Ok, so I really have to push this one. Reading more of Lester Brown's book, Plan B 4.0, has me thinking about the side-effects of 'green' development. Let's take wind, for example. What thought is given to the large-scale effects of massive wind farm implementation? Isn't that adding more resistance to wind flow planet-wide? What will that do to global climate? Do we even know? What about solar panels? Doesn't the light/heat that the sun puts off normally go to the ground? What of the effects on things like soil arability? With geothermal, we're basically reducing the temperature of the lower crust of the earth in the process...
Here's the big problem I have. We're looking at mass implementation of green technologies, but do we really know what effect mass implementation will have? Though life may not be a zero-sum game, energy collection is! It's impossible to collect energy from the environment without affecting the environment, and much of what I see about the 'future green development' completely ignores the ecological impact of large-scale use of green technologies. Let's not forget the impact of laying all those power lines. Remember, large-scale electrification hasn't been around that long, less than 100 years.
Do we really know what we're doing, or are we just blazing ahead without really thinking about it?
*sigh*
- Jason
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
The Seven Generation Rule and Change
The discussion last class regarding the economics of conservation and sustainability practices got me thinking, especially in relation to the seven generation rule (3 forward, 3 back, and current). The economic impact of migrating towards energy efficiency is undeniable, if less power is needed due to changes in how energy is used (efficent lightbulbs, buildings designed for less AC/heating use, etc.) then *people will loose jobs in the energy industry* companies will loose money in the industry. It's impossible to avoid this, corporate models are based on growth, not detraction. It takes money to un-build an unnecessary power plant, as it does to keep it running when it's not needed, this is inefficent, and in today's world where current expenses are paid from future profits...
Side note: Yes, this is a legitimate business model, read Robert Kiyosaki's book Rich Dad, Poor Dad for an excelent example of this. Kiyosaki outlines the priorities of resource allocation in business in the following way: 1) expansion, 2) regular workers, 3) specalists, 4) (Don't remember this one), 5) executives. Note how expansion is put first.
Anyhow, in today's world where current expenses are paid from future profits, threatening a company's future profits threatens the salience of the company. Inventors pull out, stock price plummets, company goes under, people get laid off, etc etc. Not good... More people unemployed means lower quality of life, lower GDP, economic hurt all ways around.
Ok, yes it opens up green jobs, but consider this on a psychological perspective. Young people are more into the green job market these days than the older generation. Stratifying the economic impact generationally, we're looking at a disproportionate hit on the older generation, not the younger. Additionally, the older generation would know that they, basically, lost their job for a green job. This does not encourage the older generation towards job re-training to learn how to work in the industry that just stole their job from them.
This strikes me as selling out the old for the benefit of the young. Doesn't this violate the 7-generation rule, rather egregiously? In a way it's the opposite problem of what we've been talking about. Instead of pushing the burden in the future, we're pushing it backward.
Food for thought...
- Jason
Side note: Yes, this is a legitimate business model, read Robert Kiyosaki's book Rich Dad, Poor Dad for an excelent example of this. Kiyosaki outlines the priorities of resource allocation in business in the following way: 1) expansion, 2) regular workers, 3) specalists, 4) (Don't remember this one), 5) executives. Note how expansion is put first.
Anyhow, in today's world where current expenses are paid from future profits, threatening a company's future profits threatens the salience of the company. Inventors pull out, stock price plummets, company goes under, people get laid off, etc etc. Not good... More people unemployed means lower quality of life, lower GDP, economic hurt all ways around.
Ok, yes it opens up green jobs, but consider this on a psychological perspective. Young people are more into the green job market these days than the older generation. Stratifying the economic impact generationally, we're looking at a disproportionate hit on the older generation, not the younger. Additionally, the older generation would know that they, basically, lost their job for a green job. This does not encourage the older generation towards job re-training to learn how to work in the industry that just stole their job from them.
This strikes me as selling out the old for the benefit of the young. Doesn't this violate the 7-generation rule, rather egregiously? In a way it's the opposite problem of what we've been talking about. Instead of pushing the burden in the future, we're pushing it backward.
Food for thought...
- Jason
Sustainability of Relationships?
So all this social/cultural sustainability has me thinking, how does it apply on a personal level, such as human relations? What makes a relationship sustainable? Can I use the social/cultural models that I went over earlier to get any insight on that? Kallstrom & Ljung's (2005) model for farmers seems the most applicable, with a need for mutual care, rights and solidarity in a relationship for things to be sustainable, but there's another dimension to inter-personal relation ships too: change. Individuals change a lot faster than societies, and individuals can change in different directions too. When this happens, the traditional psychological advice would be that this would end the relationship, yet there are examples I can think of where people change in different directions yet continue their relationship.
The traditional model would put commitment at the core of relationship sustainability, with care, rights and solidarity as supporting factors. This attempts to box the individuals into social molds however, removing the possibility for real individual change, and that is (by and large) personally unsustainable and unhealthy. In building off of class discussion, what if commitment is re-framed to not be about commitment to having a specific kind of relationship with the other person, but instead commitment to a moral or ethic of interacting with that other person? Commitment to care, rights and solidarity. How does that change the interaction dynamic? Does that improve sustainability?
Consider, for a moment, the traditional model is boxing and confining, it forces participants to conform to social norms of human interaction: friend, best friend, co-workers, roommate, boyfriend/girlfriend, lover, partner, wife/husband, etc. There's social concepts that the traditional model requires us to bend to accommodate, with the idea that care, rights and solidarity exist within these models, and only within these models.
Breaking out of these models and looking at care, rights and solidarity on their own merits allows for an adaptability of interaction that can compensate for individual changes, and potentially improve sustainability of a relationship. Yet this raises an interesting question, what if a relationship isn't meant to continue? This is a larger sustainability question which I think I will address later, but it's especially relevant in this kind of discussion, so I'll at least raise the question: Why sustain something?
Food for thought,
- Jason
Reference:
Kallstrom, H. N. & Ljung, M. (2005). Social sustainability and collaborative learning. Ambio, 34(4/5), 376-382. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/environment/journal/13280
The traditional model would put commitment at the core of relationship sustainability, with care, rights and solidarity as supporting factors. This attempts to box the individuals into social molds however, removing the possibility for real individual change, and that is (by and large) personally unsustainable and unhealthy. In building off of class discussion, what if commitment is re-framed to not be about commitment to having a specific kind of relationship with the other person, but instead commitment to a moral or ethic of interacting with that other person? Commitment to care, rights and solidarity. How does that change the interaction dynamic? Does that improve sustainability?
Consider, for a moment, the traditional model is boxing and confining, it forces participants to conform to social norms of human interaction: friend, best friend, co-workers, roommate, boyfriend/girlfriend, lover, partner, wife/husband, etc. There's social concepts that the traditional model requires us to bend to accommodate, with the idea that care, rights and solidarity exist within these models, and only within these models.
Breaking out of these models and looking at care, rights and solidarity on their own merits allows for an adaptability of interaction that can compensate for individual changes, and potentially improve sustainability of a relationship. Yet this raises an interesting question, what if a relationship isn't meant to continue? This is a larger sustainability question which I think I will address later, but it's especially relevant in this kind of discussion, so I'll at least raise the question: Why sustain something?
Food for thought,
- Jason
Reference:
Kallstrom, H. N. & Ljung, M. (2005). Social sustainability and collaborative learning. Ambio, 34(4/5), 376-382. Retrieved from http://www.springer.com/environment/journal/13280
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Sustainability in Planning?
So, I had my first meeting with my new committee - the Institutional Planning Council. While I was listening to one of the committee co-chairs basically re-capping the committee progress through last year (first meeting of the academic year) and where things were going from here, I started thinking in the back of my mind, what is sustainable planning? What kind of relationships would we like to have between the college plans and college operations? How could we get to this 'ideal planning' state? What are the steps?
I'll have the chance to really hash that out with my committee members over the next five months, but based on my initial questions, I think I piqued some interest in these issues. The first proper meeting is in two weeks (This was more of a status report/update than a proper committee meeting), so I'll get a chance to properly vet my questions then.
I am terribly curious though, comparing this to our final project: If our final project is more about getting a community interested in these issues, how does this translate to a workplace environment which often requires 'champions' of ideas in order for anything to happen that's not mandated by law? It's a tough question that I don't really know how to answer.
- Jason
I'll have the chance to really hash that out with my committee members over the next five months, but based on my initial questions, I think I piqued some interest in these issues. The first proper meeting is in two weeks (This was more of a status report/update than a proper committee meeting), so I'll get a chance to properly vet my questions then.
I am terribly curious though, comparing this to our final project: If our final project is more about getting a community interested in these issues, how does this translate to a workplace environment which often requires 'champions' of ideas in order for anything to happen that's not mandated by law? It's a tough question that I don't really know how to answer.
- Jason
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)