I recently had a discussion with a couple of Natural Step Process people about how to move American communities to towards sustainability. I like the Natural Step Process, coming out of the environmental realm as I do. But the Natural Step process was developed in a country with one of the strongest social justice systems in the world. So it assumes that the level of social justice necessary to meet the criteria of Our Common Futures definition of sustainable development is already in place. My contentions were first, since the US has a lot of social justice issues which Sweden doesnt, the Natural Step Process is largely ineffective in the US. This is because we cant meet the condition of equity that Our Common Future put on the definition of sustainable development. Second is that the US culture has been shaped by the idea of Manifest Destiny and because of this the culture cannot accept the idea of limits, the second condition Our Common Future put on the definition of sustainable development. Id like to hear what the rest of you think about this. Particularly from the Australian and Canadian members, since we share some similar cultural factors, yet both of your countries are well ahead of the US in sustainability.
Sustainability Process Approach
Sign in or Sign up to comment
How many have heard of the Heros Journey and applied it to the society in which we live? Very quickly and probably inaccurately the heros journey was an analysis of heroic adventure novels to determine what made a character a hero rather than just an also-ran character in the story. The theory says that the hero journeys through a range of relationships with others dependent, independent, and interdependent. The critical element that makes a hero is the transition to interdependence, the sharing of spoils and benefits with his/her community. If you take it and run, a hero you are not! In exploring this concept in community engagement focussed training courses it is often observed that different societies promote different levels. In really broad terms these often fall out as China promotes dependence on the State, USA promotes the challenge and importance of independence and the individual, and Australias mateship and fair go aligns with an interdependent perspective on the world. Whatever is actually true (and I think recent political rhetoric and action here in Australia contradicts the above to some extent), how people view their relationship with others and the need to consider others, probably plays a big part in their capacity to think-the-thoughts of sustainability. Therefore in order to build a communitys readiness and ability to engage in sustainable behaviour it might be a good idea to develop the strength and capacity of that community through such processes as shared-interest networks, develop the fabric of communitys ability to work together, rather than trying to convince one individual at a time to change their lifestyle. Blanket communication to whole-of-community is in fact targeting the individual, standing alone in a crowd. Working with community networks and groups we are working with interdependent and trusting collectives much more likely to motivate and support its members to change, together. I think this aligns with the CBSM communication principle of using advocates and communicators that have the authority and respect of the community to speak to them. It is important to me to be seen as responsible by others who I feel are important. It also aligns with other behaviour theories that say that the opinion of respected others and their desire to see particular behaviour as normal behaviour within a community is an important driver in developing beliefs held by individuals that underpin the development of an intent-to-act. Out of all of that I think that real progress can be made on sustainability where we concentrate our efforts on assisting communities to build their capacity to work together to achieve outcomes that they believe in. We need also to bring the behaviour change required down to human scale lets not talk about the need to change the world, but about the specific achievable behaviours that I as an individual can make that will make a difference to an identifiable issue. And that of course is where Community-based Social Marketing comes into its own. So when we say the world should become sustainable, what specific behaviours would you see as essential if that is to be achieved, or we are to move towards that? What community networks exist or can be developed that would support that behaviour change? How ready is the community to take on this idea and how can we build their readiness to engage? Then what CBSM tools and strategies can we apply in regard to specific behaviours? Step by step the longest march can be done.
Andrew Smith
Phone: 6233 2836
Mobile: 0419361876
Fax: (03) 6223 8603
Postal: GPO Box 44,
HOBART 7001 Tasmania
It is important to differentiate whether people are actually over-consuming, or whether they just think they are over-consuming. Hamilton's Affluenza does a good job demonstrating that people are doing the latter, but the non-anecdotal evidence it provides is not so strong on the former. Just because conspicuous consumption is conspicuous does not mean that it is prevalent. It is also important to wonder whether conspicuous consumption is unsustainable. A not small class of 'showy' items are longer lasting, and therefore less materials intense. In my opinion, the most unsustainable forms of con- sumption tends to be inconspicuous consumption (consumption of energy, water, etc) and ordinary consumption (consumption of groceries, etc).
Cameron
It is hard to see the substantial difficulties to effective national sustainability programs, like Natural Step, in the USA, and still be hopeful about their prospects. However, folks can do great things when ideas are placed in the heads and passions are raised, even if sometimes it seems to take a catastrophe or two to get us there. As a planner, for me it's primarily a planning issue (hammer looking for the right nails). For others, the emphases get placed elsewhere. The problems of actionable beliefs can be described in many ways. Suffice it to say we haven't the luxury of pessimistically concluding that little can be done. However, I believe too little emphasis is placed by too few of us on our psychological/social/cultural predispositions to see our major problems "out there," rather than "in here" (as Pogo suggested). Our national ermotional/psychological immaturity is at issue, and that lack vitally affects the degree to which we are predisposed to community-giving enterprises, rather than the more self-referenced, hyper-individualistic attitudes and behaviors we see as problems, be they system problems like capitalism, or group behaviors. People can and do change, but change is highly personal and invariably wrentching. Until and unless we develope the self-awareness to see the need for personal change in order to secure the planet's future, or simply our part in that future (see The Long Emergency by Jim Kuntsler), and are thereby prepared to foment the generativity the future requires of us, we will only kick at the tires of change, rather than "foster sustainable behaviors." My point is that behaviors can change only through influence of very substantially invested people, and that expectation is huge; not presently warranted by facts on the ground. Unfortunately! Look at Katrina and how we are now sliding backwards on a national resolve to rebuild a better (more sustainable) City of New Orleans and Port. Memory and resolve seem to fade and illusion, denial and carelessness seem to fill the void that is left.
- Jon Gilmore
Hi Richard,
I'm a Boulder resident & on this listserve, and a professional in the recycling/energy conservation area - with my own consulting firm here in town. Here's an irony for you -- naturally I think about the social equity issues endemic with the high cost of housing here (median house price just hit US$500,000). So, a year or so ago I went to Mark Ruzzin, now the mayor, and said "please, why don't we allow density of housing to increase modestly in each neighborhood." Something like 5-10% in each neighborhood (for those not familiar, Boulder CO is a city of ~95,000 with > average median income & mostly suburban-style residential areas, little MF housing except around the University of CO). If this increase were permitted, you would see folks subdividing thier houses & making them bigger, but with more units, two or 3 houses joining together through remodels to become 4 or 5 units, etc. Parking would not become much of a problem as the majority of neighborhoods are not very dense, and people would have an incentive to use public transportation more - as naturally happens when population becomes more dense. And, with more housing units on the market, the upward pressure on housing prices lets up, making more housing stock that is affordable, available. Some of these "new" units could be set aside as affordable units with deed restrictions or other such tools the city uses, but generally it's better to let the market help keep prices down. A further advantage I just thought of is that as we have the baby boomers aging, many of them would like to move out of their big houses but stay in their same neighborhoods. If there were more smaller, less expensive housing, you could accomodate that populatin well. Mark absolutely shot me down, saying we must preserve the zoning setback req'ts and low housing density that Boulder enjoys. If the sustainability plan could address creating a little more room for growth - it would really help. And don't even get me started on what the dismantling of neighborhood schools and growth of focus & special schools has done to the traffic here! I would love to see the math on the traffic impact - and hence environmental impact- of the hundreds and hundreds of children who are driven across town twice a day, to attend the spectrum of schools now available thru the school district. We all bear the consequences of each family's decision like that. I just searched on the City's website & couldn't find this sustainabiltiy plan. Can you direct me?
Best regards,
Anne Peters Boulder,
CO Gracestone, Inc.
303.494.4934 vox
303.494.4880 fax
Following the on going discussion I start developing a feeling that as long as we aproach the issue of sustainable behaviour in the traditional terms of responsible behavior we miss the central point: I am affraid that the ideal of sustainable behavior, both in personal and political terms, has actually extended the realm of "commons" to such a degree that already focuses on the dichotomy between socialist and liberal democracy! The problem is with the fact that liberalism is in its 'ups' and any debate to the contrary seems ex definitio out of context. Since our age is inimical to the logic of idelogies, sustainability looks more and more as a kind embarrassing slip fo tongue rather than a real issue begging for real answers .
Prof.Em.
COSTAS MAN. SOPHOULIS
University of the Aegean Samos,GREECE
There has been some interesting & enjoyable discussion on this topic. The points that have been made (and of course all of our collective experience) indicate that there is as much to be done (if not more?) on an individual & household level. Apologies for the length of the post, it wasn't intended to be this long! Challenging the "big is better" mentality is difficult and will of course come up against (understandable) resistance & confrontation from the public / individuals - we all get defensive when accused of doing the wrong thing! Is it possible however to shift the focus of our own approach from "big is bad" to "small is beautiful"? I think that there is much gain to be made in sustainability education from promoting the enjoyment & experience of taking a smaller (softer? downsized?), more localized, community oriented lifestyle. I am currently involved in a project that helps householders to make "Small Changes" in their everyday behaviour. It is pretty much the same process as the "Global Action EcoTeams process" described in the "Tools of change" workbook that DM-M send around last week (http://www.cbsm.com/ReportsDatabase/Detail.lasso?-KeyValue=97&-KeyField =ID). Teams of householders (who live within the same few streets, but don't necessarily know one another) meet once a month to take part in a 2 hour workshop. The 4 workshops cover: Introduction to household environmental impacts, ecological footprinting; Waste & Shopping; Energy & Transport; Water & household chemicals, cleaning products & cosmetics. An optional 5th workshop looks at actions beyond the home & taking things further. Participants are encouraged to set goals or action points to take over the month, based on what they have learnt from the facilitator & from one another's shared experiences during the workshop. Participants are asked to weigh their rubbish & take gas & electricity meter readings as part of the programme, which will demonstrate to them that their small changes are working. Obviously facilitators can only work with so many households, but participants are encouraged to run their own teams with other friends / neighbours & we have been recruiting volunteer facilitators from universities & colleges. It is a labour intensive process, but my personal opinon is that we need to forget about quick fixes, roll up our sleeves and start engaging with people & communities through friendly conversation and positive feedback on small successes. Achieving a more sustainable world is going to be a long slog, involving lots of talking and lots of small steps. It is an approach that can be mixed with many different techniques, different workshop approaches will work with different teams, different communities, & in different countries. However the fundamental basis is that people, when taking time to share ideas & find common feelings and experiences of success, can get through their individual barriers to change. Oh yeah, peer pressure is a great thing too, especially when you find you're the only person of your neighbours that doesn't compost!! Re the attitudes / culture in America: yes there is obviously much going wrong with people's everyday lifestyle behaviour, (and though I have only visited the US once when I was 12) there seems to be a 'can do' attitude that is prevalent in many spheres throughout the country. There are many fantastic neighbourhood organisations & community based projects that are running that I have read about on the web(eg www.thefoodproject.org; www.edibleschoolyard.org). I would imagine that it is this 'can do' attitude that you will need to tap into, and I feel that the EcoTeams approach fosters that through friends & neighbours. In the UK there is often an attitude that it is the govt that is responsible for everything & somewhat of a resigned dependence on govt structures. However a collective identity built around a long common history & getting through hard times together (eg WWII) has built a notion of shared responsibility (albeit without mountains of individual initiative). In Australia there is something of a cross between the yankee 'rugged individualism' with the sense of anglo shared responsibility. However the last 20 years have done much to erode the notion shared responsibility, (especially the incumbent's nightmare vision for a return to 1950s round-eye bigotry over the last 10 years). To end on a positive note though, the approach we are using builds upon Margaret Mead's famous quote: 'Never underestimate the capacity of a small group of dedicated individuals to change the planet. In fact it is the only thing that ever has'. It is one that I give to my participants, and, through their small changes, they might just do it.
Alexis Anderson
Community Project Manager
Global Action Plan - The Practical Environmental Charity
Tel: 01273 823 291
mob: 0784 1938 656
Email: [email protected]
www.globalactionplan.org.uk
A good discussion of the causes and the individual, social, economic, political and environmental impacts of overconsumption is in the Australian book Clive Hamilton and Richard Denniss' book Affluenza. (See http://www.growthfetish.com/book2.htm where you can download the first chapter) They define affluenza as: 1. The bloated, sluggish and unfulfilled feeling that results from efforts to keep up with the Joneses. 2. An epidemic of stress, overwork, waste and indebtedness caused by dogged pursuit of the Australian [orAmerican or wherever!] dream. 3. An unsustainable addiction to economic growth. A small excerpt: "In the coming decade most of our income growth will be spent on consumer products the craving for which has yet to be created by advertisers. Our public concerns might be about health and the environment, but our private spending patterns show that the majority of Australians feel they suffer from a chronic lack of 'stuff '. The problem is that after we have renewed our stuff yet again, there is not enough money left to fund investments in hospitals and schools. We want better public services but seem unwilling to forgo more income in the form of taxes to pay for those services. Australia does not have a public health funding crisis: it has a flat-screen TV crisis." This is an Australian book, but the term was coined in the US and a search for 'Affluenza' comes up with quite a few different sites and books. Tackling affluenza is another matter!! With marketing and advertising so pervasive throughout our society, convincing us to always buy more stuff, its difficult to see how to effectively tackle affluenza head on! Hamilton & Denniss and others have begun the Wellbeing Manifesto http://www.wellbeingmanifesto.net in Australia, but it is just one small stand against overconsumption!
Nicole Hodgson
Coordinator, WA Collaboration Lotteries House,
2 Delhi St West Perth WA 6005
P: 08 9420 7295
F: 08 9420 7273
M: 0438 750 751
E: [email protected]
W: www.wacollaboration.org.au
Morning folks, I ask your indulgence with the following thoughts on what Doug said. I concur with your last statement Doug: "Unless and until people here are faced individually with the tough decisions being made everywhere else, we simply don't care and aren't affected." From another perspective, can not a tough decision be soft because change simply comes from something that actually touches someone? That will bring a response where an idea or thought or fact gathered in order to make a decision often does not. By touch I mean when some one feels something, not thinks it. Emotions and feelings (which include imagination) are far stronger and more effective in bringing change, apparently, so I wonder what brought each of us to the point of changing our ways to be sustainable. What question, fact, picture or action - often associated with emotion - from another person that prompted each of us to say to ourselves: this matters and I need to do something about it? Or more strongly: Boy, I haven't considered that before. If we can recall that instance then maybe we can empathise with others in their change point. This brings to mind the situation of a child who is asking so many questions that the parent gets upset and tells them to be quiet, not always that politely either. That happens sometimes. Or the parent stops and has to really consider the question and then answers it in the best way they can. Are we there yet is a common one and use din humour because it is so simple for one on the two to recognise. The destination is not known to the child so the question persists until the parent demonstrates what it is. Our ignorance about others is possibly the best tool we have. Can we facilitate others in finding this space for themselves? Is this place so different for others from the one we found? I guess we are bound to ask where that place is and this raises the issue of what questions do we ask and then again maybe it is how we ask what ever it is. Helpful? I don't know though it is what I am exploring at present.
Paul
GEENI
Many years ago a planner at UCLA wrote a book called Redefining the American Dream - I think her name is Dolores Hayden - It is an inspiring work that looks at how we can take existing US housing stock and redesign it to accommodate smaller families, create opportunities for greater community in neighborhoods and more open space with true habitat value - Unfortunately it has not swept the country as the new paradigm - and it will not until people start requiring it -the folks that are building and selling us things do not want us to stop consuming - because it is less profit for them - I have begun to believe that we need look for some help from some of our great thinkers (Thoreau, John Muir are two who come to mind) and our artists for help as we work toward greater sustainability in the US and everywhere else.
Julie Neander
Resource Specialist
City of Arcata Arcata , CA 95521
The whole "bigger is better" mentality is so pervasive. Just recently in Boulder, Colorado a builder completed the first "Zero-Energy Home" for that area. It was widely touted in the local media. However, this "single family home" (constructed by the builder for his own family of four) was over 4500 sf finished and more than 5000 sf if you included unfinished space! How can a "million dollar starter castle" like this be touted as being soft on the planet?? The materials used to build that house could have been used to build two reasonably sized or even three modestly sized zero energy homes. The discussion from Peta in Australia points out that it takes a lot of resources to furnish a house that size as well. Perhaps natural gas prices going through the roof will make Americans start to think about smaller houses in the same way that $3/gal gas made them think about smaller, more efficient cars. Unfortunately, the housing stock is around a lot longer than the average car so we will be living with these monstrosities for decades to come. I should get off my soapbox and quit ranting, but we need to find a way around the bigger is better mentality before we can even begin to address the whole aspect of sustainability. Zero energy mansions are not the answer.
Thanks & Adios,
CJD --
Carol J. Dollard, P.E.,
LEED AP Utility Engineer
[email protected]
(970) 491-0151
(970) 491-6116 FAX
Mailing Address: Facilities Management
Colorado State University
6030 Campus Delivery Fort Collins, CO 80523-6030
Being a Yankee, I won't be offended if I do a little Yankee-bashing. Having just spent a couple of weeks in Germany taking a look at their environmental practices, I think it's safe to say that one of the greatest hurdles to get over in regards to an improved attitude about sustainability practices in the US is going to be the general laziness and apathy. Unless and until people here are faced individually with the tough decisions being made everywhere else, we simply don't care and aren't affected. By the way, Germany was impressive, I thought.
Doug
One of the key success measures in many societies, and particularly in capitalist economy consumer based societies, is the conspicuous consumption of resources. You appear to be successful if can openly display consumption or even waste because you're rich enough not to worry about running out. Being frugal or careful in using or conserving resources is sometihing your grandparents had to do during the depression and something poor people have to do now because they have no choice! This is so ingrained in our culture(s) that it is very difficult to change perceptions and mindsets. So many times I have heard people say something like - but I don't have to worry about energy efficiency because we make good money and can pay the bills or - I'm not going to live like that, what do you think I work so hard for? Changing the mindset so that efficient and effective use of resources is seen, not just as a measure of success but, simply the ways things are done is the challenge.
Cheers
MOC
This question is a bit hard to discuss without the perceptions of "Yankie bashing" for which I apologise in advance! While it seems perhaps from afar that Australians are doing better at sustainability it depends what you are measuring and how. The "super size me" culture is alive and well here, and our move away from our Anglo/European values is a major concern. My interest (and major gripe!) is policy direction which has led us down a path of unsustainability at the domestic (personal) level. Houses in Australia are now 30% larger than they were 25 years ago, and all the while our families are getting smaller. Our houses are 25% larger than houses in Europe. Not only do these "Mac-Mansions" consume excessive amounts of building materials to construct, they are also built to take up most of the block so that there are no trees and gardens to act as environmental agents hence they consume more power to heat and cool. The fashion is to build houses totally unsuited to the climate (due to the now easy access of air conditioning) so they have no eaves or gutters to support climate control. These huge houses also have to be furnished with ever more consumer goods, mostly electric, and cleaned with ever more cleaning agents. But perhaps even less sustainable is the need to support the enormous mortgage to support the purchase of the enormous house, and the goods to fill it, hence the two income family is now the norm. "We can't afford to live on one income" is the common lament of most families. If everyone in the household is never in the enormous house who has time engage in the time consuming tasks of composting and garbage sorting, sourcing and cooking local food, assisting in activities to support community development, gardening for the environment and for health, shopping for goods with less packaging, making healthy take from home lunches etc., etc., etc,. So what happens is: large house, means large mortgage, means large debt, means long working hours, means too busy, means rushed "non conscious" shopping and take away food, means more garbage, means fat people, means poor community outcomes, means sick people and sick environment!! In this case the personal is very much political! Taking care, takes time. The analogy of the super size me culture can be logically extrapolated to a wide range of behaviours, both personally and for the society at large. Before the word sustainability was invented my mum had a couple of expressions which perhaps we could use as slogans in CBSM: Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves; and You have to cut your dress according to the cloth! I think until we return to a community discussion about the values inherent in austerity we are just going to consume more and more until we bust! (in every sense of the word). Anna is right about the Victorian Anglo roots of Australian culture but sadly our modern society looks elsewhere for norms!! I think this counts as my 3p worth, sorry for the rant!!
Peta
Re the concept of limits and how Australia and Canada adapt better to this concept: could it be that we are more dominated by our harsh natural environment. In Australia particularly, the limit on fresh water resources is obvious to everyone, and the adaptation of water saving measures has been largely accepted, even by the urban population. We have always had natural limits on habitable land (why do you think we all live near the coast!). Another common feature of canadian and australian culture is a strong British legal influence, with both being Commonwealth countries. Perhaps the Victorian British emphasis on austerity as a virtue, has made the new austerity (sustainability) easier to stomach? The USA has made a virtue of excess and flashiness. Perhaps this means that sustainability will have a much harder time gaining a social foothold. My 2c worth, anyway.
Anna Hitchcock
Port Curtis Waterwatch Coordinator
(07) 4970 7293
0412 502 798
www.pcwaterwatch.blogspot.com
Richard,
First I agree with your first contention below but only for societies seen as a whole and not for individuals making up each society. American has always been a sharply divided nation with the ebb and tide keeping an uneasy balance. I think, as a whole, we are too young and inexperienced to even think about a "common future" let alone enact one, but as individuals many of us would love to make that happen. I am saddened that our country is not a leader in the world in this important area. There is hope, however, both with the natural swinging back and forth of the pendulum to less radical majorities and with the ongoing efforts of many Americans who dream of a "common future" with the rest of the world. Specifically, I have had success using The Natural Step (TNS) four sustainability conditions as measures within an Environmental Management System (EMS). The company I worked with, Rejuvenation Inc. in Portland Oregon, committed to using the social accountability-auditing scheme known as SA8000 as a model for "fair pay" in order to meet the social justice concern. We also developed an resource efficiency measure. (See the Autumn 2000 edition of Pollution Prevention Review - Wiley & Sons Press.) Activates are ranked against TNS principles and actions taken. Other sustainability principles are also effective and being used. My belief is that we don't need every business to practice sustainability principles, only an yet undefined critical mass, that will eventually influence the larger policy. And I see that happening slowly but surely. In the longer run, "limits" will appeal to most businesses in America, if only because it makes good economic sense. I don't think Manifest Destiny is entirely responsible for America's lack of will to set limits on the negative impacts we have on our surroundings. I think Capitalism is more the culprit. Capitalism relies on a "the most money at any cost" mentality with conservation of resources seen as "weak" in the light of competitive economics. These strong forces over-rule most other principles including religion and family. Perhaps its time to redefine the "love of money is the root of all evil" paradigm to include those who would make decisions in favor of Capitalism over other long-standing principles? A God fearing, decent family man goes to work and makes corporate decisions that consider profit first because he must compete in the "toxic pool". Natural Capitalism - the book by Amory Lovins - is the right new direction but seems academic compared to the problem. Just some thoughts,
thanks,
Dave Kunz
I agree with Jon Gilmore. In pursuing this issue I have found the work in Spiral Dynamics by Don Beck and Chris Cowan to place a more balanced emphasis on the psychological/social/cultural predispositions. I have also found the field of Integral Sustainability to have a similar balance of the physical sustainability issues (triple bottom line) and the psychological/social/cultural and spiritual predispositions (the :in-here" rather than "out-there). I have been working with a doctoral student named Tanapon Panthasen, who is in a PhD Program in Integrated Sciences at Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand. His PhD is in Integral Sustainability; and his program funded him to come to Indiana (Summer 2004) to study the topic (I leaved more than he did). His dissertation focuses on how integral transformation (values/ consciousness, behaviors, cultures, and environment) influence sustainable urban / community development. His work seeks a greater balance for the spiritual / consciousness and cultural dimensions that are usually missing from sustainable development themes. In January, I will travel to Thammassat University where I will review his work, meet his doctoral committee and lecture on these issues. I am looking forward to my contact with the Integrated Science Program and people there who are working in the area of integral sustainability.
John Motloch
Director, Land Design Institute
Professor of Landscape Architecture
Ball State University
765-285-7561 (phone)