skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I’ve been working on a presentation on sustainability and I was staring at the “sustainability graphic” and had some interesting epiphanies – at least for me. In general the graphic communicates our current perception of sustainability and thus also offers us some valuable insights. While it visually demonstrates the relationship of the social, environment and economic spheres, it is also hinting at what sustainable solutions will look like.
The most glaring message of the graphic is that sustainable solutions are a subset of our current knowledge. While we don’t know everything, from our experience we have gained quite a knowledge base of economic, environmental and social knowledge. Sustainability basically puts the lens of long term thinking on the options available to us and eliminates those options that do not take our long term interests into account. What remains is not “new” knowledge, but existing knowledge that supports society’s goals.The graphic reveals another truth – sustainable solutions will exist in all three spheres. One of the ways our modern knowledge has developed is by dividing the fields of interest. Sustainable solutions, however, will contain elements of all spheres and will contradict our current perception of specialties. This makes sense, because these solutions focus on efficiency rather than the sprawling patchwork of systems that make up our modern life today. For example, we think of shelter as serving the social sphere. In a sustainable system, the home may become the centerpiece of the economic system because with the internet it can become the kernel of small home or community based businesses. Likewise, a sustainable home also becomes part of the environmental solution in its zero-energy use.
The graphic also visualizes the change ahead of us. The solutions do exist, but much of what we accept as normal today is also unsustainable. The inevitable truth is that systems will change and shrink. In order to achieve sustainability we will each have to “give up” some of what we take for granted today. For example, while cars are synonymous with individual freedom and expression, they have also been devastating to both the environment and human health. Mobility, however, is the trademark of our modern life. A practical, user-friendly but public mobility and transportation system will have to be implemented in order to get us where we need to be.
The graphic also acknowledges that sustainable solutions will be “different” from the current norm. What is considered “fringe” now may be part of the solution. For example, perma-culture has a strange title and may seem mystical or nebulous, but it’s actually a very practical approach to achieving permanent agricultural systems through land management techniques. I don’t believe anyone is anti-environment, but human nature is to resist what is unfamiliar. Our challenge is to clarify our social objectives and choose smarter ways of achieving them.
In addition to the “sustainability puzzle” I’ve made frequent reference to “our common future” throughout this Blog. What do I mean by this phrase, why is our future common and why is it important? Well, to put it as simply as possible, while we emphasize our differences in color, race, sex, religion and language, we have more in common than we have differences. While we achieve many things in our individual lives, our single greatest legacy is what we leave our children. And, a reasonable question to ask is: have we contributed more to their problems (bad) or to their solutions (good)? It’s important to recognize our common future because I believe we have arrived at a time of choice with the power to choose between creating a world of our dreams or one made of our most dreaded fears.
Like rivaling high school football teams from the same town, its human nature to rally around and support those you have an immediate connection with. These self created divisions usually disappear when the spotlight is focused on larger community interests. Likewise, technology has made our world smaller and increased our understanding of how interconnected we are with our environment. “We’re in this boat together” and “No man is an island” are all clichés that apply to the realities of life upon this one earth. And, the world today is a complete international economic system where many benefit from the misfortune of others. In the past it was much easier to ignore the harsh realities that many in our family of humanity face every day. But, today with camera phones and the internet, to further deny the problems and not commit to actively resolve them pushes the meaning of irresponsible to new heights.
If you argue that the “science isn’t in” then we do both agree that no one wants to harm the environment we inhabit. But, that argument equally argues that the science permitting us to continue our indiscriminant abuse of our environment is also not in because they are one and the same science. The only rational option is to stop the presses as much as we can and proceed in ways we know contribute to our environment’s health. The key word is rational. How many adults do you know receive a bill in the mail and hide it unopened? This child-like behavior doesn’t make the problem go away and it usually gets worse with time.
Whether we recognize it or not, the stakes have gotten higher and will continue with increasing population and environmental stress. While its been said that with great power comes great responsibility, power is not just of the military kind, there is also economic power and its power to affect our environment. Serious leadership is needed to right this ship before we run ashore. Presently our policies are dictated to a large degree by our past history where religion, language and geographies have been paramount. Just as these differences can contribute to a diversity of thought that can enrich and strengthen our creative responses, they can also continue to divide us into squabbling groups of children who don’t offer the respect they expect from others.
So, what are we trying to create? If it is simply to consume resources and make stuff, then we’re making headway. But, if our pursuit is happiness, then we’re spinning our wheels. If happiness results from liking yourself and from healthy relationships with others, we have not created systems conducive toward that end. Ultimately our own safety rests in the security of our fellow man and so a huge incentive to deal with the “big issue” of sustainability is our own self-interest. But more importantly, we can do better and should do better. Remember: who we are now (both individually and as a society) is the sum of our choices. To change who we are, we must also change our choices -- starting now. Who knows what will happen -- this story has yet to fully play itself out.
In concept, the idea behind these presidential debates sponsored by CNN and YouTube is intriguing because of the way it democratizes the debate process. Ideally, they have the potential of injecting new questions and under-discussed topics into the public discourse. However, depending on the questions selected, they could also turn out to be standard debates asking standard questions built on novel user videos and YouTube hype. Hoping for the best, I submitted my video question.
Do you think it’s immoral for 5% of the world’s population to consume over 25% of its resources? And, as President, what will you do to lead us to a sustainable future?
First and foremost, I’m asking these questions because I really want to know the answers. I truly believe that creating a sustainable future is the single most important challenge facing humanity today, but it is only discussed on the sidelines. While a sustainable future should be everyone’s top priority, it isn’t because of lack of both interest and awareness. I understand that its human nature to think our individual actions can’t affect such a large world especially when most of us are focused on own daily struggle to stay “above water.” However, these debates offer an opportunity to start changing that mindset by educating the public about the issues we face and their urgency.
Secondly, I wanted to challenge the candidates. I didn’t want to ask a standard debate question because those usually have pre-determined answers and rarely give additional insight to who the candidate is or how they think. Sustainability is a “big picture” question because it involves long-term thinking – a quality seriously lacking in our current planning and desperately needed in our next president. So I’m hoping my question will provoke unrehearsed responses, reveal the “big thinkers” and maybe even trip up a few of them. ;-)
Finally, I wanted to bring the issue of morality into the question since it’s been a buzzword in recent elections. I personally feel like the term was introduced to polarize the electorate and believe it hasn’t served us well because it has tended to push urgent and important issues to the wayside. Sustainability, however, ultimately relates to the very moral issues of how we treat one another both now and in the future. So I’m trying to point the morality finger at ourselves and see if we have matured enough as a society to admit our own mistakes and failures. In a way this is a litmus test on our dedication to moral behavior: Is it a term of political convenience or of our guiding convictions?
I recently heard this: Our hopes minus our doubts equal our reality. While this may be true for an individual, I think it is equally true for society as a whole. I don’t think I’m alone in hoping that this is not as good as it gets -- that a better future lays ahead. But, that hope also implies a change from where we are now to what we hope to become. Whereas we have largely stumbled into our present, a change to a sustainable future will only result from our conscious choice and good leadership. My hope is that this question will contribute to the public’s awareness of the issues we face and begin a dialogue on our common future.
Follow Up
Tommie Thompson Responds to my Question at the ABC Republican Debate
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3452217
My Response to Tommie Thompson's Answer
http://ugv.abcnews.go.com/player.aspx?id=577754
Related Links
CNN/YouTube Debates
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/14/the-skinny-on-cnn-youtubes-presidential-debates/
Submit a Video Question
http://www.youtube.com/debates
Throughout this Blog I’ve often referred to something I call the “Sustainability Puzzle.” In this entry I’d like to explain more clearly what I mean by this concept. If we look at the world as a whole, how people live their lives and earn a living, scientists estimate we currently need at least 2 and a half planets to “sustain” the systems we’ve created that support the way we live -- and that is with at least half the planet in poverty. In short, I believe we can do better.
The first question to ask is what do we mean by sustainability? Well, one way to look at it is from the American Indian perspective. In their decision making process, many tribes would think in terms of how their decisions and actions would affect the seven generations that followed them – not wanting to negatively impact their opportunities through short-sighted choices. Today some refer to this socio-economic goal as “intergenerational equity”--I prefer to keep it simple and call it "being responsible." While integrating such a long-view perspective into our modern world would have wide ranging implications -- from the food we eat to how we produce power, from how we transport goods to how we build our homes and communities – it’s more important to face the facts: we are consuming our children’s resources and not living within our means.
So, why is it a puzzle? First, I truly believe it’s possible to sustain everyone and not diminish our modern comforts. In fact, I believe a truly sustainable system can raise the standard of living for the majority of people in the world. And, the ability to achieve this does not lay in some distant technology of the future, but in common sense solutions that already exist. In order to be sustainable, we will need to consume fewer resources than we currently do now. The “puzzle” part is re-organizing these elements in a way to achieve a system that everyone can benefit. The internet will be a key component of the solution because it can replace much of the brick and mortar infrastructure that has evolved to form our marketplaces. But, the internet can do the same virtually and more cheaply, while allowing greater access and less environmental impact through web pages, virtual presence and VoIP technologies.
My sister told me a story this week that I’d like to share with you because I think it demonstrates the predicament we face today. One day a storm came to a village and the rain started falling. A man of great faith looked out his window and saw the streets flooding and climbed to his roof. He prayed to God to save him as the waters continued to rise. Well, later that day a man approached in a canoe and asked him if he would like a ride. The man of great faith declined the offer knowing that God would save him. A little while later, someone else came by in a row boat and again offered a lift to the man on the roof top and again he said no because God was going to save him. The waters continued to rise and the man continued to pray and a little while later a motorboat came by offering him a ride. The man with great faith turned down the offer knowing that God would save him. Well, the waters kept rising and eventually he drowned. When he arrived in heaven he stood before God and asked him “Why didn’t you save me?” God replied, “I sent you three boats! What more was I supposed to do!”
The solutions to save our world are here. Our challenge is to recognize the pieces of the puzzle and start building a sustainable world that we can all enjoy.
Additional Reading:
Behind Consumption and Consumerism
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption.asp
