Why have we not been able to figure out exactly what sustainable development is? It seems like a simple enough task, to define this term, this goal that we should be striving for. It seems that the problem comes from the governments, businesses, and other organizations that don’t want to be on the wrong side of that definition once we finally figure it out.
The definition that Dryzek gives seems to be a satisfactory one, saying, “sustainable development is a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are all in harmony an enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations,” (145). It’s that last statement that seems to be troublesome “enhance both current and future potential to meet human needs and aspirations.” Depending on what a government, business, or organization views as what these human needs and aspirations are, their interpretation of sustainable development changes drastically.
Just as Speth puts it “increasingly, pollution comes not from something going wrong but from normal life,” (88). If our society is ever to become sustainable, we must first create a standard for what is considered to be sustainable development. The Environmental Sustainability Index developed in Northern Europe is the first step in holding countries accountable for their destructive development. Certainly in this country and in many others we are going to need to revamp our industries and find new ways to maintain the lifestyle that affluent nations seems to need. If we do not lead by example, the rest of the world’s developing nations will follow our same unsustainable path and we will exhaust our world at an alarming rate.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
We're Going to Leave it Up to Them?!
The discourse for administrative rationalism is one that approaches environmental issues the same as a countries defense strategy or economy: leave it to the experts. But exactly who a country deems to be an “expert” seems to vary from situation to situation and country to country. If one is to give in to administrative rationalism, they must first be confident that these bureaucratic organizations are indeed fit to assess our environmental situation and find a way to address it. Politics being ever present, we must be wary of which of these administrations we allow to decide the fate of our natural world.
Many of the institutions and practices outlined by Dryzek seem to, in one way or another, hold multiple interests. For example most of these say they are committed to conserving natural resources/reducing pollution while at the same time are concerned with the wallets of those companies depleting our forests, rivers, etc., and putting pollutants into the air. In reference to professional resource-management bureaucracies like the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife service Dryzek states, “None of these is a paragon of scientific management to the extractive industry, be it miners, loggers, oil companies, ranchers, or fishers. But all operate according to at least a public justification of administrative rationalism, however much that may be violated in practice,” (77).
It seems that we are content to have these organizations that simply say they are going to responsibly manage resources and protect our natural environment while they are more concerned with the interests of companies that destroy just that. As long as these companies are able to say they saved a certain percent of wildlife, while in reality giving up much more than they saved, the people of the world can continue living their lives believing that “the experts” will handle the situation.
Many of the decisions made or laws passed will eventually end up in court. In this situation we are effectively letting a judge, a person with expertise of the law, not of environmental issues to decide what our environmental policy really means. Why does this happen? Most likely because those who made the laws were not specific enough or deliberately left some wiggle room in the legislation so that their high paying constituents will be able to eventually find a loop hole.
We are also allowing our government to merely react to problems (“end of pipe’ regulation) rather than be proactive and prevent the problems from happening in the first place. Wouldn’t we be better off never having produced harmful chemical to be put into the air rather than figuring out what needs to be done once they are there?
“The discourse pretty much denies the existence of politics of any sort,” (87). How can this be? In every facet of government, from the popularity contests of middle school student government to the bribery going on in congress today, things other than the issue at hand have a say in how things are decided and laws are made. It is because of this that the people of the world cannot simply believe that the experts will figure it out. We need to be vigilant in watching these bureaucracies and their actions to make sure they don’t allow the destruction of our world. Damn the man, save the (natural) empire.
Many of the institutions and practices outlined by Dryzek seem to, in one way or another, hold multiple interests. For example most of these say they are committed to conserving natural resources/reducing pollution while at the same time are concerned with the wallets of those companies depleting our forests, rivers, etc., and putting pollutants into the air. In reference to professional resource-management bureaucracies like the Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife service Dryzek states, “None of these is a paragon of scientific management to the extractive industry, be it miners, loggers, oil companies, ranchers, or fishers. But all operate according to at least a public justification of administrative rationalism, however much that may be violated in practice,” (77).
It seems that we are content to have these organizations that simply say they are going to responsibly manage resources and protect our natural environment while they are more concerned with the interests of companies that destroy just that. As long as these companies are able to say they saved a certain percent of wildlife, while in reality giving up much more than they saved, the people of the world can continue living their lives believing that “the experts” will handle the situation.
Many of the decisions made or laws passed will eventually end up in court. In this situation we are effectively letting a judge, a person with expertise of the law, not of environmental issues to decide what our environmental policy really means. Why does this happen? Most likely because those who made the laws were not specific enough or deliberately left some wiggle room in the legislation so that their high paying constituents will be able to eventually find a loop hole.
We are also allowing our government to merely react to problems (“end of pipe’ regulation) rather than be proactive and prevent the problems from happening in the first place. Wouldn’t we be better off never having produced harmful chemical to be put into the air rather than figuring out what needs to be done once they are there?
“The discourse pretty much denies the existence of politics of any sort,” (87). How can this be? In every facet of government, from the popularity contests of middle school student government to the bribery going on in congress today, things other than the issue at hand have a say in how things are decided and laws are made. It is because of this that the people of the world cannot simply believe that the experts will figure it out. We need to be vigilant in watching these bureaucracies and their actions to make sure they don’t allow the destruction of our world. Damn the man, save the (natural) empire.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Make Your Move
A couple of years ago the NFL noticed a correlations with injury and horse collar tackles (bringing someone down by pulling down the back of their shoulder pads). A rule was made, making the tackle illegal, thus solving the problem. We know what is ailing the earth, but unfortunately the problem won’t be fixed with a simple rule change. There are exponentially more factors to consider and most of the players don’t abide by the rules. A person’s tendency to buy in to a particular discourse and shy away from others makes progressing, in an environmental sense, all the more difficult. Humanity must soon choose whether to be prosaic and play the game set before them or clear off the chessboard and use their imagination to start anew.
Various discourses must be examined and intermingled in order for any progress to be made on the environmental front. We see something that could be considered environmental protection when “The Conservative Movement sought only to ensure the resources such as minerals, timber, and fish were used wisely and note squandered, so that there would always be plenty of them to support a growing economy,” (Dryzek 14). Here we see a group realizing the finite quality of the earth, and if they wish to continue to grow, or even exist, they must preserve that which they harvest from the earth. A group that believes in another type of discourse, Green Radicalism would of had to make a compromise when it came to dealing with the Conservative movement. While their environmental practices are economically driven and will eventually want to use some of the resources they are saving, the Conservative movement still wanted to begin to be more responsible with the earth’s resources. The millions of people involved in global policy making are never going to agree completely on an issue, therefore compromise and dialogue across discourses in a necessity.
Going off of Dryzek’s Chessboard motif, it seems that many people on this earth don’t know how any of the pieces move or what the chessboard looks like. Chess is just as much about a player’s opening few moves as it is about the final hunt for the king. Humans need to realize that the competition of discourses is only distracting us from our depleting resources. Our actions 100 years have affected environmental practices today, as will the decisions we make today affect generations of humans, plants, and animals in the future. Soon the debate over weather or not to continue economic growth may not matter since we won’t have anything to fuel our economy with.
Just realizing how our thoughts on the environment have changing in the past 50 years and comparing it to how our economic processes have developed gives a big picture of the state we are in today. “Once areas or marshy land were called swamps. The only sensible thing to do with swamps was to drain them, so the land could be put to useful purpose,” (Dryzek 3). What we once thought of as wasted land turned out to be invaluable ecosystems important to earth’s natural balance. We aren’t learning from our mistakes and the problems we already have are only going to spread if we don’t collaborate on a way to protect out interests, environmentally and economically. It’s frustrating when so many people don’t know how the environmental game is played, and even worse when they don’t care to learn. Perhaps it would just be easier if we all switched to checkers.
Various discourses must be examined and intermingled in order for any progress to be made on the environmental front. We see something that could be considered environmental protection when “The Conservative Movement sought only to ensure the resources such as minerals, timber, and fish were used wisely and note squandered, so that there would always be plenty of them to support a growing economy,” (Dryzek 14). Here we see a group realizing the finite quality of the earth, and if they wish to continue to grow, or even exist, they must preserve that which they harvest from the earth. A group that believes in another type of discourse, Green Radicalism would of had to make a compromise when it came to dealing with the Conservative movement. While their environmental practices are economically driven and will eventually want to use some of the resources they are saving, the Conservative movement still wanted to begin to be more responsible with the earth’s resources. The millions of people involved in global policy making are never going to agree completely on an issue, therefore compromise and dialogue across discourses in a necessity.
Going off of Dryzek’s Chessboard motif, it seems that many people on this earth don’t know how any of the pieces move or what the chessboard looks like. Chess is just as much about a player’s opening few moves as it is about the final hunt for the king. Humans need to realize that the competition of discourses is only distracting us from our depleting resources. Our actions 100 years have affected environmental practices today, as will the decisions we make today affect generations of humans, plants, and animals in the future. Soon the debate over weather or not to continue economic growth may not matter since we won’t have anything to fuel our economy with.
Just realizing how our thoughts on the environment have changing in the past 50 years and comparing it to how our economic processes have developed gives a big picture of the state we are in today. “Once areas or marshy land were called swamps. The only sensible thing to do with swamps was to drain them, so the land could be put to useful purpose,” (Dryzek 3). What we once thought of as wasted land turned out to be invaluable ecosystems important to earth’s natural balance. We aren’t learning from our mistakes and the problems we already have are only going to spread if we don’t collaborate on a way to protect out interests, environmentally and economically. It’s frustrating when so many people don’t know how the environmental game is played, and even worse when they don’t care to learn. Perhaps it would just be easier if we all switched to checkers.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
What is Wrong With Us?
Going to Goucher, a politically liberal institution, I’ve seen my fair share of environmental newsletters, pamphlets, videos, and other informational media depicting the atrocities committed by the human race on Mother Nature. I know we’re not doing a good job, in fact the crimes we’ve committed against our home planet are tantamount to beating a small child about the face until they are not longer cute to look at.
Speth delves delve a bit deeper into the reasons for the ravaging of earth. The reason summed up when Speth cites the disappearance of Sumatran and Kalimantan forests, “Asked why, an Indonesian professor of forestry replied simply, “Money, power, and politics,”’ (Speth 39). Indeed it seems that money is a driving force behind many of our environmental problems, and the ever-growing economy will make it harder and harder to protect natural habitats and ecosystems. “The world economy’s forward momentum is large […] there is no reason to think that the world economy will not double and perhaps double again within the lifetimes of today’s young people,” (Speth 18).
With many of the worlds forests being in developing countries and the pressure for these countries to keep up, the decision between economic growth and environmental stability is one that is all too easy for governments to make. Therefore, we must highlight the economic benefits of saving this earth (because having a clean, providing, beautiful planet is not enough…). Speth cites nature-based tourism as one of the biggest industries in the word, and no one is going to want to visit the great redwood stumps. We live in a “now” world and the benefits people can’t see in the immediate future are tossed aside. For instance, since the carbon/climate issue isn’t immediately detracting from our way of life it becomes a problem for future citizens of the earth to worry about.
Going along with the economy theme, those that have the least say or ability to change things are those that rely upon earth’s ecosystems the most. The poor and impoverished have the most to lose, many relying on the earth for their necessities and income. “Summary for Decision-makers” reveals that, “In 2001, 1.1 billion survived on less that $1 per day of income, with roughly 70% of them living in rural areas where they are highly dependant on agriculture, grazing, and hunting for subsistence,” (12). Speth refers to the solution thought up by Roger Stone and Claudia D’Andrea, saying, “the relatively simple act of allocating responsibility for managing and protecting forests to the local groups and communities that depend upon their healthy survival rather than on their destruction,” (Speth 40).
It seems that by simply convincing more people than not that the environment and its ecosystems are worth a damn will we be able to take steps to slow the damage already done. In a world infatuated with money it’s not a little ironic that the “almighty dollar” is green.
Speth delves delve a bit deeper into the reasons for the ravaging of earth. The reason summed up when Speth cites the disappearance of Sumatran and Kalimantan forests, “Asked why, an Indonesian professor of forestry replied simply, “Money, power, and politics,”’ (Speth 39). Indeed it seems that money is a driving force behind many of our environmental problems, and the ever-growing economy will make it harder and harder to protect natural habitats and ecosystems. “The world economy’s forward momentum is large […] there is no reason to think that the world economy will not double and perhaps double again within the lifetimes of today’s young people,” (Speth 18).
With many of the worlds forests being in developing countries and the pressure for these countries to keep up, the decision between economic growth and environmental stability is one that is all too easy for governments to make. Therefore, we must highlight the economic benefits of saving this earth (because having a clean, providing, beautiful planet is not enough…). Speth cites nature-based tourism as one of the biggest industries in the word, and no one is going to want to visit the great redwood stumps. We live in a “now” world and the benefits people can’t see in the immediate future are tossed aside. For instance, since the carbon/climate issue isn’t immediately detracting from our way of life it becomes a problem for future citizens of the earth to worry about.
Going along with the economy theme, those that have the least say or ability to change things are those that rely upon earth’s ecosystems the most. The poor and impoverished have the most to lose, many relying on the earth for their necessities and income. “Summary for Decision-makers” reveals that, “In 2001, 1.1 billion survived on less that $1 per day of income, with roughly 70% of them living in rural areas where they are highly dependant on agriculture, grazing, and hunting for subsistence,” (12). Speth refers to the solution thought up by Roger Stone and Claudia D’Andrea, saying, “the relatively simple act of allocating responsibility for managing and protecting forests to the local groups and communities that depend upon their healthy survival rather than on their destruction,” (Speth 40).
It seems that by simply convincing more people than not that the environment and its ecosystems are worth a damn will we be able to take steps to slow the damage already done. In a world infatuated with money it’s not a little ironic that the “almighty dollar” is green.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
