Governing Sustainable Communities

I was happy to see a strong role of people and the local government with a underemphasis of federal government and lobbyists. One of the secondary factors associated with sustainable communities is the building of ties, social capital, among people. In other words:

In a sustainable community, people are caring about the environment, 

their government and each other.

I think Bloomington is moving towards the right direction with the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability (BCOS). Meaning they have an avenue for people to come and talk to the local government. Unfortunately, from what I can tell from attending a meeting. There doesn't seem to be too much community participation. Even the commission seems too overwhelmed with day to day life to work on outreaching to the community.  I hate sounding pessimistic, but I am wondering what steps need to be taken before you have a scenario as the one described in the book; where people in the community are being very active in decision making, building the local economy and social capitol. Looking at Bloomington, it seems like something is missing. It could be the population size, a transient population... I don't know. The chapter didn't even provide a concrete example of a community functioning like this.

Basically, in conclusion, I completely agree with the book that this is the way to go, I would just like to know how to get there.

Themester Event #3

Moving U.S. Climate Policy Forward: Are Carbon Tax Shifts the Only Good Alternative?
Friday, November 19
by: Ian Perry

First off, the presentation ended being completely over my head and not at all what I expected. The overall conclusion to the talk was:

"Carbon tax shifts may be the only economically sound investment for the U.S."

How Ian Perry arrived at this conclusion, I really have very little idea. His presentation assumed a basic understanding of economics, at the least. I have zero understanding of economics and was therefore lost by the second slide of the presentation. Ian Perry used a variety of graphs to describe carbon taxes and other types of policies.... Used a lot of words and abbreviations that I have never heard before.... I don't know. I thought this was going to be more of a scientific talk. So, sorry I can't give a better summary of the talk. If anybody else could tell me what was going on, I would appreciate it.

Themester Event #2

Film Screening of Food Inc. 

Wednesday, November 10. 

I'm posting about this kind of late... But, I will never buy Tyson chicken again! I went to the grocery store with a friend last week. She went over to pick out some chicken, and of course, the selection was dominated by Tyson products. As soon as she picked up a package, I freaked out on her. "Don't buy that!!" I shouted in the store. She and a few people standing buy gave me a funny look. I asked her if she had ever seen the movie, Food Inc.. Not surprisingly she said no. I told her that there was a reason that she was getting "more for her money" and that it wasn't a good reason. We compared the Tyson chicken package to the organic chicken package. Sure enough, the Tyson chicken was twice as big and twice as cheap as the organic. After telling her that Tyson feeds there chicken bucket loads of hormones and the ground up body parts of deceased chickens...she decided that she really wasn't getting the best deal buy investing in Tyson chicken. I'm not sure if she has seen the movie yet, but I at least felt that I had made some sort of impact.

I have to say, I have not been persuaded to become vegetarian or vegan. Rather, I understand that not all food is equal and that shopping with integrity takes some effort and education. I do appreciate this movie for providing some concrete research rather than just showing picture after picture of abused animals. Although, I have to admit that the scene with the downed cow getting pushed around by the tractor, was appalling.

I would definitely recommend this movie to other people who are interested in learning more about where their food comes from. I would also recommend the books by Michael Pollan, Omnivores' Dillema, and Jonathan Foer, Eating Animals. 

Economic Development

For the most part, my brain starts shutting down when I am faced with the topic of 'economics.' I have never taken an economics class, and I have never really participated in a discussion of economics -- it is way over my head. Thus, when I saw what the topic of this weeks reading was, I was kind of thrown against a wall. After reading, I still feel a lost but I did learn some things:

What is economic growth?

What I can gather, it is a useless way to measure how 'good' things are going. It doesn't seem to be as comprehensive of a definition as it needs to be and is thus not very representative of what is going on.  The essay "The Economic System and Natural Environments" explained it basically as 'spending.' Not spending in a positive way but simply any spending. This was very enlightening but actually functioned to make me even more weary of economics.

Walmart.

In the next section, "Natural Capitalism", all I could think about was Walmart. I hate Walmart. Basically, the author was talking for a little bit about how business are moving toward being 'green.'  While reading this, I was thinking about how many conversations I've been in where I was telling people how much I hate Walmart. The number one rebuttal I keep hearing is that Walmart is doing a much better job with providing 'green' products. Well, no shit they are providing green products! It is what consumers want and if Walmart wants to continue dominating the economy, then they better provide 'green' products!!! Walmart isn't doing it because they care about the environment! They are doing it because they care about money! And that doesn't make them a better company in my book!

Government. 

A few of the sections talked about the size of the Government and how a move to sustainability can decrease the size of the government. I think this is a great thing, however, I couldn't help but think how much our government is trying to grow and control more of the private sector. In fact, it seems to me, at least with the current President, that this is what people want - a bigger government. But at the same time people want sustainability... a little confusing and counter-intuitive. The essay "Preparing for a New Economic Era" even said that the UN summits, focused on human problems, has been relatively ineffective at influencing a lot of change. Change needs to happen on the local level, not the federal, or even, global level. Change on the federal and global level will happen as local communities get it together. 

Imports.

Imports are pretty unavoidable at this point. Especially because we are all pretty much addicted to things like coffee and chocolate! But I think true sustainable communities should strive to limit imports on items that can easily be acquired locally. For example, why by a watermelon from Mexico in the mid-west?? The last two essays in the Sustainable Reader really focused on this topic. Moving away from imports will strengthen local economies and shrink the government even further. 

Conclusion.

The topics above are what stood out for me the most from this weeks reading. I'm pretty sure I'm on topic, but I think I really need to see what comes up in class on Tuesday. I am perfectly aware that there is a tie between natural capital and human economics. I have mostly just chosen to ignore the latter.

 

After Wendell Berry's talk

Wendell Berry started his talk with us by providing his own definition of sustainability:

A sustainable community is "one that, so far as possible, would waste nothing. Would make things last. And would convert waste into fertility"  -- "as is true in natural ecosystems"

According to him, there are several ways to achieve a sustainable community. For example, you should keep money circulating in the local community as long as possible, and have as much food as possible produced locally and locally processed. These methods all stem to the renewal of household and local communities. Furthermore, the community must "conserve it's people" and "figure out who the gifted people are" meaning who has the knowledge and experience to implement new sustainable techniques.

Wendell talked about what communities were like back in the 30's and 40's. When talking about sustainability to people, I think it is important to stress that sustainability is not a new thing. According to him, the "idea of health use to be making things last, not spending, as it is today."  People seem to have become lost in the label of the 'consumer.' We need to be more aware and learn to accept what our earth can offer us and not what we think we can squeeze out of it.

Report: Global Warming Issue From 2 Or 3 Years Ago May Still Be Problem

The title of this article was enough to make me laugh -- "May still be a problem".... really, it isn't just going to go away as we continue to abuse our earth?

Wendell Berry is coming to class tomorrow!

Compromise, Hell! By Wendell Berry

Wendell Berry

This is an attention grabber! The essay begins "We are destroying our country!" One reason seems to be due to the 'submissiveness' of the American people. So how do we stop destroying our country, Wendell says that we need to care more about the economy -- specifically land use. Caring about the land can translate to pride in local businesses which can stem out to pride in our communities.

I have to say I agree with all the major points in this essay. This is the first essay by Wendell Berry that I have read and I must admit that I was shocked by the colloquial language coming from someone so well known and respected. For instance, when he states that "most of us are still too sane to piss in our own cistern, but we allow others to do so and we reward them for it" I laughed. How true and to the point! We do need to get angry at how we are being treated and how we are treating our earth and we need to stop rewarding those that stand in our way!

 

Environmental Justice and Social Equity

To be honest, I never have considered the question "Do minorities care about the environment." In fact, I after reading the essay by Robert Bullard, "People-of-Color Environmentalism", I still think it is a stupid question. A more intelligent way of looking at it is the resources and abilities people, not just minorities, have for making a difference. This may just show my ignorance on this aspect of sustainability, but since when is environmentalism about "check writing, paying dues, and membership in environmental organizations?" I'd like to talk to who ever came up with that definition... I have heard many definitions of sustainability and environmentalism and I have NEVER heard any mention of money. To me, sustainability and environmentalism are what results from people caring about their environment and community. People can show they care through avenues such as donating to the next green project. But they can also be less obvious than that. For example, recycling, educating others, being educated consumers. I'm almost a little offended by this reading, I'm not a minority and I have never written a check. Well, I am a member of the Ecological Society of America but I was a member long before I knew the definition of sustainability.  One last thing on this essay, I think the grass roots movement is a more down to earth way for people to express themselves than through money. And people definitely have a right to breath clean air! I totally agree with that.

"Domesticating urban space" by Dolores Hayden, was similar to the previous article in that I never thought of 'woman's rights' as being linked to sustainability and environmentalism. Woman's issues aside, I think feeling safe is an issue for everyone. Women and children are in as much need for a social atmosphere as men, and all those needs should be addressed as much as possible by the city and transportation planners.

I think our in class exercise summarizes "Fighting poverty and environmental injustice in cities" and Rosland's "Housing and Community Development." Most interesting to me is how much resistance to equitable cities comes from other, better off, citizens. This, to me, is an example of what is opposite of sustainability. In the previous readings, we are talking about how the 'majority' are the people who are acting more environmentally, this reading, seems to contradict that. (Which is probably another reason why I was so confused by the previous readings). I think a lot of cities are trying but the "not in my back yard" way of thinking is excluding people... not just nuclear power plants (which is a little more understandable."  In addition, it seems to me that people like to blame the government for the reasons why things aren't working but perhaps people should consider their own communities a little closer.