In this continuing blog on “sustainability” I want to address another of the major tenets which in this case is intergenerational equity. Just as on the techie side of things we always go back to “heat goes from hot to cold in the most direct path possible,” we once again return to the roots of sustainability as defined by the Brundtland Commission report. As you will recall, it says “meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” While the report itself may not actually used the words “intergenerational equity” it is inherent in that definition and deserves further discussion.
There appears to be an almost universal wish to make your childrens’ world and condition just a little bit better than your own and while I myself am not a parent, I do feel a profound responsibility to do that in some small part on a global basis.
So how do we implement something like intergenerational equity? Maybe one starting point goes back to the Native Americans of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy who believed that in decision-making we had the responsibility to look at the effects unto the seventh generation going forward. This early and wise warning recognized that the smallest as well as the largest of our acts may have unintended but profound consequences that go beyond the present day. How many times have we seen the results of decisions that were not so carefully considered? On everything from opening up the prairies of Oklahoma for farming to the dust bowl it initiated several decades later to our current use and abuse of resources, we have left ensuing generations with far less than what we have had. This is particularly true of fossil fuel resources as well as water both of which will become increasingly of lower quality and quantity in the years ahead. But it is also true of soil quality, fish stocks and innumerable other natural resources which we too often take for granted. It also includes certain social trends that impact the quality of life of future generations like warfare, vehicle use and population. One of the best places to look at these trends is the yearly compilation of indicators in the “Vital Signs” report put out each year by the World Watch Institute (see http://www.worldwatch.org/taxonomy/term/39 or for a more detailed look). Looking at a number of the individual indicators as well as the entire picture they paint when taken in toto should be enough to make us take pause if you feel any responsibility at all for coming generations.
This, then, brings us back to one of the root causes that may make intergenerational equity more difficult to obtain in the future and one that is conveniently swept under the rug in most polite conversation. That is overpopulation and maybe the best gift we can give our children is to have less of them. The Brundtland Commission report speaks directly to this and it says, “In many parts of the world, the population is growing at rates that cannot be sustained by available environmental resources, at rates that are outstripping any reasonable expectations of improvements in housing, healthcare, food security, or energy supplies. The issue is not just numbers of people but how those numbers relate to available resources.” They go on to say, “But this is not just a demographic issue; providing people with facilities in education that allow them to choose the size of their families is a way of assuring — especially for women — the basic human right of self-determination.”
All this has some pretty deep implications for those of us who are not in a developing country where we see that it may be customary for them to have a large number of children and to understand some of the reasons why. In some instances having large families takes the place of Social Security that we have in our country and in their case the children are there to see after the welfare of their parents later in their life. The other aspect is that it helps to provide the family a source of labor for vital needs such as to sometimes carry water or firewood from extremely long distances.
So we need to ask ourselves here in this country some pretty hard questions if we’re really interested in global sustainability. Is it better for us to make an investment to buy solar panels for ourselves or maybe buy a system half that size and donate the rest of the money for solar ovens, solar water purification devices (see http://www.box.net/shared/4fc3de3piv or the more detailed http://www.box.net/shared/ytcd6gp84h ) and solar lighting in developing countries? Each of those might in some way help reduce their need to maybe have families that large. The lighting would also provide an opportunity for some women to educate themselves which, as noted by the Brundtland Commission, has been tied statistically to lowering the birth rate.
But then the responsibility goes a lot further than placing any onus on developing nations for population growth as our own society, on a per capita basis, uses many, MANY times their resources. While countries like China and India have growing rates of resource use, we have had over a 200 year jumpstart on them in everything from food production to climate change gasses and they cannot be blamed for wanting to attain a higher standard of living for their children as well. More on this next time.
Congratulations, Joel. You’ve defined one six syllable word using two words, one of which has seven syllables! But this is, after all, what we do, like George Carlin’s observations on how the term “shell shock” from WWI became “battle fatigue” in WWII, became “operational exhaustion” in Korea, and finally “post-traumatic stress disorder” in Vietnam – we obscure the truth through over complication and euphemism. Let me add to the pile with a reference to Bill McDonough and the Hanover Principles which take the basic definition and consider it from the point of view of the “designer.” http://www.mcdonough.com/principles.pdf
Listening to John Fogerty sing “Bad moon rising” he could introduce it as being about global climate change and sustainability:
“Hope you, got your things together.
Hope you’re, quite prepared to die.
Looks like, we’re in for nasty weather.
One eye is taken for an eye.”
Keep singing. We’ll join in.
Hi Ross,
Great to see you at the conference this past March. Been too long but nice to now you are out there “lurking” to keep us all honest.
Well, my intent in going into the word “sustainability” as I have been is that the words “sustainability” and “green” were said to be the most often used marketing terms this past year. Personally, I almost can’t bear to hear them anymore as they have been made so devoid of meaning as to become almost worthless. SO, in reaction to that I wanted to go back historically to the root of their development and try to ruminate on some of the basic principles from the sources.
McDonough is just fine for specifics on some aspects of it but a good grounding in the generalities can be helpful to reveal some conflicts with specifics. So, before I get too much into any sidebars like buildings, solar and the like, I think I want to address some of the bigger picture items — seven syllable words and all;>
See you at NESEA 2010, Ross.
Best,
Joel
Hi Joel:
Very academic blip….. nice ideas and correct too…
However what is nice an correct doesn’t matter does it..
Nature will take care of over population as she always does, and in our world that means the bulk of the dead will be the poor and uneducated and the “in the wrong place at the wrong time” crowd. Having most of the losses at the lower end will suite certain entities just fine while trimming population in the process…. for in the Matrix it really was not the machines feeding on us, but us feeding on ourselves….
…..Bill
PS: Nice CCR memory from Ross…
“There’s a place up
ahead and I’m goin’
just as fast as my
feet can fly
Come away, come away if
you’re goin’, leave the
SINKIN’ ship behind.”
Was it the Beatles that said,
“All you need is Money”… oops
no that was LOVE….
Well, exactly, Bill,
What is nice and correct does not seem to matter in this other-directed world–at least not for much. And sure, the planet will survive; the planet will heal but the human race may not and maybe there will be no one, not even the rich, to mourn for what is lost (The Beatles?).
Ah, but I am getting academic again and that may not be what folks want to hear. But that is OK too, I think what I am trying to get across may only appeal to a very small group and I readily accept that. We’ll see where this goes, together, and maybe by doing so come to some deeper meaning of sustainability than PV panels (I’m and old solar thermal guy you may have caught on at some point–and passive solar too) but even beyond that to some deeper, inner feelings on where we need to go. Thanks for helping me on this journey.
Best,
Joel
Hi Joel:
No… I am really not beating up on you… I offer all the previous with a bit of “tongue and Cheek” or sarcasm, not sure which…
If you have seen my site you know I am a thermal guy as well, who was around to watch Ronnie basically extinguish the industry in 6 months….
All non sense and the obvious aside, I don’t think their is a lack of understanding AT ALL in knowing what to do. The problem is that a currency based world no matter what the political philosophy, does not reward solutions based on the correct direction but on what makes the most money. All systems, family, theoretical politics, religion, base society, etc.. have been infected and had their base DNA altered to reflect the NEW GOD. We have no outsider to fix the problem and no systems left to counter balance the whole… so what’s left are like fire flies of hope in a mostly twilight sky, and theirs barely enough light to see where you are going.
PS: Sorry for the imagery…had a creative moment…LOL!
“Nature will take care of over population as she always does, and in our world that means the bulk of the dead will be the poor and uneducated and the ‘in the wrong place at the wrong time’ crowd.”
Bill, I understand the anguish that compels someone to think this, but at the risk of being offensive, let me ask:
Is that your plan? THAT”S what you propose as a solution? We face serious, global problems of sustainability, and our best hope is for a massive die-off of the human race? That’s one heck of an ethical abyss to stare into.
Or perhaps you’re saying that sure, we’ll try to address our problems, but it’s no use, because the vast majority of people (not US of course, but all those OTHER dopes out there) are too stupid, greedy and shortsighted to avert calamity. We can try, but the evil powers that be, and the great ignorant masses, will never let us succeed – so we’re boned.
Well, that’s exactly a way of thinking, believing and acting that will guarantee the outcome. If we want to fail at the monumental tasks before us, that’s exactly the attitude to do the trick.
Sorry to rant, but mindsets are important. They guide our actions. My guess is that you’re responding to the “academic” aspect of Joel’s post, reminding us that in the nitty-gritty real world, things are a lot more complicated. I couldn’t agree more, but heck, let’s stop wringing our hands and start rolling up our sleeves.
Hi David:
Not offensive…. it really is more what I mention in post 5… we have the answer to the “Engineering” problems (broadest sense of the “E” word”). I believe the issue if you wish, is that the entire monetary driven world only allows change to occur if it has hard verifiable profit, or by accident. I don’t think this is really a big intellectual stretch to make either… most of the reasons we are in this mess to begin with is a result of the very same system. We are like the monkey with our hand in the cookie jar that knows he is going to get nailed if he does not open his hand to release the food, but we still, knowing that, hold on to it. Sometimes the reality is, to see/create a solution you have to go through a total collapse of what created the problem in the first place. This situation is not without precedent… and such is an under lying meaning to the rebirth of the “phoenix”. In our socio-political world, power and money have never given it up willingly, only shifted to a different venue when there can be even more profit. To put it crudely, we have been _hitting all over the place for a long time and now we are complaining that it stinks. None of this denies, that on an individual level a single person can simply “do the right” things, but it does imply extreme difficulties or even impossibility in forming a unilateral mass approach by the numbers.
…..Bill
I would like to go on your list and be informed of future Green Trade Shows that may be held.
Loved these posted, hey check ou a solar installation company in the harrisburg, PA area 17011, http://sungenuity.com and http://sunbeagle.com, http://sunpowermyhome.com, and http://sunpowermybusiness.com
Great… now we are doing the classifieds….
Dear Secco or whomever you may be,
Let me very kindly but firmly tell you never, as in no manner shape or form, ever intrude on one of my blogs in this way again. I will go to your web site and find out what I can about you and then widely and in no uncertain terms let others know of your behavior. I will do this in a sustainable manner like as in “forever” so that rampant bozo-ism is erased from the hallowed NESEA blog site for all time. Do you understand this?
Sustainably Yours,
Joel N. Gordes