Jon

**The Economics of Sustainability**


Reading through everyone's wiki pages and my own research over the past month, one issue seems to be the most challenging out of the whole field of sustainability. Scientists are constantly developing new technologies (there is rapid progress in the fields of everything from genetic engineering to architectural biomimicry, etc.), and, for the most part, people seem concerned about the environment and interested in protecting it. The biggest challenge standing in the way of building sustainable societies seems to be the smallest of the "three pillars of sustainability": economics. //The Three Pillars of Sustainability// The challenge is in finding a way to make green technology affordable, and to convince people the benefits of green technology outweigh the conveniences of less sustainable products. To build a sustainable society, as shown the the chart below, there must be economic equity and viability. So, people across the world will need to be able to live comparably comfortable lifestyles while employing sustainable technologies. As of now, according to the Sustainable Society Index, the category of economics is furthest from reaching sustainable levels. The Index measures sustainability according to these factors:

As of 2010, the index has determined the world to be at these levels: (To view a breakdown by country on an interactive map, visit: [])

According to a report, "INDICATORS TO MEASURE DECOUPLING OF ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE FROM ECONOMIC GROWTH": At present, the average per capita consumption of people in the developing world is sustainable but population numbers are increasing and individuals are aspiring to high-consumption Western lifestyles. The developed world population is only increasing slightly but consumption levels are unsustainable. The challenge for sustainability is to curb and manage Western consumption while raising the standard of living of the developing world without increasing its resource use and environmental impact. This must be done by using strategies and technology that break the link between, on the one hand, economic growth and on the other, environmental damage and resource depletion." ([])



So what are some of these strategies? How can we work toward pursuing economic sustainability?

It's complicated. Here's a long quote from Wikipedia that sums up the current situation to a limited extent:

"The identity of ecological economics as a field has been described as fragile, with no generally accepted theoretical framework and a knowledge structure which is not clearly defined. [|[7]] According to ecological economist Malte Faber, ecological economics is defined by its focus on nature, justice, and time. Issues of [|intergenerational equity], [|irreversibility] of environmental change, [|uncertainty] of long-term outcomes, and [|sustainable development] guide ecological economic analysis and valuation. [|[7]] Ecological economists have questioned fundamental mainstream economic approaches such as [|cost-benefit analysis] , and the separability of economic values from scientific research, contending that economics is unavoidably [|normative] rather than [|positive] (empirical). [|[8]] Positional analysis, which attempts to incorporate time and justice issues, is proposed as an alternative. [|[9]][|[10]] Ecological economics includes the study of the metabolism of society, that is, the study of the flows of energy and materials that enter and exit the economic system. This subfield may also be referred to as [|biophysical economics], [|bioeconomics] , and has links with the applied science of [|industrial symbiosis]. Ecological economics is based on a conceptual model of the economy connected to, and sustained by, a flow of energy, materials, and ecosystem services.[// [|citation needed] //] Analysts from a variety of disciplines have conducted research on the economy-environment relationship, with concern for energy and material flows and [|sustainability], [|environmental quality] , and economic development."

Some of the interesting points of environmental economics, as that mentioned, include applying the laws of thermodynamics to the study economics in a field called thermoeconomics (a way of analyzing the energy associated with production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services), and applying economic methods back to the study of the environment in bioeconomics (the science determining the socioeconomic activity threshold for which a biological system can be effectively and efficiently utilised without destroying the conditions for its regeneration and therefore its sustainability ).



But these are very general, and tell only approaches to finding solutions rather than describing the solutions themselves.

Some institutes and think tanks are dedicated to finding these solutions. Some more specific goals are offered by one such organization below.
 * 1) **Business is good for sustainable development and sustainable development is good for business.** Business is part of the sustainable development solution, while sustainable development is an effective long-term business growth strategy.
 * 2) **Business cannot succeed in societies that fail.** There is no future for successful business if the societies that surround it are not working. Governments and business must create partnerships to deliver essential societal services like energy, water, health care and infrastructure.
 * 3) **Poverty is a key enemy to stable societies.** Poverty creates political and economic instability, a big threat to business and sustainable development. By contrast, businesses can lift living standards and eradicate poverty.
 * 4) **Access to markets for all supports sustainable development.** Sustainable development is best achieved through open, transparent and competitive global markets.
 * 5) **Good governance is needed to make business a part of the solution.** Supportive frameworks and regulations are needed for business to contribute fully to sustainable development.
 * 6) **Business has to earn its licence to operate, innovate and grow.** The way business acts and is perceived is crucial to its success. Accountability, ethics, transparency, social and environmental responsibility and trust are basic prerequisites for successful business and sustainable development.
 * 7) **Innovation and technology development are crucial to sustainable development.** They provide key solutions to many of the problems that threaten sustainable development. Business has always been, and will continue to be, the main contributor to technological development.
 * 8) **Eco-efficiency – doing more with less - is at the core of the business case for sustainable development.** Combining environmental and economic operational excellence to deliver goods and services with lower external impacts and higher quality-of-life benefits is a key sustainable development strategy for business.
 * 9) **Ecosystems in balance – a prerequisite for business.** Business cannot function if ecosystems and the services they deliver, such as water, biodiversity, food, fiber and climate, are degraded.
 * 10) **Cooperation beats confrontation.** Sustainable development challenges are huge and require contributions from all parties — governments, business, civil societies and international bodies. Confrontation puts the solutions at risk. Cooperation and creative partnerships foster sustainable development

Still, though, these do not address specific problems.

As examples, Peter's post last week about a new biodegradable packing material that could replace styrofoam is unfortunately more expensive and thus is unlikely to catch on to businesses. Jean's and Julie's discussions of new sustainable architecture, like my first post (below) about sustainable housing, may or may not be feasible because of the higher costs associated with construction, etc. These are issues that will likely plague and hold back those working in the social and environmental fields of sustainability for years to come.

Can we eventually make enough progress and solve these problems? This video offers a few thoughts from one man's perspective.

media type="custom" key="9749566"

For more information on current theories, organizations, and proposed solutions, etc., this is a good place to start: []

How Much is Green Technology Worth?
If anyone took the SATs this weekend, you may remember that there was a reading section comparing opinions in favor and against building windmills. One argued that the windmills provide clean energy, and improve the lives of people in the area; the other, that they take up vast amounts of land, ruining landscapes, and angering the people by detracting from the scenery of their area.

When I was reading it, my first reaction was to think that necessary technologies just are not designed for the purpose of looking nice. They are built to serve a need, and, if an area can use wind power (or solar farms, etc.) for energy instead of burning coal or other higher-emission technologies, it must be worth it.



However, there are times when perhaps the answer isn't so clear. In Patagonia, there are plans to divert waterways to make hydroelectric dams. The project, called HidroAysen ([]), would, according to opponents, "destroy a pristine landscape" (called one of the "world's most iconic wilderness areas"). Scientists say the project will "forever change this region".

(Read about the project here: [])

So, the question becomes, what trade offs are we willing to make in the name of finding more sustainable systems?

The issue is further complicated by the fact that the project threatens to alter not only the aesthetics of the area but also damage the ecosystem. While some note "It's true that probably the cheapest and cleanest source of energy for us is HidroAysen in the south of Chile", protesters say about the project: " Pressure on natural resources is only going to increase"; they worry that the region will be destroyed.

Overall, then, the project threatens the landscapes, the wildlife, tourism and its economic benefits; on the other hand, it does provide clean, non-polluting energy that comes with its own economic benefits and allows the environment to stay cleaner so ecosystems elsewhere can thrive.

//How can it be determined whether it's the right decision to protect this specific region, but give up on green technology in the area? Are the species in one ecosystem more valuable than those of another? What are we willing to give up in favor of these technologies?//

Choosing green technology seems like an easy decision, but people have many other priorities with which it may come into conflict, and, what is actually best for the environment is often unclear.

This video summarizes one persons' attempts to find the least wasteful products to use in her life, and explains that things which may seem good for the environment aren't always the best.

media type="custom" key="9673808"

As she shows, such as with the example of using a reusable towel instead of paper towels, there can in fact be many drawbacks to what are normally considered to be better, less wasteful things.

Another example is with the current effort to switch from incandescent to fluorescent light bulbs. Governments around the world- including in the US- are passing laws that favor adoption of new CFL lightbulbs.

But, as this article ([]) says: "As laudable as these bulbs are, every new technology produces new side effects. CFLs can aggravate symptoms in people who already live with skin conditions that make them sensitive to light. Long hours at the office with a CFL desk light may cause skin and retinal damage due to ultraviolet exposure. Environmentally, CFLs are not ideal because they contain mercury which might be released into the water table through inefficient disposal and poison drinking water and wildlife habitats. Mercury is poisonous and breaking a CFL at home can have health repercussions. Additionally, although there is little published research on the health implications of using CFLs, there is a wealth of anecdotal evidence that these bulbs can negatively impact the lives of people living with lupus, ME, eczema, dermatitis, migraine and epilepsy."



It goes on: "Most CFLs are manufactured in China. Some factories are high tech and others more like sweatshops. Mercury testing has been carried out on hundred of employees producing CFLs and a survey of 18 factories near Shanghai shows that exposure levels to mercury were higher for workers making the new CFLs than for other lights containing the metal. According to a report in the // Nanfang Daily // newspaper, the tests of a single factory found 68 out of 72 workers were so badly poisoned they required hospitalisation".



Obviously, green technology is something that should be pursued. However, people need to be more careful to determine what is and what isn't truly green, as conventional wisdom and marketing can't tell you enough. They also need to decide what is and isn't worth the trade off. Most of us realize that green technology can be less convenient (living without plastic, or cars, etc. is clearly a challenge), but even something so simple as a lightbulb or a towel can have many unexpected drawbacks.



Modern Human Evolution
Measuring evolution within our own species is extremely difficult. Some researchers note that, due to our manipulation of the environment, the resulting lack of competition, and the ability of nearly all individuals to live to reproduce, humans are no longer evolving. Others say that because cultural factors tend to have a much more prominent impact than natural selection in the shaping of future generations, people tend to write off the effect of evolution.

While it may be true that natural selection is no longer driven by survival, however, evolution has still been demonstrated to occur. This article: [] discusses how some traits are now selected for by comparative fertility rather than survival: "Researchers determined that [certain advantageous] characteristics were passed on genetically from mothers to daughters and granddaughters". It goes on to say that, according to a recent study,"1,800 human gene variations [have] become widespread in recent generations because of their modern-day evolutionary benefits. Among those genetic changes [are] mutations that allow people to digest milk or resist malaria and others that govern brain development". (By no means, however, is all of modern human evolution positive; as the article notes, humans today are much slower and weaker than our human and hominid ancestors.)



An argument against this is made in that female fertility is a much less important factor in human evolution than male fertility; "While it used to be that men had many children in older age to many different women, now men tend to have only a few children at a younger age with one wife. The drop in the number of older fathers has had a major effect on the rate of mutation and has at least reduced the amount of new diversity — the raw material of evolution. Darwin's machine has not stopped, but it surely has slowed greatly".

Humans now have something else at their disposal to drive evolution: //unnatural// selection. As the article mentions at the end, "Artificial selection in the form of genetic medicine could push natural selection into obsolescence". This leads to a whole new field of evolutionary biology (and, of course, bioethics): what Harvey Fineberg calls, in the below TED talk, neoevolutionism.

media type="custom" key="9598202"

Fineberg talks about how self-directed evolution, or humans' conscious maneuvering of the species' development in a certain direction through genetic engineering, etc. can theoretically be used to improve humankind and function as the evolution of the future. The border between this and eugenics is somewhat unclear, and ethicists, biologists, and policymakers of the future will certainly have a major challenge in deciding if, and to what level, these techniques should be adopted.

**Unsustainable Living in the United States**


We know we are living unsustainable lifestyles; we are aware of problems such the massive impacts of emissions from automobiles and the effects of these problems such as climate change and accompanying desertification, etc. People generally look to fix these problems at the surface level: for example, to alleviate emissions problems, scientists are attempting to design alternative energy sources; to solve water shortages, new pipelines are designed to carry it to population centers. However, it is sometimes the situation that necessitates these problems, rather than the problems themselves, that needs to be addressed. Many Americans choose to live in conditions that are simply non-conducive to the development of efficient and sustainable infrastructure. Two such environments in our country are the deserts and suburbia.

In the deserts, the number one problem is, clearly, the shortage of water. Las Vegas, for example, is almost totally reliant on distant water sources to distribute to its people. As stated in this article: [],"That Las Vegas has real water woes can't be denied. The city exceeded the capacity of its own groundwater field several decades ago, and currently is 90% dependent on a limited allotment from the Colorado River--an allotment it's fast outgrowing". The article also mentions the history of competition for water in the Western states, referring to the California Water Wars of a century ago ([]).

media type="googlemap" key="http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&q=scottsdale&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Scottsdale,+Maricopa,+Arizona&ll=33.49417,-111.926052&spn=0.18686,0.264702&t=h&z=12&output=embed" width="342" height="282" align="left" media type="googlemap" key="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=arizona+city&aq=&sll=32.664235,-111.586075&sspn=0.37631,0.529404&gl=us&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Arizona+City,+Pinal,+Arizona&ll=32.755894,-111.670958&spn=0.187958,0.264702&t=h&z=12&output=embed" height="283" width="343" align="right"

//Search the area around Phoenix, AZ. Consider the tremendous amounts of water being used to irrigate this land, and think about the huge tracts of unused, naturally fertile land in other areas of the country.//

The shortage of water is something experienced around the world as discussed here: []; the shortages are even thought to be a potential cause of the next world war. With water already so scarce, diverting it into the desert, relying on canals that dry out, taking it away from other areas that need it, and so forth, are all unsustainable. Even the concept of irrigation will need to be reexamined; the book __Pillar of Sand: Can the Irrigation Miracle Last__? (in the Arizona article) says that water is the limiting factor on world food supply, and increasing acreages or other aspects of agriculture would be useless because of the lack of water. Rather than attempting to find new ways to bring water to where people want it, and using it in such large quantities, we may instead need to start living only where water can be accessed more naturally and less wastefully.

Not only where we live, or what we use, but in fact our entire lifestyles may be unsustainable. The relatively new concept of suburban living develops vast amounts of land and allows for people to live in large homes, requires them to drive long distances, and otherwise leads toward excessive consumption of resources and production of wastes and emissions. The book __Triumph of the City__ and a Freakonomics report focusing on it explain how urban living requires less space, provides for less energy use, and allows transportation to be more efficient and over shorter distances. A summary of the report is here: []. The audio player below is the full report. These also describe economic and social benefits of urban living.

media type="file" key="freakonomics_podcast021611.mp3" width="240" height="20" align="center"

//"If you like nature, stay away from it."// Rather than, as many propose, developing new public transportation in suburbs, or new fuel for cars, or more efficient systems for heating and cooling, or any such solution, these problems can all be cut off at the source by eliminating such inefficient and decentralized environments. It can be done simply and in steps, such as through urban retrofitting as explained in the below TED talk.

media type="custom" key="9520302" align="center"

//The average urban dweller in the US has about one third the carbon footprint of the average suburban dweller[...]// //the cities are already relatively green."// Dunham-Jones' ideas are typical of New Urbanism. The movement, which arose in the 1980s in reaction to the growth of suburban sprawl and in the hopes of returning to traditional, pre-WWII styles of urban planning. The leading body for its promotion, the Congress for New Urbanism, lists as its main goals (with sustainability-related goals highlighted):
 * 1) The neighborhood has a discernible center. This is often a square or a green and sometimes a busy or memorable street corner. A transit stop would be located at this center.
 * 2) Most of the dwellings are within a five-minute walk of the center, an average of roughly ¼ mile or 1,320 feet (0.4 km).
 * 3) There are a variety of dwelling types — usually houses, rowhouses, and apartments — so that younger and older people, singles and families, the poor and the wealthy may find places to live.
 * 4) At the edge of the neighborhood, there are shops and offices of sufficiently varied types to supply the weekly needs of a household.
 * 5) A small ancillary building or garage apartment is permitted within the backyard of each house. It may be used as a rental unit or place to work (for example, an office or craft workshop).
 * 6) An elementary school is close enough so that most children can walk from their home.
 * 7) There are small playgrounds accessible to every dwelling — not more than a tenth of a mile away.
 * 8) Streets within the neighborhood form a connected network, which disperses traffic by providing a variety of pedestrian and vehicular routes to any destination.
 * 9) The streets are relatively narrow and shaded by rows of trees. This slows traffic, creating an environment suitable for pedestrians and bicycles.
 * 10) Buildings in the neighborhood center are placed close to the street, creating a well-defined outdoor room.
 * 11) Parking lots and garage doors rarely front the street. Parking is relegated to the rear of buildings, usually accessed by alleys.
 * 12) Certain prominent sites at the termination of street vistas or in the neighborhood center are reserved for civic buildings. These provide sites for community meetings, education, and religious or cultural activities.
 * 13) The neighborhood is organized to be self-governing. A formal association debates and decides matters of maintenance, security, and physical change. Taxation is the responsibility of the larger community.

So, while New Urbanism is in large parts aesthetic, social, and economic as well (for more on this, you can look to James H Kunstler's TED talk, but he uses some strong language so I'm not positing it), it also largely promotes sustainability. Like any cities, homes will be smaller and thus consume less electricity and gas. While most cities are denser and require less transportation than suburbs, well-designed spaces with walkable areas deemphasize the need for motorized transportation at all. Intelligent planning of public areas and availability of needed resources keep people from needing to import materials or drive out to buy them. Some private companies are attempting to create urban areas incorporating the ideas of sustainable cities and New Urbanism, the principles of intelligent urbanism []. In San Francisco, a development called Treasure Island has been proposed. It would be self-sustaining; affordable and compact housing would be concentrated in a central, urban area with an organic farm and a wind farm just outside. Groundbreaking is set for 2012.

//Artists' impression of the Treasure Island development.// Again, not all building need be this revolutionary. Simply redesigning and rennovating existing structures, as detailed in the above video on retrofitting, could allow for similar results; at the very least, a reduction on the need for transportation and a concentration of living facilities. Hopefully, in coming years, support from the public or private sectors will help spur the growth of similar areas across the nation. We cannot expect to continue changing the environment to suit our needs indefinitely. Using cars to connect long distances, or irrigation as a remedy for arid climates may work in the short run, but they as these lifestyles continue their high levels of consumption and pollution, they only become less feasible. More realistic and workable communities will need to be developed.