While our collective awareness of how human activity has affected our planet continues to grow, there is considerable debate as how to proceed. Some call for drastic measures while many want more information. Yes, there is a lot of room for disagreement, but I believe we can all agree that there is still a great deal we don’t understand about our planet and its systems. In fact, I don’t believe we will possess enough knowledge to make an absolutely informed decision for several hundred years to come. However, if we heed the advice offered by the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”, despite our “analysis paralysis” this core principal that forms the basis of our insurance industry insists on the implementation of sustainable policies in order to fulfill this moral code.
Philosophically and technologically we possess the capabilities to realize a sustainable common future, but in the real world actions speak louder than words. By that I mean we simply need to look at actual behavior to determine intention. Is our government looking out for the least of us? From my vantage point it looks like big business has benefited the most from the current American political leadership. The uninsured and underinsured are growing, the middle class is shrinking, the environment continues to degrade and corporate profits are growing – all in response to government policies. In my book, sincere contrition for one’s past errors is best demonstrated through the immediate change in one’s behavior.
Another tactic that is not uncommon in our political culture is to punt the ball down the road and let the next guy worry about it. Similar to President Bush’s strategy toward Iraq, this tactic strives to let the next party in power take the political fallout for making the hard decisions. However, unlike most of us, you have the power to affect systemic changes now. Time is not on our side and such political tactics only contribute to the enormity of the problems we face while we wait for you to leave your offices. Remember, in a court of law ignorance is not a defense so you will be judged for you failure to take action.
One of the arguments politicians use to defend their actions is that CO2 is a global issue and requires everyone to act in order to be effective. Wrong! Leaders act first! You can’t control others, you can only control yourself. If our actions demonstrate the type of nation we are, what does our behavior say about us? Maybe the US government prefers dividing up the costs to address global warming by paying our percentage of total historical gas contributions? It sounds very fair to me, and also very expensive. Now is our chance to avoid the high cost of “fair” by investing into transforming our society and economy now! Through their inaction policy makers are leaving us morally vulnerable to taking responsibility for creating this environmental mess.
Then there’s the chicken and the egg argument for inaction that there is “no public support.” Unless I’m mistaken, I believe that one of the essential duties of a government is to look at the “big picture” issues as well as future threats and address them by educating the public and developing solutions. While our government attempted to deal with the inherent unsustainability of our energy supply by invading Iraq, this is at best a stop gap measure with no long-term benefit to the people of the United States, and has turned out not to even have a short-term benefit except to corporate interests.
Congressmen, Senators, Presidents, Parliamentarians, Prime Ministers, Kings and Queens, start doing your job -- no one said it was going to be easy.
On The Web
Grist
Environmental Issues served with a twist!
www.grist.org
World Changing
Tools, Models and Ideas for Building a Bright, Green Future
www.worldchanging.com
Showing posts with label population. Show all posts
Showing posts with label population. Show all posts
Monday, September 24, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
2½ Planets: Implications of Our Way of Life
What are the implications of scientists’ verdict that we currently consume the equivalent of 2 and half planets? Well, begin by imagining the Earth is a cruise ship with all 6.6 billion of us on board. If we consume the ship’s resources of food, water and fuel at the same rate humanity does today, by itself our ship will run out of food, fuel and water. In order to sustain the supply of resources, there would need to be at least another cruise ship and a half to keep up with our demands. And, since the ship represents our reality and not our ideals, half of all the available food, water and fuel is consumed by only 10% of the passengers.
Now, in order to include all 6.6 billion passengers equitably into our western standard of living, how many planets would we need? Five planets? Seven planets? The specific number is unimportant because any number larger than one is arguably suicidal. It also implies that in an already over-productive system we permit a constant underclass because our system cannot support 100% of us. Our system of providing for ourselves and our families does work for a percentage of the population, but it has not proven itself capable of providing for the entire population. So our faith in the system to rid the world of poverty by offering a job to everyone is a myth. Indeed, the world is mostly divvied up among a few and their successors will live comfortably. For the remainder, our fate is predetermined. And, what does this imply for our projected population of 9 billion by 2050? Poverty will grow and only a very small percentage will live in the comfort many of us do today. Is that fair? Is that the future we want?
Maybe the issue comes down to what we believe the purpose of life is. Does that mean treating others “humanly”? At a minimum that would suggest offering food to the hungry, water to the thirsty and shelter to the homeless. While this form of social security exists in small doses, it does not exist in the abundance necessary to meet current humanitarian needs. And, if it is as simple as “getting along with others” then with the growing intolerance of religious and political extremism we are headed in the opposite direction. What if our “success” in this life is not determined by what we have accumulated, but in how we treat others? We like to evangelize our ideals that we value life above all else, but our actions sadly reveal another story.
The future we dread of rampant poverty and wars over water and oil is rapidly approaching and quick action is needed to thwart it off. With every plan there is a time component of preparation and implementation. And, as time creeps by, so does the population continue to grow, resources continue to be over-consumed, the problems compound in complexity. And, if addressing the issues begin with a 10 year plan, that’s 10 years after the decision to implement and after we develop consensus to take action. But, remember, in a court of law, ignorance is not a defense -- to not choose is by default our choice.
One of the profound implications of sustainable systems is that among the many options and choices that are possible, we are choosing to limit our choices to only sustainable ones. In the United States which was founded on the ideas of liberty and personal freedom, this will be a tough pill for the American ego to swallow because it implies that we are limiting the scope of our freedom. But, isn’t that just another definition of responsibility? Maybe sustainable choices are part of an evolving civilization. Maybe the challenge we face is simply to grow up.
On The Web
Consumer Consequences
Play this game sponsored by American Public Media & see how many planets are needed to sustain 6.6 billion people that live like you!
www.consumerconsequences.org
Now, in order to include all 6.6 billion passengers equitably into our western standard of living, how many planets would we need? Five planets? Seven planets? The specific number is unimportant because any number larger than one is arguably suicidal. It also implies that in an already over-productive system we permit a constant underclass because our system cannot support 100% of us. Our system of providing for ourselves and our families does work for a percentage of the population, but it has not proven itself capable of providing for the entire population. So our faith in the system to rid the world of poverty by offering a job to everyone is a myth. Indeed, the world is mostly divvied up among a few and their successors will live comfortably. For the remainder, our fate is predetermined. And, what does this imply for our projected population of 9 billion by 2050? Poverty will grow and only a very small percentage will live in the comfort many of us do today. Is that fair? Is that the future we want?
Maybe the issue comes down to what we believe the purpose of life is. Does that mean treating others “humanly”? At a minimum that would suggest offering food to the hungry, water to the thirsty and shelter to the homeless. While this form of social security exists in small doses, it does not exist in the abundance necessary to meet current humanitarian needs. And, if it is as simple as “getting along with others” then with the growing intolerance of religious and political extremism we are headed in the opposite direction. What if our “success” in this life is not determined by what we have accumulated, but in how we treat others? We like to evangelize our ideals that we value life above all else, but our actions sadly reveal another story.
The future we dread of rampant poverty and wars over water and oil is rapidly approaching and quick action is needed to thwart it off. With every plan there is a time component of preparation and implementation. And, as time creeps by, so does the population continue to grow, resources continue to be over-consumed, the problems compound in complexity. And, if addressing the issues begin with a 10 year plan, that’s 10 years after the decision to implement and after we develop consensus to take action. But, remember, in a court of law, ignorance is not a defense -- to not choose is by default our choice.
One of the profound implications of sustainable systems is that among the many options and choices that are possible, we are choosing to limit our choices to only sustainable ones. In the United States which was founded on the ideas of liberty and personal freedom, this will be a tough pill for the American ego to swallow because it implies that we are limiting the scope of our freedom. But, isn’t that just another definition of responsibility? Maybe sustainable choices are part of an evolving civilization. Maybe the challenge we face is simply to grow up.
On The Web
Consumer Consequences
Play this game sponsored by American Public Media & see how many planets are needed to sustain 6.6 billion people that live like you!
www.consumerconsequences.org
Monday, September 10, 2007
Is China the World's Fool?
Wow! While China is definitely unique in our world’s history, the question of the moment is: to what end? Thousands of years of contiguous culture and history have added up to… this? Contaminated food products, recalled children’s toys laced with lead, contaminated rivers and what could be argued as slave labor? How the mighty have fallen! Now seemingly always a step behind the pack of “developed nations”, the latest incarnation of the People’s Republic of China seemingly makes it the worst of the worst, focusing on money and status rather than the historically noble pursuits of its culture such as scholarship and philosophy.
China has become the epitome of careless, capitalist behavior by ignoring our environment as well as its workers’ health and safety standards. Having once mocked the capitalist system, they now kowtow to their new God: Money. They have embraced the worst of capitalism – pure consumption for consumption’s sake and now prostitute the resources of both land and labor for the wealth and power of a few. If actions speak louder than words, then the PRC’s continued stance toward Taiwan and Tibet say enough, but their choice to support regimes of dubious intentions in their search for energy sources make them a more dangerous monster than the original! So, like Al Queda, it has become part of the problem – complaining about the world around it, but offering no new solution, only oppression and control.
It’s unfortunate, because China possesses the philosophical roots of social sustainability in its Confucian past. He believed the most effective government began with self-regulation of the individual -- an ideal that is both counter-intuitive and difficult to achieve, even here in America. Rather than trying to control people’s behavior, people must feel free enough to reveal their own brand or morality. Behavior will be moderated by natural social tensions where actions reap appropriate consequences rather than through legal regulation.
Unfortunately, there is no leadership coming from the country that constitutes almost 20% of the world’s population. While Chinese are among the brightest in the world and have a rich history to draw lessons from, they are also subject to the limitations of “Group Think” that they are so vulnerable. China is trapped by its collective ego -- forged from its past and controlling its future. I’m not sure if the Chinese put all their faith in authoritarian governmental styles because they fundamentally don’t trust each other or like an abused woman they constantly go back to the same abusive boyfriend – because it’s what they know. However, at this point if where we need to go is a 90% reduction in our global consumption of resources, any country not contributing to the solution is part of the problem.
From this corner of the world, if all China is offering is more of the same and our consumption behavior is the problem, they are part of the problem and unable to recognize the price they are paying in both resources and reputation. They are pursuing the same policy line as us – self-interest at the expense of less powerful countries – an unfortunate present, disconnected from its rich past. Oh well, I think it was considered an honored position to play the court’s fool…
China has become the epitome of careless, capitalist behavior by ignoring our environment as well as its workers’ health and safety standards. Having once mocked the capitalist system, they now kowtow to their new God: Money. They have embraced the worst of capitalism – pure consumption for consumption’s sake and now prostitute the resources of both land and labor for the wealth and power of a few. If actions speak louder than words, then the PRC’s continued stance toward Taiwan and Tibet say enough, but their choice to support regimes of dubious intentions in their search for energy sources make them a more dangerous monster than the original! So, like Al Queda, it has become part of the problem – complaining about the world around it, but offering no new solution, only oppression and control.
It’s unfortunate, because China possesses the philosophical roots of social sustainability in its Confucian past. He believed the most effective government began with self-regulation of the individual -- an ideal that is both counter-intuitive and difficult to achieve, even here in America. Rather than trying to control people’s behavior, people must feel free enough to reveal their own brand or morality. Behavior will be moderated by natural social tensions where actions reap appropriate consequences rather than through legal regulation.
Unfortunately, there is no leadership coming from the country that constitutes almost 20% of the world’s population. While Chinese are among the brightest in the world and have a rich history to draw lessons from, they are also subject to the limitations of “Group Think” that they are so vulnerable. China is trapped by its collective ego -- forged from its past and controlling its future. I’m not sure if the Chinese put all their faith in authoritarian governmental styles because they fundamentally don’t trust each other or like an abused woman they constantly go back to the same abusive boyfriend – because it’s what they know. However, at this point if where we need to go is a 90% reduction in our global consumption of resources, any country not contributing to the solution is part of the problem.
From this corner of the world, if all China is offering is more of the same and our consumption behavior is the problem, they are part of the problem and unable to recognize the price they are paying in both resources and reputation. They are pursuing the same policy line as us – self-interest at the expense of less powerful countries – an unfortunate present, disconnected from its rich past. Oh well, I think it was considered an honored position to play the court’s fool…
Monday, July 2, 2007
The Sustainability Puzzle
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
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
Monday, May 21, 2007
The Sustainability Puzzle: The Cornerstone is the Home
In trying to solve problems, sometimes I find it useful to picture in my head the end result so that I can more clearly define the goals and objectives as well as the practical steps needed to achieve them. In considering the sustainability puzzle I ask myself what are the inevitable components that will make up a sustainable world? Ideally it will be a world without poverty and this implies that no one will lack food, clothing and shelter. Even though its is not distributed equitably, today the world produces enough food and clothing for everyone, so I want to focus on the issue of shelter.
The concept of the sustainability puzzle is simple, but complicated by the number of people involved. Simply put, the challenge is for the Earth’s population to utilize its resources in a way that does not deprive the many future generations of their fair share. In the context of housing, the challenge is framed around resources including materials, construction labor and energy requirements over the lifetime of the house. Now, the nature of this challenge is not a technical one, it is a design challenge of organizing the pieces in a replicable way – an easier challenge than going to Mars and arguably more urgent.
The architectural challenge is to design a home that achieves at least the following objectives:
LEED Platinum Efficiency: This is the highest efficiency rating thus far established by the US Green Building Council and is primarily conquered in the design phase. While terms such as LEED are known by “green conscious” builders in the United States, the objectives and methodology should be integrated into the design for those who do not even know the term. Let’s just say that this is a minimal efficiency standard that should be achieved in a sustainable design.
Owner Built: Benjamin Franklin offered us advice that endures time. “A penny saved is a penny earned.” And so too building one’s own house makes the home as a foundation of sustainability more affordable and therefore in the reach of more people. To achieve this goal the design implication is that the house must be easy to assemble and here lies an opportunity for innovation. Just as IKEA simplified the furniture assembly process through a few innovative gadgets, so too should a house be designed so that it becomes more of an assembly process rather than a construction process. The building material is also an important factor. I’m a big fan of strawbale construction and one reason is that as a material it aesthetically forgiving and the large building blocks make the building process more intuitive.
Modular Design: Part and parcel to the principal of designing a house that can be owner built is also one that can be built in pieces and contains components that can be added. This makes the construction process more affordable as it can be accomplished on a “pay as you go” basis. For example, the house I plan to build is purposely designed in a “U” shape so that one half can be built first to provide the essential core of the home, a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen, and more living area can be added at a later date as money permits.
Sustainable Materials: The LEED rating system takes the type of material into account, but on a global scale, we need to get away from many of the energy intense materials that we currently are accustomed to. While strawbale may not be the panacea for all locations, it is a sustainable material in that it is an agricultural byproduct that can be supplied locally and is therefore very affordable. Furthermore, it has a high insular value that reduces energy inputs. While cob construction is an alternative, the shear weight of the material would seem to become a barrier to many.
Open Source Design Concept: The designs should be open and available to everyone for free if we truly want everyone to reduce energy use and achieve a minimal standard of living. While this flies against the current practice of architects creating unique designs individualized for the homebuilder, this is a cost that can’t be afforded by most.
House in a Box: If there are a few core designs, component kits could be sold to further lower costs and make the building process that much easier. These vital components include pipes, floor radiant heating tubing, nails, water barrier paper, electrical wires, switches and plugs, solar panels, faucets and even toilets and sinks. But don’t be deceived by the word “kit”, in all likelihood these would be delivered to the home assembly site on a pallet!
A sustainable design will definitely require a great deal of “out of the box” thinking to achieve these goals and possibly more. A truly integrated design will also take into account the surrounding landscape and could include an edible garden to further empower the homeowners and lessen the overall burden on transported goods. While there are definitely other pieces that make up the sustainability puzzle, I believe the long-term sustainability begins with a well-designed and practical house. I hope that architects will take on this challenge that could truly form the basis of our sustainable future.
The concept of the sustainability puzzle is simple, but complicated by the number of people involved. Simply put, the challenge is for the Earth’s population to utilize its resources in a way that does not deprive the many future generations of their fair share. In the context of housing, the challenge is framed around resources including materials, construction labor and energy requirements over the lifetime of the house. Now, the nature of this challenge is not a technical one, it is a design challenge of organizing the pieces in a replicable way – an easier challenge than going to Mars and arguably more urgent.
The architectural challenge is to design a home that achieves at least the following objectives:
LEED Platinum Efficiency: This is the highest efficiency rating thus far established by the US Green Building Council and is primarily conquered in the design phase. While terms such as LEED are known by “green conscious” builders in the United States, the objectives and methodology should be integrated into the design for those who do not even know the term. Let’s just say that this is a minimal efficiency standard that should be achieved in a sustainable design.
Owner Built: Benjamin Franklin offered us advice that endures time. “A penny saved is a penny earned.” And so too building one’s own house makes the home as a foundation of sustainability more affordable and therefore in the reach of more people. To achieve this goal the design implication is that the house must be easy to assemble and here lies an opportunity for innovation. Just as IKEA simplified the furniture assembly process through a few innovative gadgets, so too should a house be designed so that it becomes more of an assembly process rather than a construction process. The building material is also an important factor. I’m a big fan of strawbale construction and one reason is that as a material it aesthetically forgiving and the large building blocks make the building process more intuitive.
Modular Design: Part and parcel to the principal of designing a house that can be owner built is also one that can be built in pieces and contains components that can be added. This makes the construction process more affordable as it can be accomplished on a “pay as you go” basis. For example, the house I plan to build is purposely designed in a “U” shape so that one half can be built first to provide the essential core of the home, a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen, and more living area can be added at a later date as money permits.
Sustainable Materials: The LEED rating system takes the type of material into account, but on a global scale, we need to get away from many of the energy intense materials that we currently are accustomed to. While strawbale may not be the panacea for all locations, it is a sustainable material in that it is an agricultural byproduct that can be supplied locally and is therefore very affordable. Furthermore, it has a high insular value that reduces energy inputs. While cob construction is an alternative, the shear weight of the material would seem to become a barrier to many.
Open Source Design Concept: The designs should be open and available to everyone for free if we truly want everyone to reduce energy use and achieve a minimal standard of living. While this flies against the current practice of architects creating unique designs individualized for the homebuilder, this is a cost that can’t be afforded by most.
House in a Box: If there are a few core designs, component kits could be sold to further lower costs and make the building process that much easier. These vital components include pipes, floor radiant heating tubing, nails, water barrier paper, electrical wires, switches and plugs, solar panels, faucets and even toilets and sinks. But don’t be deceived by the word “kit”, in all likelihood these would be delivered to the home assembly site on a pallet!
A sustainable design will definitely require a great deal of “out of the box” thinking to achieve these goals and possibly more. A truly integrated design will also take into account the surrounding landscape and could include an edible garden to further empower the homeowners and lessen the overall burden on transported goods. While there are definitely other pieces that make up the sustainability puzzle, I believe the long-term sustainability begins with a well-designed and practical house. I hope that architects will take on this challenge that could truly form the basis of our sustainable future.
Monday, April 16, 2007
The Rising Tide of 5 Billion Others
This past week I attended the 6th Annual Municipal Green Building Conference & Expo in Los Angeles. While much of the material presented was not surprising as it is a reflection of a market response to the environmental problems we face, there were a few notable comments. In his keynote address, Rick Fedrizzi, CEO of the US Green Building Council warned of dire problems facing the world because of rising industrialization and consumer demand around the world, especially in India and China. He seemed to recognize the limitations of a consumer-based market response to this rising crisis.
While counter-intuitive to the realities of our modern world, the quickest and most direct way of addressing humanity’s continued contribution to the environmental problems that plague us is to change our consumption patterns. The global warming crisis offers us a unique opportunity to redefine this fundamental economic pattern, especially in the 5 billion “others” that do not share in its fruits. In fact, I believe it is morally incumbent upon those who possess the technical “know-how” to offer a common-interest solution for those who live hand to mouth, especially when the luxury of such knowledge is beyond their reach.
How can we avoid the tidal wave of consumption and industrialization that is coming? I think the answer lies in some common sense tactics. Most importantly, it should be a “solution in a box” approach. By that I mean the pieces of the sustainable living puzzle should be thought out and organized in such a way that, first, it is easy for an average person to do and, second, it can be done on a massive scale. I believe the characteristics of a solution include the following:
1. Affordable Homes: No one goes out wanting to destroy the planet. Our environmental devastation is a result of people simply trying to fulfill basic needs such as shelter for them and their family. A home that is truly affordable for everyone will have to be based on a simple and easy, owner-built system. To make such a home sustainable on a massive scale, it must also be energy and resource wise. A straw bale construction system would seem to fit this need.
2. Local Communities: The most affordable system to provide social services is to support a strategy that includes strong communities, neighborhoods and local self-government. The Israeli kibbutz offers a practical model. Organized on communal property, the kibbutz sustains itself economically through communal farming and/or business ventures.
3. Internet Based Commerce: Our transportation system is a major contributor to our environmental problems. A sustainable future will rely not on a “brick and mortar” based economy, but on an intellectual economy of ideas and services that can be mostly exchanged over the internet.
4. Education: Perhaps it is naïve to say, but it is possible to change the world in 12 years through education. A sustainable economy mandates 100% literacy so that people can build their own houses, self-govern and conduct business over the internet. The MIT laptop program is a practical program that will support the educational system necessary for a sustainable, internet-based economy. Education is also the key to confronting the challenges of population growth
5. Light Rail Transportation Network: Light rail is a sustainable transportation system in both its use of resources as well as its ability to create corridors of human activity to lessen humanity’s footprint on the environment. The power of such a network is in its unique ability to brings together isolated communities to form “metro-communities” numbering anywhere form a hundred thousand on up. While this is the most expensive piece of the sustainability puzzle, there are several “out-of-the-box” ideas for reducing and funding construction costs that are beyond the scope of this commentary. However, such infrastructure does provides a focus for public resources, especially when governments are looking for specific measures to attack both global warming and poverty.
While this vision may seem distant and unrealizable, there are working examples that exist today. At the Green Building Conference I had the privilege of meeting Ali Sahabi (SE Corporation) who designed and constructed an eco-village in Corona, California. While it is principally a market-based response to our environmental problems, it offers a visible template of practical concepts that can and should be implemented on a massive scale. Several people questioned the green-ness of the concept that requires people to travel to and from the village by car. Mr. Sahabi noted that the master plan includes an easement for light rail, because It is not a question of ‘if’, but ’when’ our economy will mandate the use of public transportation.
While it is good that the green movement is now sexy and has market appeal, the rising tide of consumption mandates immediate and practical solutions to fend off its inevitable impact on the environment. I was surprised to hear comments suggesting we need a revolution to truly address the global warming challenge. While those comments echo my personal thoughts, its doubtful that such a revolution will begin in the developed world because those who feel they have something to lose usually resist change, while those who have nothing to lose welcome it. I believe the meek will inherit the Earth and the 5 billion others can show the rest of us how to live a happier, more fulfilling and sustainable lives.
On The Web
One Laptop Per Child
http://www.laptop.org/
Ex-generals: Global Warming Threatens U.S. Security
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/15/warming.military.ap/index.html
While counter-intuitive to the realities of our modern world, the quickest and most direct way of addressing humanity’s continued contribution to the environmental problems that plague us is to change our consumption patterns. The global warming crisis offers us a unique opportunity to redefine this fundamental economic pattern, especially in the 5 billion “others” that do not share in its fruits. In fact, I believe it is morally incumbent upon those who possess the technical “know-how” to offer a common-interest solution for those who live hand to mouth, especially when the luxury of such knowledge is beyond their reach.
How can we avoid the tidal wave of consumption and industrialization that is coming? I think the answer lies in some common sense tactics. Most importantly, it should be a “solution in a box” approach. By that I mean the pieces of the sustainable living puzzle should be thought out and organized in such a way that, first, it is easy for an average person to do and, second, it can be done on a massive scale. I believe the characteristics of a solution include the following:
1. Affordable Homes: No one goes out wanting to destroy the planet. Our environmental devastation is a result of people simply trying to fulfill basic needs such as shelter for them and their family. A home that is truly affordable for everyone will have to be based on a simple and easy, owner-built system. To make such a home sustainable on a massive scale, it must also be energy and resource wise. A straw bale construction system would seem to fit this need.
2. Local Communities: The most affordable system to provide social services is to support a strategy that includes strong communities, neighborhoods and local self-government. The Israeli kibbutz offers a practical model. Organized on communal property, the kibbutz sustains itself economically through communal farming and/or business ventures.
3. Internet Based Commerce: Our transportation system is a major contributor to our environmental problems. A sustainable future will rely not on a “brick and mortar” based economy, but on an intellectual economy of ideas and services that can be mostly exchanged over the internet.
4. Education: Perhaps it is naïve to say, but it is possible to change the world in 12 years through education. A sustainable economy mandates 100% literacy so that people can build their own houses, self-govern and conduct business over the internet. The MIT laptop program is a practical program that will support the educational system necessary for a sustainable, internet-based economy. Education is also the key to confronting the challenges of population growth
5. Light Rail Transportation Network: Light rail is a sustainable transportation system in both its use of resources as well as its ability to create corridors of human activity to lessen humanity’s footprint on the environment. The power of such a network is in its unique ability to brings together isolated communities to form “metro-communities” numbering anywhere form a hundred thousand on up. While this is the most expensive piece of the sustainability puzzle, there are several “out-of-the-box” ideas for reducing and funding construction costs that are beyond the scope of this commentary. However, such infrastructure does provides a focus for public resources, especially when governments are looking for specific measures to attack both global warming and poverty.
While this vision may seem distant and unrealizable, there are working examples that exist today. At the Green Building Conference I had the privilege of meeting Ali Sahabi (SE Corporation) who designed and constructed an eco-village in Corona, California. While it is principally a market-based response to our environmental problems, it offers a visible template of practical concepts that can and should be implemented on a massive scale. Several people questioned the green-ness of the concept that requires people to travel to and from the village by car. Mr. Sahabi noted that the master plan includes an easement for light rail, because It is not a question of ‘if’, but ’when’ our economy will mandate the use of public transportation.
While it is good that the green movement is now sexy and has market appeal, the rising tide of consumption mandates immediate and practical solutions to fend off its inevitable impact on the environment. I was surprised to hear comments suggesting we need a revolution to truly address the global warming challenge. While those comments echo my personal thoughts, its doubtful that such a revolution will begin in the developed world because those who feel they have something to lose usually resist change, while those who have nothing to lose welcome it. I believe the meek will inherit the Earth and the 5 billion others can show the rest of us how to live a happier, more fulfilling and sustainable lives.
On The Web
One Laptop Per Child
http://www.laptop.org/
Ex-generals: Global Warming Threatens U.S. Security
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/15/warming.military.ap/index.html
Monday, April 2, 2007
Morality and Our New Reality
Have you ever repeated a word to yourself enough times to the point where it becomes unfamiliar and sounds strange? Well, ever since the election of the current American President the term “morality” has been flung all over the place to the point that I wasn’t sure to what it actually referred. So, what is morality? I went and asked my reliable and impartial friend, the American Heritage Dictionary, who describes morality as “a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct.” Makes sense, but then I wondered: does this term that holds a great deal of historical baggage reflect our modern realities?
The world is arguably overpopulated for our current economic system. If the United States needs to consume a quarter of the world’s resources in order to maintain its standard of living in a day and age where that consumption and economic activity itself are the cause of our environmental problems, the end result seems to be an unsustainable system and one with many holes in it to boot. From this perspective, I think it’s fair to ask: is it moral to have more than two children? While no obvious solution to our economic and environmental problems readily presents itself, there are things we each can individually control and do to contribute to the solution; we can limit the size of our families to control future demands. This isn’t to say that we can never grow beyond today’s population, but rather that for now it is prudent to control our demands until we find and implement sustainable solutions.
While addressing family size can resolve issues of future and growing consumption, it does not address the morality of current consumption. This raises the next question: Is it moral to consume more than your share? Just because you can doesn’t mean it is. While most will probably declare that it’s “not my problem,” I can honestly say that on this ship called “Earth” that when I take resources for myself and my family, I am also taking the away from both other people future generations. Resources ARE limited. Just because you choose not to recognize it does not mean that it isn’t so nor does it alter the morality of your consumption.
In my mind those are the “BIG” issues, but the question of morality lurks everywhere. Government, for example, sets laws that become part of our moral determination. One of the underlying themes of our legal tradition is that it is wrong to abuse power. As an example, minors are treated uniquely under the law. Why? Because they lack knowledge and experience that can make them targets of manipulation by more experienced adults. This is a good concept, but is not applied universally. If we look at the American legal and tax codes, both are beyond the comprehension of most Americans. We require specialists to interpret these codes and failure to have competent representation can alter our lives. Isn’t this an abuse of power? It seems that, more and more, language is used to confuse and manipulate. Unless the language of these codes is comprehensible to all they affect, it would seem government’s efforts in these areas are both disingenuous and immoral.
I don’t think the question is whether the tern encompasses our new found reality, but whether people acknowledge our reality and can find the will-power to act in a “moral” way when that direction is counter to the trends of our modern society. Traditionally people have looked to their leaders for guidance, but unfortunately neither wealth nor power are indicators of wisdom. Consumption of goods and resources beyond one’s basic comfort and needs can easily be argued to be immoral, but in a day and age where our leadership addresses economic problems by calling on its citizenry to consume more, any practical resolution of the problems that face the world seems to be doomed from the start :-(
On the Web
How Ethical Is My Baby?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/how_ethical_is_my_baby.html
The Optimum Population trust
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/index.html
The world is arguably overpopulated for our current economic system. If the United States needs to consume a quarter of the world’s resources in order to maintain its standard of living in a day and age where that consumption and economic activity itself are the cause of our environmental problems, the end result seems to be an unsustainable system and one with many holes in it to boot. From this perspective, I think it’s fair to ask: is it moral to have more than two children? While no obvious solution to our economic and environmental problems readily presents itself, there are things we each can individually control and do to contribute to the solution; we can limit the size of our families to control future demands. This isn’t to say that we can never grow beyond today’s population, but rather that for now it is prudent to control our demands until we find and implement sustainable solutions.
While addressing family size can resolve issues of future and growing consumption, it does not address the morality of current consumption. This raises the next question: Is it moral to consume more than your share? Just because you can doesn’t mean it is. While most will probably declare that it’s “not my problem,” I can honestly say that on this ship called “Earth” that when I take resources for myself and my family, I am also taking the away from both other people future generations. Resources ARE limited. Just because you choose not to recognize it does not mean that it isn’t so nor does it alter the morality of your consumption.
In my mind those are the “BIG” issues, but the question of morality lurks everywhere. Government, for example, sets laws that become part of our moral determination. One of the underlying themes of our legal tradition is that it is wrong to abuse power. As an example, minors are treated uniquely under the law. Why? Because they lack knowledge and experience that can make them targets of manipulation by more experienced adults. This is a good concept, but is not applied universally. If we look at the American legal and tax codes, both are beyond the comprehension of most Americans. We require specialists to interpret these codes and failure to have competent representation can alter our lives. Isn’t this an abuse of power? It seems that, more and more, language is used to confuse and manipulate. Unless the language of these codes is comprehensible to all they affect, it would seem government’s efforts in these areas are both disingenuous and immoral.
I don’t think the question is whether the tern encompasses our new found reality, but whether people acknowledge our reality and can find the will-power to act in a “moral” way when that direction is counter to the trends of our modern society. Traditionally people have looked to their leaders for guidance, but unfortunately neither wealth nor power are indicators of wisdom. Consumption of goods and resources beyond one’s basic comfort and needs can easily be argued to be immoral, but in a day and age where our leadership addresses economic problems by calling on its citizenry to consume more, any practical resolution of the problems that face the world seems to be doomed from the start :-(
On the Web
How Ethical Is My Baby?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/how_ethical_is_my_baby.html
The Optimum Population trust
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
