When it comes to sustainable practices, strategies and encouraging sustainable behaviors, I think a lot can be learned from water resource management. As I've read through Chapter 5 of Roseland one thing I've noticed is that instead of it describing strategies that could be put into place to improve the water resources or resource management of a community, it mostly talks about a myriad of examples of solutions that have been implemented. So since I'm prone to ask "why" when I notice something that deviates successfully from the norm, I of course began to wonder why it is that there seems to be so much more involvement, especially in the form of municipal and government incentives (both positive and negative), in improving the sustainability of how we use, treat, and conserve water.
My best guess is that water is more tangible. There are far fewer steps that most people need to see in order to understand how unsustainable water resource management can adversely affect them and their families and communities than for other sustainability issues. Everyone wants clean water and they aren't afraid to make sure that their elected representatives know it. This results in more actual and immediate action by the (US) government at large for improving water systems. Unfortunately, while this might be getting more done for improving water systems for those of us lucky enough to have governments that can and want to do something about it, what it doesn't help with is the issue of poor water quality and rampant water pollution in developing countries. So it's nice to see that many of the larger humitarian organizations such as the World Bank and UNICEF (See the UNICEF video about water issues in Africa below.) have specific water resource strategies and focuses, but certainly more can be done.
But I digress. Besides the fact that I think developing countries should be first in line for new innovations in water treatment and management, I think that maybe we should try to model other strategies regarding sustainable practices on how water resource and treatment has been approached, especially concerning adoption and getting buy-in from the general public. Because it seems like things are actually getting done with water resource management, and any sustainable strategy that we can look to as a model of success seems like a good model to pick apart and use in other areas.
So, how do we bring other sustainability issues out into the light so that they are viewed as more direct and immediate concerns by the population and governments of the world? People don't like to be brow-beaten; even if it is for a good cause. Someone out there has got to have some new and brilliant ideas. Let's hear 'em.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Worm Food
As part of my Sustainable Communities class this semester, I've been tasked with coming up with a personal sustainability project. My plan for this is to explore the options available to me for setting up a composting/vermi-composting system. From the research that I've done thusfar, I'm leaning towards doing the vermi-composting as that will give me a continuing compost throughout the year that will be independent of weather constraints. There are others in my class who currently already have this kind of system so I am hoping to gain the crucial element (worms) from one of them versus having to try to find my own via some form of sketchy back alley worm salesman.
I face a few barriers in being able to do this successfully:
1.) Convincing my roommate to participate in or at least tolerate my doing this.
2.) I don't want to build a quick and easy system only to want to replace it with something nicer and better in 6 months. So I need to research and determine the best, most durable, and most effective system to use the first time around.
3.) I must resign myself to being responsible (even if it's just to a tiny degree) for keeping something else alive and fed. (Hopefully this one won't be too hard.)
I face a few barriers in being able to do this successfully:
1.) Convincing my roommate to participate in or at least tolerate my doing this.
2.) I don't want to build a quick and easy system only to want to replace it with something nicer and better in 6 months. So I need to research and determine the best, most durable, and most effective system to use the first time around.
3.) I must resign myself to being responsible (even if it's just to a tiny degree) for keeping something else alive and fed. (Hopefully this one won't be too hard.)
Monday, September 12, 2011
Alternative Sources... of Motivation
Chapter 3 of Roseland talks about various ways to use community policy, as determined by the government, to help encourage development of sustainable practices amongst citizens and businesses within a community. I also recently commented in response to Jennifer G's post, in which I suggested that getting everyone in the world to hold hands and sing the praises of sustainability isn't the most realistic or viable approach to actually accomplishing a sustainable planet and society. Let's assume (which seems pretty reasonable) that we can't convince the people of the world, en masse, to live sustainably by appealing to their morality and getting them to actually CARE (please see my comment for more detail as to my thoughts on this) about sustainability. So if an epoch of enlightenment isn't anywhere in humanity's immediate future, what can be done to at least start pushing us towards a sustainable existence?
We trick people.
Part of why people/businesses choose not to act or spend money in a way that is sustainable or environmentally responsible is because there is generally a premium that must be paid in order to do so. That premium can be financial or convenience-related or both. Recycling is a common example of this.
My suggestion is that we make the cost of not acting in a sustainable manner so high that people "voluntarily" choose to do so because it is easier, cheaper and less hassle than the alternative. To a degree, this is already being done in some places. There are cities (Bloomington, IN is among them) that don't charge for recycling but instead, charge for trash pickup based on the amount of trash to be hauled away. So you separate out your recycling, buy things that don't come with excess packaging and as a result have much less trash. Less trash means less that you have to pay to have that trash removed. This solution also gives people the ability to be less thoughtful about how to deal with their waste (See, all freedom of choice is still intact) but they will be the ones who bear a larger burden of dealing with that waste as well. For this to work most effectively, revenue gained from these programs should be only used to improve trash processing and recycling programs within a community and not just thrown into the general community pot to be split up and parceled out based on some politician or bureaucrat's whim.
One strategy that would likely make this type of program more successful as far as the number of people who choose to participate would be to make the cost of non-participation even higher than it already is. If the government were to turn all highways into toll roads and increase the tax on gasoline to the point that a gallon costs $10, people are going to be much more careful about when they choose to drive and what activities they choose to utilize motor vehicles for. I would personally love to see the price of gas at closer to $10/gallon for this very reason. Nothing spawns innovation and new technology like trying to find alternatives for what we have decided is too costly.
"But wait a second, Scott," you might say as you tentatively raise your hand, "There's a hole in your logic."
That's true, there is: If we can't assume an ideal world of everyone agreeing that sustainability is one of the most important goals and acting to accomplish that goal, we can't assume that a government has the best interest of its people or world in mind either. But as has been shown many times throughout our species' sordid history, governments are much more pliant in being steered towards whatever the specific purpose of the day is than is the entire world population.
So call your representatives and elected officials (two or three times) and make yourself heard. It's amazing the small number of squeaky wheels it takes to get things moving. It's definitely not the only or best method for working towards saving the world, but it IS a method and it couldn't hurt. And if you have a best friend who happens to be the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, call her up and ask her to swing her weight around a little.
We trick people.
Part of why people/businesses choose not to act or spend money in a way that is sustainable or environmentally responsible is because there is generally a premium that must be paid in order to do so. That premium can be financial or convenience-related or both. Recycling is a common example of this.
My suggestion is that we make the cost of not acting in a sustainable manner so high that people "voluntarily" choose to do so because it is easier, cheaper and less hassle than the alternative. To a degree, this is already being done in some places. There are cities (Bloomington, IN is among them) that don't charge for recycling but instead, charge for trash pickup based on the amount of trash to be hauled away. So you separate out your recycling, buy things that don't come with excess packaging and as a result have much less trash. Less trash means less that you have to pay to have that trash removed. This solution also gives people the ability to be less thoughtful about how to deal with their waste (See, all freedom of choice is still intact) but they will be the ones who bear a larger burden of dealing with that waste as well. For this to work most effectively, revenue gained from these programs should be only used to improve trash processing and recycling programs within a community and not just thrown into the general community pot to be split up and parceled out based on some politician or bureaucrat's whim.
One strategy that would likely make this type of program more successful as far as the number of people who choose to participate would be to make the cost of non-participation even higher than it already is. If the government were to turn all highways into toll roads and increase the tax on gasoline to the point that a gallon costs $10, people are going to be much more careful about when they choose to drive and what activities they choose to utilize motor vehicles for. I would personally love to see the price of gas at closer to $10/gallon for this very reason. Nothing spawns innovation and new technology like trying to find alternatives for what we have decided is too costly.
That's true, there is: If we can't assume an ideal world of everyone agreeing that sustainability is one of the most important goals and acting to accomplish that goal, we can't assume that a government has the best interest of its people or world in mind either. But as has been shown many times throughout our species' sordid history, governments are much more pliant in being steered towards whatever the specific purpose of the day is than is the entire world population.
So call your representatives and elected officials (two or three times) and make yourself heard. It's amazing the small number of squeaky wheels it takes to get things moving. It's definitely not the only or best method for working towards saving the world, but it IS a method and it couldn't hurt. And if you have a best friend who happens to be the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, call her up and ask her to swing her weight around a little.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)