Week 11: Sustainability

1. How do you believe sustainability should be defined for policy-making?

Stephen Wheeler mentions in his book, Planning for Sustainability, that the term sustainability has become “…one of those inevitable expressions that so neatly encapsulate what many people are thinking that it quickly becomes ubiquitous. Yet the conceptual roots of the term sustainability go far deeper and have to do with the evolution of human attitudes towards the environment within Western culture” (19). In addition he mentions that “ most sustainability advocates throw up their hands when faced with the definition question and fall back on the Brundtland formulation”(24) The Brundtland Commission defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”(24). This definition is vague when it comes to policy making. It tends to address both weak sustainability and strong sustainability without defining how to meet the needs of the future. My view is that sustainability needs to be redefined in terms of policy-making to incorporate meeting criteria needed to create a more sustainable world today, while also being able to alter policies for the betterment of future. Because policy making for the future is a difficult task to gain popularity votes, the definition of sustainability must address both generations while looking deeply at our goals for the present generation. In my mind, sustainability for policy making should be defined as creating and maintaining holistic conditions that address the goal of social, economic, and environmental equity of today while also addressing possible future needs to the best of our scientific knowledge.

2. What are the difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal?

As Solow mentions “Sustainability is a problem precisely because each of us knows or realizes that we can profit at the expense of the future rather than at the expense of our contemporaries and the environment” (183). With the same view as Solow, it is difficult to get citizens and voters to act voluntarily on something that they will probably not see results of in their lifetime. As a policy goal, one difficulty is encouraging people with selfish mindsets to invest with time, money and energy into a possible outcome in a formless future. With the cluster of different values and outlooks on sustainability, the difficulty relies in establishing one goal, one focus that all citizens agree upon. This is echoed by the many definitions of sustainability presented in Planning for Sustainability, by Wheeler. How can citizens agree on sustainability as a policy goal, if we cannot agree on one definition of the term sustainability

3. If you had to design a practical framework to help a state environmental agency(e.g. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality) achieve ecological, economic and social sustainability, what would that framework look like? A. For example, how would you include citizens? How would you include experts? Which experts would you include?

Designing a practical framework to help a state agency can be complex. A proportional goal of environmental values, social values and economic values must be in sight when developing such a framework. To start I would appoint a panel of experts to address the current state problems. These experts would be a mix of government officials, as well as scientific, economic, environmental, and social professionals. With a motley mix of professionals a thorough understanding of each problem can be clarified. For each problem, education must be set in place. Without knowledge equity in the social realm will be completely lost. In addition, the panel should hold frequent meetings to gain insight from surrounding communities and other professionals about the issues at hand. With the integration of experts and the community, environmental problems will be addressed more carefully without a tendency to lean towards one realm or another. Thus, the environment, economy and social realms will all benefit from this framework.

4. Voters and politicians often want short term results, but many argue that sustainable development calls for a long-term policy plan. How do we take the long term view that sustainable development requires in this political environment?

According to Solow, our future is “inevitably vague”. We cannot determine the technological capacities, or future values of the next generations, thus planning for the future is a difficult task. It is human nature to act first for our own survival. Thus, the short term policies that address air quality, health issues, and economic certainties are often at the forefront of our minds as voters and politicians. However, has become apparent that our actions of today will greatly affect future generations. By degrading the environment for economic gains, our future for humanity is appearing grim. In order to accommodate both generations in our policy plans, we must begin with holistic short term needs which voters will hold as important values, while also leaving flexibility to address future needs. A holistic approach to short term planning will address the problems of today while also addressing the social, economic, and environmental implications that it will cause in the future.