Before I get into anything, I have to say how overwhelmingly proud I am to live in a town with a “sustainability plan.” Even if it was just a piece of paper that said “sustainability plan for Fairfield, Iowa” over and over again, just the sheer fact that it exists puts us head and shoulders above almost every other town and city in America. Any suggestions I make regarding the plan, then, are with the underlying idea that it’s amazing and I’m all for it.

Fairfield is a great proving ground for this new direction. At 9,000+ in-town population and over 13,000 in the county, we’re not not so large as to hinder communication, but not so small as to avoid notice from larger communities. As the population runs from ultra-conservatives to extreme liberals, and from multi-generational rural agricultural families to new-aged hippie-types, we will certainly figure out a way to make these changes appealing to both ends.

In fact, I’m so for it that all of my criticisms center around the idea that it is simply not enough. I’ll explain:

“Sustainability” is falling victim to the same fate that befell “environmentalism” – that is, it’s becoming a catchphrase for anything remotely “green” – yet another catch word for things that are somewhat better for the environment. This causes all manner of confusion, and even when mentioned in Fairfield’s plan it never really becomes clear. The first section deals with “creating a culture of sustainability” – but even after reading the goals I have no idea what that actually means. Eduction, maybe?

If I may, I’d like to put forward what I think is a logical definition of Sustainable: “Being able to continue forever.”

The whole reason a plan like ours exists is due to the increasing awareness that our American society cannot sustain itself – from fuel usage to agricultural practices, from energy generation to economic structure – and if continued unchanged it would eventually collapse. Under that knowledge of the future, it is vital (as in, “saving lives” vital) that our community be able to continue forever.

In my view, the single most logical step we can take is to become completely self-sufficient. That is, 100% of food and energy produced locally, with a total reduction of fossil fuel usage (aided by the rise of alternative fuels and electric vehicles). THIS IS NOT A CALL TO ISOLATION. Quite the opposite – a completely self-sufficient community would provide an overabundance of goods and services, creating a huge boon to the local economy and the creation of exportable goods (We cannot import goods with the current economic model… only until trucks and trains become sustainable (non-fossil fuel dependent) does that option open up). We will become better neighbors, being in a position to supply out, rather than demand in.

Fairfield’s plan does not have self-sufficiency as the end goal, and therefore falls short. It does leave a window open to the possibility, but it is implied rather than laid out, and with a waved hand towards the future. I doubt the writers of this plan believe that self-sufficiency is even possible, or at least didn’t want to push too hard on their first try. In any event, you can’t call it a “community sustainability plan” without planning on making the community sustainable.

I’ll show you what I mean by changing the three main goals of the plan.

Original Goal 1: To Create and Maintain the Sustainability Culture.

Revised Goal 1: To Create and Maintain a Completely Self-Sufficient, Sustainable Community.

Original Goal 2: To Create Jobs, Wealth and Opportunities for Investment, with Sustainable Development.

Revised Goal 2: To Eliminate Unemployment and Increase Local Economy through Methods that Increase Sustainability.

Original Goal 3: To Achieve a Sustainable Community Design and Public Policy and Infrastructure.

Revised Goal 3: Restructure Urban and Rural Design to Support Sustainability and Ease of Use.

I’ve already laid out a plan to increase local food production while decreasing unemployment (by the conversion of lawns to gardens). Creating a local food-backed currency is another great way to boost local economy (and it’s something we might be starting as early as July). Even having a central composting area (to which stores and restaurants can dump expired foods) seems like a no-brainer… but the best the plan has is mentioning learning more about vermicomposting (composting with worms) from MUM (Objective 2C(1)), and a very vaguely outlined idea on public compost disposal units… which it does not detail (where does it go? who gets the compost when it’s done? who runs it? how is it transported? etc).

Even such good-sounding ideas as Objective 3E(5): “Require organic farming methods on city-owned land” miss the point completely: Organic Farming is NOT SUSTAINABLE! While I’m sure the idea was the same, the wording is quite simply not. I understand it’s a common mistake to confuse the two, however, this mistake points to either ignorance or laziness on the writer’s part, which makes the entire plan more questionable.

That said, some parts of the plan seem much more solid. Almost everything under goal 2 seems straightforward and concrete, my favorite being goal 2A: “To Achieve Energy Independence as a County.” Bam. Right on. It is simply put, with a definite measurement of success and clear steps towards that goal. Why the rest of the plan has to be so vague is beyond me.

We need to ask ourselves what we would need to do to survive if our current economic model crashed this very hour. Recording specifically what would need to happen to keep everyone alive (growing our food, constructing greenhouses, and so on) gives us a list of what needs to be done. Since our economic model is still (somewhat) working, we don’t have to drop everything and start ripping up our lawns – but we can start. Leaning on this current model as a way to get off it is a viable plan (how else will we get wind turbines and solar panels?). We need gasoline and trucks, bulldozers, dollars and so on… but we can either continue to need them under the pretense of “sustainable” or we can use all of these things to reduce our dependency on them to the point where we won’t need them anymore.

In the end, this plan shows us that the town is headed in the right direction – local affluence, abundance of cheap and healthy local foods, decreased power bills, and so on. As it stands, however, it’s vision of the future is very hazy… something that I am sure will clear up in time. In the mean time, I’ll be outside, ripping up lawn to install more garden space.