clean Energy and Security Act. The bill has been passed in the US House of Representatives 219-212 last summer, however has not been sent to the Senate for consideration. The legislation seeks to tackle several issues regarding energy use, energy efficiency, and global climate change. Also there are many different standards to which it mandates of private industry to adopt.

Clean energy provisions include renewable electricity standards, investments in clean energy, support of private investment in clean energy, and modernization of our electrical grid. Furthermore, there are energy efficiency provisions such as building, appliance, and vehicle standards. Lastly, there are things within the bill which combat climate change such as capping carbon emissions from major polluters, prevention of tropical deforestation, emission and agricultural offsets, cost-containment measures, and carbon capture programs.

The policy in my estimation is very intriguing and ambitious in what it attempts to accomplish. I thought it would be something worthwhile to investigate and compare among previous energy and environmental legislation. There has not been drastically altering legislation regarding both energy use and the environment in quite some time. Moreover, if enacted by the United States, this could be a game changer like the recent passage of healthcare legislation. Not only would this help deter and prevent further problems regarding our environment, it would outline a platform or foundation to work from. This has the potential to force private firms to innovate outside the convenience of being polluters.

Industrialized and Developing Nations Can Unite?

Developing countries should not be able to venture down the same path as industrialized nations for economic success by using fossil fuels and pillaging their own environments. However, they will and have the right to make the case behind attempting to take up the same economic tactics as the United States and Europe did. However, the ramifications from our actions and those that these countries are/or will be up taking has caused substantiated damage to our environmental quality. Not only will harm be delivered upon the rest of the globe, but these poorer developing nations as well in the long term, for a mere small-term economic gain. However, I believe that there are solutions to this quandary that involve all parties. To not take stake in this idea lays claim to immunity of a generation’s profit, for another generation’s poverty.

Western nations, led by the United States, can accomplish a comprehensive solution by aiding these countries in financial assistance, along with equitably choosing to trade more with these nations, as opposed to the usual suspects of China and India. These countries quite possibly could profit more and have some of the wealth spread onto them, providing more monetary support to invest in cleaner technologies to produce goods. Also, these western nations could set up an incentive program geared to help these countries climb out of economic stagnancy without sacrificing our environment. We are just as responsible to help provide assistance to these countries in order to compensate for their competitive advantage. Otherwise, we have no basis or contention against allowing developing countries to use dirty fuels to help increase economic viability.

The discussion of climate change should involve all related parties, which includes those developing nations which are vital to the solution. Industrialized nations may have started the problem, and help maintain a certain level of it to climate change, however developing nations will only expedite problems associated with it. China and India two of the larger developing nations are contributing to severe damage to their local environments, which in effect harm the globe as well. The use of renewable energy among western nations will not help offset the problems related to climate change if China continues to build more coal-fired plants, while having more of its citizens owning vehicles each year.

There needs to be a solution that seeks to benefit everyone in some way, while seeing a sacrifice placed on those nations more well off. This does not mean a transfer or redistribution of wealth, but merely assistance for these developing nations across the board to compete, without destroying their own land. Possibly offering financial assistance, and energy efficient incentives to those American and European companies operating within developing nation’s borders might help the overall problem. The world’s developing nations need to be shown their connection to economic success and the environment. For example, someone would use asbestos in their home because it is cheap because it is a hazard to one’s health and threatens livelihood. Lastly, these developing nations need to be in the discussion, be given options viable and equitable to them, allowed to partner with leaders of the industrialized world to solve this extremely large problem. Also, I would expect them to look to western nations to provide reasonable financial support in order to aide them while taking on these solutions.

As discussed above, China is an important part in the discussion of dealing with developing nation's and their success. Below is an interesting link to a podcast, NPRs Planet Money, which discusses China's currency situation and its relation not only to its economic success, but competitive advantage over other developing nations in trading with the US. They also talk about implications regarding China and how it handles its currency. I thought this might be relevant to this discussion.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/03/podcast_why_chinas_central_ban.html

Wal-Mart Amps Up the Green Light

Here is a very interesting article about Wal-Mart and the investment in "being green" as one of the powerful companies on our globe. Such as local governments have done while Congress and other powerful world leaders debate and talk about solving problems associated with climate change, so are private businesses. Check it out.

http://blogs.edf.org/personalnature/

Self-Destruction In An Oven

Climate change has been debated for nearly three decades now, and has even seen a name change from global warming to its current and more aptly title "climate change." We are more increasingly witnessing this effect on our home each day and each year. Record snowfalls on the east coast, cold spells throughout 49 of our 50 states, and oddly more than usual rainfall in our current region, the Valley of the Sun. Climate change has been hotly contested and discussed, and unfortunately no unified action has occured. The initial development of Kyoto sounded great with ideas of national policies combatting greenhouse gases, transnational emissions trading schemes, and joint venture programs through nations.

One good thing that stems from this is the progress that the European Union has made. Fifteen of the EU's current 25 Annex I countries have less than half emissions per capita than the United States. More inspiring the EU has lowered their 1990 levels, something to drawn from.

I somewhat chuckle to myself when I see the arguements, stagnance, and complanceny of our role within climate change nationally. Several legislators vow to represent their constituents' interests in climate change, however cannot come to a consensus to take action properly. Ironically, local governments are leading the nation by example by having nearly 1,000 city mayors signing on to the ideas of the Kyoto Protocol. More energy efficient methods are being adopted locally, while the constant parlimentary arguements flood our nation's legislative chambers. The traditional fight of economic sacrifice versus environmental maintenance, management, and preservation. We do not all need to be living in trees, eating tofu, or cut off from the grid, however a comprehensive and unified approach among national government, private business, and citizens is imperative finding a common consensus in the balance between the two. All the while, our globe is heating up, altering our normal climates, and causing other problems including economic distress.

Environmental Justice Article and Analysis

The City of Cincinnati, Ohio has an ongoing discussion over a potential ordinance involving environmental protection and regulation within its city. The article, cited from early January 2010, reviews a traditional battle between business growth and environmental sacrifice in an urban setting. The ordinance, aptly titled in the report as “the first-of-its-kind” attempts to place strong oversight over business development, pollution, and waste with the use of a general review board. Furthermore, it would attempt to prevent industrial pollution from occurring in its traditional settings of lower-income and minority neighborhoods.

However, the issue remains of whether to implement the new ordinance due to a couple of different issues. First, the city is struggling like most other municipalities, with a budget deficit for this fiscal year at around $40 million. Secondly, city officials see this ordinance as a deterrent to business development in a time period where new revenue is desperately needed. These issues bring up some things that Press and Manzmanian talk of in sustainable production. Such things as market-based incentives and bringing these businesses to the table for their own input might be healthy solutions (Vig, 221-223). Also, seek to get the surrounding communities involved in order to prevent their own well being from being exploited.

In the past several of the poorer areas of the city have been imposed on by industry being developed and using their locality as their advantage. There has been vast amounts of pollutants that have plagued these areas in Cincinnati, which looked upon with a blind eye. This occurred mainly because of the wealth in industry and manufacturing it saw. However, now the city along with Detroit, Cleveland, and Baltimore, sees itself apart of the deteriorating “Rust Belt.” The issue of cost to implement this new ordinance would be up to $300,000 per year. However, the cost could amount to more with another incident similar to that of 2005, when a styrene leak occurred forcing hundreds to leave the Columbia Tusculum area. More legal costs could amount if something preemptive does not take hold.

As stated in the Vig readings within chapter 10, focusing on examples of companies shifting the way they conduct business is key. Such examples like Jupiter Aluminum Corp and SSAB, Iowa Inc being more environmental sound and more sustainable should be referenced. Also, the use of Marc Eisner’s proposition of market rewards, more reliance on business associations, and more transparent methods of tracking a company’s pollutant levels needs to be discussed here in Cincinnati (Vig, 234-238).

This also got me thinking of where the city plans to go as far as implementing this plan. It seemed as if there was not a plan to possibly deal with business reacting negatively to more environmentally strict regulations. Paehlke brings this type of thinking to mind in chapter 11 with the idea of the “triple-bottom line” of being economically prosperous, maintaining social well-being, and improving environmental quality. As he states it might be harmful for some industries if sustainability does not fit their business plan, however the urban area needs to design a better overall plan to improve this (Vig, 245-249). Moreover, the city might look to improve some of those communities affected by industrial toxic waste through brownfield redevelopment and express to all of its citizens as Paehlke states an “urban-oriented environmental vision.” (Vig, 250).

Lastly, it is important to not rely on a too heavily regulated government and a relaxed form of business policing itself. Through reading several authors in environmental policy, it seems like this creates the “deceive-and-achieve game.” Both private business and government entities need to be on the same page striving for what many of these authors state as a “win-win strategy.” (Potoski and Prakash, 2004).

http://www.citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-19706-slow-ride-to-nowhere.html

How Sustainable Can We Be?

The discussion of sustainability seems to be on the minds of many when it comes to an answer of new growth and development while ensuring environmental preservation. The idea of sustainable growth is a progressive and very interesting way to maintain a good quality of life without sacrifice our surrounding area. Even the definition of sustainability, "the capacity to continuously produce the necessities of a quality human existence within the bounds of a natural world of undiminished quality," sounds all too perfect and easy (Vig, 245). So how do we get there?

Understanding what each of our communities need, as well as their assets and drawbacks is important. Also, I believe that knowing in this process of becoming sustainable that there will be some causalities within the private sector. However, in a utilitarian manner, more will certainly benefit. Next, we need to free ourselves from aspire to need more and more, and consume more and more. This includes things like urban sprawl, food consumption, and excessive use of energy.

Additionally, as suggested by authors within environmental studies, investment in more efficient modes of transportation, more ways to deter over use of personal vehicles, and more smart growth within smaller areas of cities such as urban villages. I like seeing the four stage approach of a sustainable city of revitalizing central cities, development on transit-oriented locations, discouragement of urban sprawl, and extension of transit-systems (Vig, 247-551). Hopefully, these ideas and more can be nurtured and developed in order to improve our homes, communities, cities, and our nation, with the intentions of being adopted by other countries all over the globe. We must continue to innovate to invigorate.