I like the fact that I live in what might very possibly be one of the most ecologically aware and socially responsive (if not responsible) communities that I know of. Whether or not the mayor is green, and whether or not the city has a sustainability plan is largely (completely?) irrelevant. Why’s that? Because I was aware that Fairfield was one of the more progressive communities, ecology-wise, back before organics and alternative energy were hip.
So I’m very curious about what this most recent greening initiative, which Will brought up, is really about. (Full disclosure here – I’m in indirect conversations about this plan in other groups around town). Have we moved forward in the 20 years that I’ve lived here, and what’s new on the agenda that makes Fairfield more forward thinking than other communities out there?
After reading just the title and the introductory page, I decided I needed to frame questions for the plan to answer:
- What is sustainability?
- Why is it relevant now, versus any other time in the past/future, and what is different about how we deal with ’sustainability’ now?
- How can we make the core ideas of sustainability themselves sustainable?
- Is there a progressive agenda at the heart of this issue in Fairfield, which leads us out of the current status quo (economic, environmental, educational, or otherwise)?
Although this was the backdrop with which I read the document, I still kept an open mind about it (as much as a cynic can have I guess). The answers I came up with are as follows.
1. What is sustainability?
IMHO ’sustainability’ needs to be defined before the document can start using it in virtually every paragraph. The wide and varied use of the term indicates an ambiguity and ambivalence which I fear might dilute the purpose of the exercise. I’m going to create a definition here, and let’s see if this holds true while the term is used in the document:
Sustainability is the term used to define a harmonious co-existence between environmental, social, and commercial interests with a mandate that environmental and social concerns take a priority over commercial ones. A sustainable solution will be one which disallows commercial interests from overwhelming either social or environmental issues.
After reading the Sustainability plan I suspect there’s actually a different definition at the heart of the matter:
Sustainability defines the process by which Fairfield’s economic, cultural and social interests might be best served in the long term, while ensuring that environmental concerns are addressed (only?) where appropriate. Sustainability defines long term economic viability, with an ecologically neutral (or negative) impact.
Why do I think that the document does not make environmental and social concerns the focus? Because of the individual clauses as they are currently defined. The focus largely (but not completely) appears to be on the economic stability of the city. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it’s not about sustainability in the ecological sense. It’s definitely about sustainability as a self-serving process.
Reading through this 32 page draft I got the impression that it should have started with a core set of values; bullet-points which clearly stipulate what we want to gain, and keep the hype entirely out of it. (Just as an example of what I consider hype, the vision includes the statement “Reduces non renewable energy consumption and increases energy generation”. This implies that we’re going to increase energy production and reduce consumption, which is self-contradictory at worst and oblique at best.)
I was much more impressed by what was proposed in the Sustainable City Demonstration Project, presented to the Iowa Power Fund (actually I’m not sure if was targeted at IPF, or actually presented to them). That document actually feel simple and straight-forward to me.
I guess my suggestion for the Sustainability Plan would be the following:
- Keep it simple. If you can’t present it to junior-high-school students, it’s too complicated
- Separate out the clear visions, clear deliverables (i.e., what we can get done with the current resources), and the hype/wish list (future vision of energy independence, carbon neutrality, etc.)
- Have a clear and unambiguous statement of purpose. Why does this matter to us?
For instance, it’s not because we are stewards of the Earth (’coz we sure as hell are not!) but because there’s an economic necessity in making small-communities self-sustaining as far as possible (rural communities have always known this historically, but somehow managed to forget this in the last few decades).
As far as the document itself, we’ve got the tools and technology today to allow for public comment on anything/everything that the city wishes to do. There’s absolutely no reason not to make this public. Go with the Open Source model and make the process completely transparent. It’s going to be hard, but the people who actually care and know are who will get involved (vs. potentially the people with a vested interest). I’m not saying that there’s a vested interest right now, but the lack of transparency most certainly worries me!
‘Sustainability’ (in both economic and ecological contexsts) depends upon community participation. This in turn requires diversity of opinion, which is only satisfied through a truly enlightened leadership (pretty freaking unlikely) OR full transparency (quite easy to implement). Once we get transparent participation in place (yes, it’s hard and will require work), the rest starts falling into place.
The only vested interest then becomes the future of the community, since all other interests are satisfied as subsets of the system!
So, how can we open up the discussion to everyone and make people aware that this document (and possibly many others) need participation?
I agree with your suggestions to keep the plan simple and clear in vision, deliverables and purpose, and that getting more people involved would be ideal. I don’t see any reason why this can’t be made public and transparent, (although really finding people willing to do the work rather than just make a bunch of noise is sometimes harder than one would think..).
I’m a little confused by your definition of sustainability though. My understanding of something sustainable is more about ensuring that resources are not used up faster than they can be replenished or used in a way that they can’t be replenished at all. Also that it’s about setting up systems that regenerate and can be maintained indefinitely rather than permanently use up resources and eventually burn out completely. I don’t see why commercial interests can’t also be involved as long as they are factoring in the environment and the people. OK, maybe we ARE saying the same thing… heh.
I don’t find a statement like “Reduces non renewable energy consumption and increases energy generation†to be contradictory – the important words being “non renewable”, but maybe a phrase more like “Increase energy production but switch from non renewable energy generation to wind and solar etc” is more clear?
In any case, I think the reason why the whole sustainability question is relevant now is both how far we have gotten away from sustainability combined with the fact that enough people have actually, finally become aware of it and are now ready to do something about it – we’re at or darn close to that tipping point that creates forward moving action. If it takes it being hip and cool for people to start doing the right thing I don’t really care, at least they found out about it and they can start doing it for the right reasons later.
Hi Heather, thanks for the very insightful comments. Let my try to clarify my position:
1. The term ’sustainability’
I remember the big push in the late 80’s and early 90’s for green, ecological products. That movement dissipated as commercial interests usurped what green/environmental meant. I fear that a lack of clear purpose (which can be elucidated to the community at large), could again derail the whole process.
.
I think we’re on the same page
BTW, I don’t see any dissonance in commercial vs. community. Without economic viability there’s really no value to ’sustainability’ , since we won’t have sustainance
But that’s why I feel that the terms and the scope should be clearly articulated up front.
2. Contradictory statements
). The problem I see is that there’s not a consistent use of the term. More energy generation is by definition unsustainable (even with renewaable resources, since components are not renewable in the forseeable future). Also, economic growth can be sustainable, but only with adaptability to the latest trends, and this is not inherently true in environmentalism.
The point I’m trying to get at is not specifically about contradictions (this being a draft I think it’s unfair for me to be that critical about it
So let’s say that the point is to be economically stable, environmentally benign and socially responsible. This actually defines a set of broad priorities (which I think is what the document is trying to do, but not doing so for me directly).
With the specific point of the renewable energy Fairfield, AFAIK, cannot itself decide that it’s going to generate more renewable energy. The city is not in the business of energy generation, and it doesn’t really have a say (please someone correct me with specifics if I’m wrong on this). So the objective is to reduce energy use, and then push for renewable alternatives. But the key here is reducing energy use, not increasing energy production.
To be fair the intent was probably to say just say ‘replace non-renewables energy use with renewable sources’. Which I could probably still come up with a way to criticise
3. Why now?
). I read the current document as a set of defined deliverables which might be instituted as a short-term mandate. A long-term vision would be far more helpful.
I completely agree with you. I find that the current approach to environmental sustainability includes commercial interests, whereas I saw very little of that in the 80’s/90’s. The movement stronger and has great forward momentum. This is why I think the city should have a broader vision of our future.
I don’t think this comment forum really provides adequate space for what I need to say, so to be as brief as possible: I think we the document should be a framework for how the city can encourage sustainable behavior through market forces and selective subsidies (common land for projects, assistance with community gardens, are a couple of bad ideas
For example, the idea of a learning center and school projects are nice, but that’s going to happen anyway (they’re already happening around town) – so that should not be the city’s mandate. Instead it should be to provide the opportunities (tax breaks, greants, etc.) and tools (land for perma-culture and community experimentation). [The parethesized suggestions are off-the-cuff and I'm not proposing them as good solutions, only as things to weigh. A public discussion of these ideas would definitely bring up far better solutions from more informed and competent people than me.]
And I’m totally on board with you re: hip and cool. So how do we make this process hip enough and cool enough that everyone wants to participate?