Topic
The papers are all compiled below. Click on any of the
names in the table below to jump to the selected student's paper, or just
scroll through them. Do Not Print Papers from this page. If you
want to print one, copy it into a Word document. Printing from this page
will print all the papers and waste many trees!
Ali Dozier
Top
Such a heated thing it is to encourage ecologists to
think like economists or to assume that economists could cognate like ecologists.
To come up with a definition that not only satisfies the wants of society
but also makes a giggle resound from the hearts of loathing foes is, to
say it simply, impossible.
So, forget it.
Let’s stop trying to define sustainability. Energy spent
on this task is lost, gone like the trees and breathable air that are lost
and gone every second of every day.
We can’t put this off any longer, semantics our only
excuse.
We have the technology. It was here before we got here.
It’s funny how that always seems to slip peoples’ minds. The Earth has
been perfecting the art of containing carbon-based life forms since archae
bacteria played Marco Polo in sulfur pools. Humans have interrupted Mother
Nature, and instead of arguing over the precise allocation of sustainability,
we’d be better off working on ways to reduce our population and curb the
continuing assault on our planet.
An extreme view is this, but this is the attitude that
will take us to a livable planet.
There’s this squirrel that hangs out on my front porch.
He was attracted there by an apple tree nearby. His favorite thing about
my yard is my blueberry bush. In fact that was the one thing we had in
common.
I’m a blueberry fan, and when I found that he was waking
up in the morning before I was and eating the slowly ripening jewels of
flavor, I thought about being upset, building a fence around it and selfishly
securing the…blueberries.
Blueberries…blueberries, a fence around blueberries to
keep the squirrel away from my…blueberries…MY blueberries.
Honestly, the bush grows about eight berries a year,
and I could have gone to that length to save them (an avid blueberry fan).
It’s not our world. We don’t own it. We can’t protect
it.
I’m mad because there is this problem of pollution
and all the issues that come with it: recycling efficiency, the economy
of Our Nation (oh, how holy), continuing contributions to global warming,
blah, blah, blah. But we can’t really do anything about it. We can’t fix
it.
We can stop contributing to it all. We can stop
worrying about the Economy and it’s probability of continuing to the next
generation, and that’s it. That’s the only thing that will help.
And I have to catch the bus.
Amy Robertson Top
Sustainability is a broad and difficult to define term. What it means to a straw-bale house builder and an economist figuring out a long range business plan for Weyerhaeuser is very different. The eco-design construction worker is thinking in terms of low-impact living. On the other hand, the economist is thinking of how to yield capital for many years to come, how to make business last. Though these views of sustainability seem very different, are they? One could argue, these people come at the question of sustainability from almost opposite angles, but they arrive at a similar destination. Both are looking to maintain the natural world.
Does the ideology make one inherently noble and the other inherently selfish? This is again a question of perspective. Some people view economic success and ingenuity as an example of human nobility, proof of strong character and intelligence. Therefore, if one could develop a way to harvest trees for hundreds more years with sustained yield and economic efficiency, they would then be both noble, successful, and by the papers definition, economically sustainable. Some environmentalists would say with how few intact forests we have left calls on us to stop harvesting trees from the wild. They propose we use timber farms for harvest, limit wood use and utilize timber-alternative products in place of trees wherever we can.
The paper defines ecological sustainability as maintaining an ecosystem’s resilience. Some environmentalists see the resilience of the ecosystem as dependent on alternative sources of timber products, believing the ecosystem can no longer handle forest degradation. From this perspective, many options are viable. One can chose to build straw bale or cobb housing to minimize wood use. Taken a step further these same people can promote and teach these building methods. People can also work on a local level to grow small, quickly growing plants for paper production. Again these same people can organize and promote these methods. Groups from either or both examples can work to pass bills to support sustainable timber alternatives in many avenues of life.
The author states that environmentalists often go overboard, believing "all environmental impacts (are) sustainably relevant." With that said, the author suggests environmentalists need to prioritize for effective policy analysis. This is both true and necessary. We should focus on timber- alternative products and alternatives to fossil fuel use. With the rapid depletion of forests, carbon-dioxide pollution is abundant, and hydrologic and nutrient cycles are suffering. Therefore, we must protect what intact forests we have left. Clear cutting is no longer an option. Furthermore, the reason we have such carbon-dioxide pollution is excessive fossil fuel use. In addition, it is well understood fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource.
In conclusion, much must be done. We cannot banter
over who’s perspective is right. We must understand we all want to
live and for many of us monetary success is a strong held value.
It is time to see that working together we can be both sustainable and
economically viable. All it takes is cooperation, commitment and
prioritization to find pro-active solutions to the current rate of environmental
degradation.
Andrew Marr Top
No Paper Submitted
Anna Constance
Top
The author offers that sustainability is "managing economic
activity so as to address inequality and poverty in ways that do not undermine
the base of future economic activity" (31) in order to illustrate his main
point which is "interactions between economic activity and the environment
are pervasive, complex, and characterized by uncertainty" (39, 42) and
whereas economists and ecologists both have independent conceptualizations
of sustainability that are useful, they are also lacking. Furthermore,
the author poses the question "does a synthetic approach exist, which can
contribute to the analysis of human behavior and debate over how human
society should behave?" (55).
After examining the economic perception of sustainability, constant consumption by humans, and the argument that economic growth can continue via substitution of environmental services, and should continue in order to avoid further poverty and inequality, it is evident that human society must move away from economic theory and embrace a new paradigm. Economics values human production and consumption above all else, and, along with capitalism, is the predominant anthropocentric model that has brought us to ecological decline. Economists focus their attention predominantly on three functions that the environment performs in relation to economic activity, which are amenities, resources, and waste sinks, while ignoring the most essential function, that of sustaining life on planet earth. Consequently, economics can contribute to human society by analyzing how we arrived at this point, so that we can develop a new paradigm and avoid repeating the past. Furthermore, while ecology offers a more ecocentric view of sustainability, by emphasizing systemic functioning, it neglects to relate to human interests, thus it is not a sufficient model either.
Developing a clear definition of sustainability is essential
to changing the way human society views our role on planet earth.
Sustainability is not just a physical concept, but also an overall ideological
system. Thus humans must develop both in order to achieve a sustainable
lifestyle. The most essential idea that I incorporate into my definition
of sustainability is that humans are but one link in the web of life.
Humans must humble themselves to this idea. I want to see humans
think of sustainability in terms of living within the limits of the natural
world, and while all life impacts their environment, we should take steps
to reduce our impact. Sharing, building relationships, and taking
care of each other and the planet are essential to my definition of sustainability.
Questions the article raised for me:
In terms of economics and the environment, what steps
are necessary for humans to take and can our current lifestyle be maintained?
How can humans have the least impact on the land? What needs to change?
Is economics a useful tool at all? Do "we" as humans need to keep
the earth functioning in our interests? If humans are uncertain how
global warming will affect the planet, and changes may balance everything,
should we continue our current rate of production and consumption?
Can you separate the individual population from the ecosystem? Does
an end to growth really result in poverty and inequality? This assumes
that growth equals happiness. What is wealth? Can economics
really address poverty and inequality? It seems more political, and
economics is in a vacuum. What does sustainability mean? Both
economist and ecologists have a different definition that emphasize different
things; however, are both useful?
Ben Shryock
Top
The part of this article that really got my attention
was the section that deals with substituting capital for environmental
services. This struck as me as both a good idea and a very bad idea
after reading this section. The paragraph concerning the substitution
of capital for resource base functions explains a valid idea; it says that
we can use capitol to make our houses more efficient, reducing the need
to burn a resource to replace hot or cool air, depending on the season.
We must remember that technology that we use to insulate our houses with
will cost resources to create, but that is a one time investment that will
more than be paid back in fuels saved over the years. This comes directly
from the idea of conservation, but people don’t understand that if they
consume more efficient materials during construction and pay a little more,
that after five years they will be saving big bucks over the man who build
with the cheapest materials. This point, for I agree fully, was not
what really got me fired up while reading.
It was actually the paragraph directly after that one
that got my blood boiling, the one dealing with exchanging capitol equipment
for amenity based services found in the natural world. As soon as
I read that switching from lakes to swimming pools still offered someone
a chance to enjoy recreational swimming, I began muttering curses to wall.
But when I read that natural settings could be replaced with virtual reality
technology, mild swearing suddenly transformed to cussing that would offend
a sailor. The author states that with the advances in the entertainment
sector of our economy, we can enjoy the flora and fauna without leaving
a high rise apartment building. My God, I can only pray that old
W doesn’t read this book: EUREKA, he would shout, I have found another
reason to tear up the trees and drill Alaska. Even if he was just
using that idea as an example, it still makes me wonder what was running
through his mind. These days it only takes on published source to
push some crazy bill through our legislature, and if it doesn’t come to
that, it might at least convince some whacko to start a company that will
cut down a forest to build VR Palace, a lazy man’s hiking paradise.
Beth Belanger Top
What exactly is sustainability? Furthermore, how
does it affect our living standards in today’s society? Last week,
I had an acquaintance scoff at the mention of sustainability and I found
myself regretfully admitting that it seems like just another buzzword rather
than a valuable ecological concept. This week at the sustainable forestry
conference, a speaker asked if all of us live sustainable lives?
He then answered his own question by saying "no, we probably do not."
If those of us that are suppose to be more ecologically minded are having
difficulty incorporating this term (or way of living) into our lives, then
how can we ever get the general public to think of sustainability as more
than a passing phase or trend? At this critical point in time and
history, we must internalize this concept of sustainable living by decreasing
our excessive consumption patterns.
While we all may have the best intentions to live in
a way that supports future biodiversity, few actually follow through.
For example, how many students in our class opted to read the reserve handout
in the library, rather than making a copy to bring home, thus supporting
paper-reduction? We may assume that many of us (including myself)
did not. That is not to say that we are individually selfish and
wasteful. The point is rather that we live in a society based on
efficient use of time and money, which often makes for inefficient (wasteful)
natural resource consumption. In exchange for convenience, we give
way to long-term negative environmental ramifications. Only, when
we start to shift our priorities and values, will we then move towards
sustainability.
Just how do we move our lives towards increased sustainability?
While there are no easy answers, perhaps the most pragmatic resolution
is to curve our over-consumption patterns. As the Sustainability
article states, "in a cake-eating world, sustainability is impossible"
(p.47). What most people want to know is how to make the cake/resources
last forever, without giving up the comforts, rewards or conveniences that
the product supplies? Furthermore, how do we keep the economy going?
We must begin by reducing our excessive consumption. Then we can
invest our extra money into better ‘green’ products, which are generally
more expensive but less harmful to the earth. Simply by using our
own purchasing power, we can keep the economy moving at a constant rate
while decreasing consumption.
In my opinion, sustainability means making efficient
use of the minimal amount of non-renewable resources needed to survive,
meanwhile searching for effective flow resources (wind, solar, hydro) to
replace the stock. Ultimately, what it comes down to is reducing
our over-consumption patterns. We can all pay lip service to sustainability,
but in order for it to develop fully, it requires adjusting our personal
and collective lifestyles.
Blake Kownacki Top
The definition of ecological sustainability as defined
in the article is one that is vague and hardly concrete. This statement
can also be applied to the definition of economic sustainability, as defined
by the article. Both of these definitions rely on the state of disturbance,
however the processes of these disturbances differ.
We’ve learned that stability refers to a propensity for
return to an equilibrium level, following a disturbance. Resilience
is the ability of a system to maintain its structure and patterns in the
face of disturbance. Listed in the article, the idea behind ecological
sustainability is seen as the system having the ability to produce comparable
yield after a disturbance. However it neglects to relate the information
of what the consequences and the changes are due to the disturbance.
Nothing is permanent, change is the constant. However we as humans
have created change in ways that tinker with the balance of the natural
systems of the planet.
Even though we as humans have the ability to conceputualize
sustainability, I do not believe that we have the ability to implement
it into our everyday lives. It is apparent that human beings will
not, by choice, return to the days of primal man in order to return our
planet to it’s natural sustainable balance. We will continue to manipulate
the planet in order to achieve are goals no matter how corrupt or noble
they may be.
I believe that only one standard of sustainability must
exsit in order for the debate to move forward. If not we will be
in perpetual disagreement about whose right and wrong. I wish that
I could define that one standard, but I lack the resources to do so.
I do believe however that sustainability means leaving for my children
a planet that is no worse off than it already is. However optimistic
this may be, it is an impossible goal with current definitions of stability
and it’s relation to economics and the environment.
Brian Mc Elfresh
Top
After reading the material on sustainability and reckoning
the difference between economic and ecological definitions I am left with
a completely different idea of what sustainability actual means.
The reading has challenged my definition of sustainability. I am
now prepared almost reluctantly- to take on the new ideas presented.
Although I can understand the definitions given for both economists and
ecologists I don’t know if sustainability is capable of being achieved.
"Sustainability is constant consumption by humans" (48). I have never considered this a definition of sustainable, or for that matter, considered this thought anywhere near the idea of being sustainable. Humans, then are capable of sustaining themselves until all resources are depleted in which case we’ll find ourselves no longer sustainable and an end to our existence? Wow, I don’t like this... Consumption as sustainable, coupled with the fact economists have not considered viable alternatives for substitution capabilities presents a dark picture for me.
I am as uncomfortable with the ecological view of sustainable as the economical. I like the idea of ecologists including the properties of systems and not just human activity in their definition. However, I have trouble understanding the stability and resilience properties to the overall equation of sustainable. I agree that in order for something to be considered sustainable it must continue on even after disturbance. The idea of a system continuing on if the effects change so long as there are comparable results also is a bit troubling.
I don’t have sound proposals and answers to my new
problems developed over sustainability. However, more importantly, the
issue has been raised to question my understanding of what it means to
be sustainable in terms of ecological and economical senses. Certainly
the prospect of sustainable, when computer simulation replaces actual experience
in the natural environment (43), is something important to understand and
work towards changing.
Brooke Smith Top
Sustainability
I find it really hard for me to comprehend the flat text
writing. After reading the section I really didn’t have much of an
understanding of the information provided. The main concepts that
I got were the difference in definitions of sustainability for economics
and for ecology. I guess the definition for economical sustainability
is true but I found the other definition was not that great. The
terrible thing is I can’t support my reason for that comment.
I’m not sure what the main point of this reading was. But I do know
that there needs to some kind of balance between the definitions to insure
better sustainability for the earth in a whole. We can’t keep on
w/ the rate we are going now if we want the resources in the future. So
what do we as economists and ecologist do?
I’m sorry but I really don’t have much to contribute about this reading. I think I’ll go and read this for the third time and see if that may help. It’s just hard to try and keep all the definitions and arguments about sustainability straight and then try to create my own definition. I think if I take the time to define my personal understanding and meaning of the word itself, the others maybe easier. Hopefully by then this reading will make more sense.
I apologize to any one who might of read this. What
a horrible attempt to me reaction other than the fact I didn’t have much
of one. It is difficult for me to understand all the technical writing
that is found in a text. I vow to work on that.
Bubba Rush
Top
Our planet was not formed with infinite resources for
us to use. For quite a time, it seemed as though the forests would never
end, the coal could never run out, and the buffalo simply couldn’t all
be killed off. Many of the resources we take for granted are limited, and
some may even become unusable within our lifetimes.
The Hartwick model or "cake-eating" model proved an important point to me. A resource considered finite on a human time scale simply cannot be used infinitely. There is no such thing as the sustainable harvest of non-renewable resources. Our use of these, though is only part of the problem.
The article touches on the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy law. This law states that in every transformation of energy into another form, some energy is irretrievably lost. Thus, even as we consume "renewable" resources, we are losing energy that can never be used again. Trees are used as an example of an efficient source of energy. Relative to their biomass, trees can produce a remarkable amount of fuel, building products and other items useful to humans. Yet, no matter how much of the energy extracted from trees is returned to their growth cycle, some will be lost. Large- scale entropy usually occurs in the same time frame as the production of new fossil fuels. Humans tend to accelerate entropy beyond normal stable ecosystems.
The author mentions recycling and how, while useful, materials can never be completely recycled. This is another example of the entropy law. Imagine harvesting one tree, making ten reams of paper out of it, recycling three of those reams of paper to make two reams of paper, and the burning the rest of the tree. Very little of that energy contained in the original tree has been returned to the growth of other trees, especially when compared to a tree falling and rotting naturally in the woods.
We need to be concerned with the fast use and waste of
the "non-renewable" resources the earth provides, because they are the
ones we will see run out fastest. However the slower and more subtle depletion
of our "renewable" resources, is something we need to watch equally closely.
David Bell Top
No Paper Submitted
David Jacobson Top
No Paper Submitted
Dawn Curran
Top
Humans vs. All Other Living Organisms
I would like to start out by saying that I do not fully understand the concept of the chapter. The economic flow chart of the natural environment was difficult to read, but the long explanation of the chart helped me understand it more. The chart was completely based off of the economic view of pollution in the natural world; I wish the chapter had an accompanying graph that showed how sustainability flowed in policy with an ecological view.
The economic view and the ecological view of sustainability are unalike and almost incomparable. Economic sustainability is based around ôhuman interests, defined as consumption,ö and the ecological sustainability ôstarts with the properties of the system of which humans are a partàecological approach pays more attention to the properties and behavior patterns of ecological systems.ö (49) My beliefs are in the ecological sustainability much more than the economical sustainability since I have grown up with a belief, like MuirsÆ, that humans are just a meager part of the system. I suppose for the life that we live, we must have both views of sustainability considered and fulfilled in order to keep a more balanced sustainable future in which humans live. The economic view on pollution and therefore on sustainability is completely anthropocentric. Currently man runs the world (except for natural disasters), and we are not trying to re-diversify the mammals on the globe.
This chapter by Common was very educational. One thing that shocked me in the reading was that alternative energy sources were not even made public until 1973/74. I have grown up in a generation where so much is already defined for me, and where most of the major philosophies and theories have been identified. I thought that alternative energy sources have been implemented and publicized for at lest half a century now. It is a shock to imagine that something so vital to our sustainability was not made public until so recently. We have made a large jump towards preservation and sustainability since the notion of it was first made public.
Sustainability is something that humans cannot forget
about and need to develop methods for more over time to support it.
As humans become more aware of the environmental and economic effects of
not living sustainable we will acknowledge that adaptation to new methods
is vital to the existence of humans and all living organisms.
Debra Joie Top
No Paper Submitted
Elise Sanders
Top
I read this week seminar article on sustainability.
However, I do not feel that I understood what I read. I noticed that
I would read three or four pages then stop and say "what did I just read?"
I understand that there are multiple definitions of sustainability and
economics defines it differently than ecology. I that according to
the article that the economic view point of sustainability is that we consume
at a rate that will ensure that future generations will be able to consume
the same resources at the same rate. Now does nonrenewable resources
factor into this scenario? If it does then there is no way that oil
and coal could be sustainable because we are consuming them at such a rate
now that the future generations will not be able to consume them at the
same rate. In reality nonrenewable resources could never be considered
sustainable because future generations will never be able to consume them
at the rate that we currently do, eventually these resources will be exhausted
whether it be in 100 years or 500 million years. However, if this
version of sustainability does not include nonrenewable resources then
what are the elements included in sustainability? Forests are a possibility
and at our current rate we are consuming them in an unsustainable way.
If we change our demand on these forests this would also not be sustainable
because part of the definition of sustainability includes not changing
our consumption of resources. So how do we consume anything in a
sustainable way unless the resources are limitless?
An ecological definition on sustainability is the
idea that an ecosystem must remain intact and function the same way as
the original. This does take out the anthropocentric viewpoint but
not entirely because we are part of the ecosystems that must stay intact;
no man is an island. Therefore if we were to take the forests into
account in this scenario we would not be able to consume them at all because
this would disrupt the forest and keep it from function like the original.
Can there be a compromise between the two?
In my opinion there must be a compromise or else the whole idea of sustainability is not functional. We have forests; there is a demand that we use these forests for human "needs." True we could get these products other places but still we would be creating the same demand on another resource. In order to be able to consume these in a sustainable way there must be a compromise. We can cut down the forests and convert them into whatever material we deem necessary but we must do so in a way that will allow the forests to stay at equilibrium. We cannot take out more than is being put in. This would allow also for future generations to be able to use these forests and allow them to consume them at the rate that we can consume them; assuming that we do not cut down more than the forests can reproduce itself. However, if this is true and this is sustainable then these forests wouldn’t be much good for human consumption because we currently "need" many more trees out of theses forests than would be sustainable. Therefore, timber would be inefficient and an alternative resource would need to be found. With this alternative resource we would still have to harvest it in a sustainable way.
This can get very confusing and I end up going in
circles. Is there a concrete definition of sustainability?
If so can we ever operate as a sustainable society?
Elliott Ridgway Top
No Paper Submitted
Geoff MacIntyre Top
No Paper Submitted
Glenn Burkhart Top
In the first sentence of Common’s Sustainability defines the problem of sustainability as "that of managing economic activity so as to address inequality and poverty in ways that do not undermine the base for future economic activity." In reading this I gathered that the purpose of having a sustainable economy is to 1) eradicate inequality and poverty, and 2) to ensure the prosperity of future economic activity. The problems surface when we come to the realization that ecological sustainability will be compromised by this effort to maintain a sustainable economy. And in turn that ecological sustainability is crucial in maintaining that same economy that is combating eco-sustainability. The circle of life continues but this circle continues to consume itself getting smaller and smaller with every turn of the tides. I don’t think that sustainability is achievable with the current rate of economic growth.
Common offers two ideas dealing with limits to growth. One which says that growth must subside in sometime, and the other that growth will continue but take a different form, and would be sustainable. I tend to agree with the former because I cannot seem to envision a sustainable world with growth. Even if we enter into the "information economy" the tools needed to convey different forms of information, whether it is books, computers, musical devices, still require resources from the earth to produce. Unless people can agree on a sustainable plan then I think that we will be forced into sustainability by lack of resources. We will be forced into controlling growth and consumption or be faced with the consequences.
Unfortunately this may require restrictions and regulations
to control growth, which I don’t believe is the best solution either.
Instead, if those who are so inclined to learn about the issues, as we
are, and share what we learn with others, then maybe we will be able to
change things. Although I think this is a very optimistic goal, to
say the least, but perhaps achievable all the same.
Hannah Snyder Top
No Paper Submitted
Ian Kirouac Top
"In a cake eating world sustainability is impossible." As long as we as a society, country, and world continue to use resources that are in fixed supply, or use renewable resources at rates which exceed there ability to regenerate, sustainability will remain exclusively a word whose meaning we argue about.
Economics are concerned with the state of the biosphere only as far as it concerns human interests- defined as consumption. What happens to the environment in pursuit of consumption is only of instrumental concern. In other words we use the environment as a tool, like a carpenter uses a hammer, to get efficient consumption levels that are sustainable with no regard as to the effect it has on the global ecosystem. Economists believe in the Hartwick Model and Rule- to add to capital stock, the main point of which is to identify resource substitution possibilities; however most of the capital stock is diverted into other profit making schemes instead of new technologies to solve compounding problems. In a long list of self admittedly flawed assumptions, economist add the necessity for population to remain unchanged for the model to work.
"Ecologists start with the properties of the system
of which humans are a part." There is much less agreement on the ecological
side as to the meaning of sustainability;
However, the theme is clear- the environment has value and possible rights above what we deem its value for consumption.
We can assume the earth is the center of the universe
and only things that affect the human race matter. All living things that
do not impact our economy or "life support function," can therefore only
complicate it and should be eliminated. These assumptions would be in line
with an economic view. The reality is that just because a dollar value
cannot be applied to an issue does not make it worthless. This is at the
core of economic cost/benefit analysis. Until this changes the world will
continue to breathe polluted air, and eat contaminated fish, at efficient
levels.
Jacob Wilson
Top
There were a few interesting concepts in this weeks reading
that could lead to changes in my approach to environmental and social issues.
Finally, I’m seeing the potential for some pragmatic value in the economics
we’ve been studying. How the author summarizes the Hartwick rule
reveals this to me. He says, "If consumption involves depleting one
asset, it is wise to build up another asset to replace it (49)".
I know this is anthropocentric in an economical context but it’s also a
wise approach to a variety of issues. It’s about using your energy
wisely, and it is non-antagonistic.
For example: If a logging community were to realize before the beginning of its waning due to resource exhaustion, that its lifestyle could run out of fuel in the future, it could funnel its energy into other economic pools like outdoor recreation. Or they could focus on good education within the community to ensure awareness of and access to solutions for future problems. Or they could send a portion of their profits into developing more sustainable forest practices. The converse to all these options would be to continue harvesting at unsustainable levels as well as to continue to pool all profits right back into the system and have faith and hope that all that money it’s making will be able to find a way to keep it going.
Making decisions about environmental issues based on efficiency is not evil. Another great example is pollution clean up. There comes a point when continuing to clean up the very last remnants of an oil spill is just too expensive. we have a limited budget and that money should be prioritized to do the most good it can. Principle is not always the most good. Cost benefit analysis is crucial to getting the most good out of our dollars.
On page 58 the author puts it another way that I could
relate to personally in certain contexts. "Among some environmentalists
there is a tendency to treat all environmental impacts as sustainability
relevant, and a reluctance to determine priorities. Given the number
of environmental impact problems that can be identified, some prioritization
according to sustainability-relevant criteria is necessary for effective
policy analysis". There are hard questions we have to face, but we
have to face them, and in facing them we have to make choices between them.
Keegan Murphy
Top
One part of this reading that gained my full attention was the section
that talked about "substituting for environmental services". The
author suggests that humans could derive similar experiences but ones that
were not exactly the same by the use of substitution. The author
used a few examples in the context of amenity services. Such as using
a swimming pool rather than using an ocean or lake for there swimming wants.
Another example used was how the entertainment industry could use its capital
equipment to create a virtual environment in which humans may experience
the great outdoors with its flora and fauna without ever leaving an urban
setting.
The later example is an extremely poor one, there is no way you can
experience the greatness of the outdoors from a computer. I’m sure
a computer can recreate a mountain scene with flowers and animals all over
the place, but this virtual environment is in no way capable of recreating
all the minute details you experience when you are actually there to smell
and touch things for yourself. That is like comparing a video game
to real life, and I hope every human being can tell the difference between
the two and I hope we cherish the real thing. The virtual world has
its place and it is not in recreating my wilderness experience. If
our society wasn’t able to have any contact with the great outdoors except
through virtual simulation our quality of life would decline greatly.
It would be great for our environment if we had no impact on it but I think
we can come up with better ways to avoid the destruction of our ecosystem.
Anyways our society is already sprawled out all over the place, not everyone
lives in an urban environment.
This reading discussed the attributes of environmental problems in
relation to threats to ecological sustainability and distinguished six
attributes, one of which that I found very interesting. Ignorance, the
author stated we could expect ignorance to increase the more complex the
problem is that we are dealing with. I wonder how well our society
is aware of what is actually happening within our environment, because
we have policy makers who are passing laws based on vague scientific understanding
of our global ecosystem. This makes me wonder if our global society
should try to tackle issues like that of global warming, because we are
aware that we have much more to learn about topics such as this.
Though we cannot ignore these issues either. This makes me think
about he precautionary principal. Should we take action now before we have
full understanding. Or should we wait until we have a better understanding
and risk being too late.
Kelly Cannon Top
No Paper Submitted
Kelly Stoddard Top
No Paper Submitted
Kevin Long Top
No Paper Submitted
Kevin Reis Top
I found the sustainability reading by Common to be quite informing. It showed me that more detail goes into the concept of sustainability. The checks and balances that are required of industrialization, government, and sociological.
It becomes quite necessary for industrialization
to voluntarily police itself. This requires more net income for the industry,
which in turn requires more production. The local society needs to accept
the cost of policing the industry. This may occur through higher prices
or layoffs. However with newer methods of production may come newer jobs.
In the long term our environment will be in a better state of living. We wouldn’t have to live on a "biologically dead planet earth"(pg.43). In the process of continuing the build up of sustainable industry we create sustainable economy. Of course we allow the earth to continue being it’s own sustainable unit of biomass.
We also have taken some of the environmental decision making away from the government. By industry and the society coming together on the issues of polluting, the "weight" is essentially "taken off the shoulders of the government".
With the extra monies being pulled in, industry could build up the technology to run more efficient sustainable procedures. The implementation of the Hartwick rule would also be feasible, in that it would add to capital stock giving industry a reusable resource, a recycled resource. It gives the economy, and environment a resilient back up supply.
It is however necessary for both parties to "change
with the times". Our environment is constantly changing, so does it make
sense to have absolute guidelines to try and control life around us? In
order to keep production up, technology expanding, and all life living,
it becomes necessary to find newer resources or go back to older ones.
As long as the environment changes there is no absolute way of producing
and obtaining full human benefits from the environment. The ways need to
keep changing and work together for the better of the circle.
Kevin Smith Top
No Paper Submitted
Lara Boyd Top
To me, this reading was different from the other chapter
we read of his. Granted, there were definitely confusing parts, this
one seemed especially difficult for me to follow. There were many
parts of the chapter I felt my mind wandering, and almost all focus was
lost. Grasping the concept itself wasn’t hard, and I had taken some
classes at the U of I that had units directly related to this. The
language throws me and I can even be sitting there with a dictionary and
after all unknown words are looked up, I have forgotten the point or it’s
even harder to understand. That’s in some parts, but quite a bit.
The overall idea I gathered was that he was explaining
the idea of economic sustainability vs. ecological sustainability and how
the two interact with each other always, but which will be the more efficient
outcome for society in the future. He seemed to elude his opinions
on the two ideas, but sometimes he would have strong feelings about something
and makes a very weighted statement. I was pretty sure he might have
been arguing for implementing more ecological sustainability ideas, but
his language threw me.
One section I particularly enjoyed, however short
it was, involved opportunities to substitute a more efficient means of
our resources. He brought up the energy crisis and how many were
looking into alternatives for energy, such as solar power and wind power.
I had a class back in Iowa called Environmental Ethics that dealt almost
directly with these ideas of society and the environment and we read a
book that had chosen selections of essays written that had either a pro
or con side to an argument such as this. Influential people either for
the ecology side or the economic viewpoint wrote the essays and it was
so interesting. The alternative ideas should have been discussed
in a little more detail in my opinion, it would have helped me have more
of an opinion to the writing, which always makes for interesting.
The assimilative capacity area was pretty gray
for me; I would have liked him to give some examples when he discussed
the subject at the bottom of page 36. The whole concept itself seemed
to lie on the grounds of other concepts, which I also did not understand.
Overall I enjoy discussing the concept of sustainability
in any aspect, but it was pretty difficult for me to absorb all the information
stored away in this piece of literature. I hope to be able to spend
a little more time on readings like this for next time.
Laura Garber
Top
In Chapter Three entitled "Sustainability" by Common,
in the part called Substituting for environmental services, the author
talks about virtual forests and being able to see a natural environment
and not actually traveling to one. "Apparently it is envisaged that
computer technology will, via virtual reality devices, make it possible
to experience most of the sensations of actual use of the natural environment
without actual use of it" (Common 43). This point reminded me of
the reading of the chapter by Sagoff called "The allocation and distribution
of resources." By taking people out into the wilderness and exposing
them to it, we think that they will benefit from this and try to appreciate
it and preserve the forest. Yet if in the future there are only virtual
forests and natural environments, will the sensation of being in them really
be the same. Computers are not reality. "People may come to
think that a gondola cruise along an artificial river is a wilderness experience
if there is simply nothing to compare it with" (Sagoff 61). Just
because we will have the ability in the future to virtually display the
natural environment, does not mean that we can destroy the one that we
live in know. Common contradicts Sagoff a little when he says "One
might reasonably take the view that while human life on a biologically
dead earth is feasible, it would not be in the least desirable" (44).
Sagoff would argue that the future humans would not know the difference
because they would never have experienced the natural environment, they
would be content with the virtual one.
In my opinion, I feel that a virtual world is just that,
virtual. It is not real and it would not benefit future generations
unless put to good use. Good use would be to look at the virtual
forests and try to rebuild or protect the forests that are left, this is
all in the future though and there really is no saying what we are to do
other than try and make it a better place for our future generations to
live and enjoy.
Leif Wywadis Top
The issue of sustainability in the world today is a huge and confusing issue. Whenever this is discussed the questions fly around about economics being involved in ecology. For all of the different views and discussions it was hard to find anything that somewhat resembled a clear definition.
Regardless of which point of view you choose to take the Earth will somehow heal itself. The natural resources we use surely have a limit and at some point will run out. So knowing these facts what will be the consequences of putting all of are eggs in one basket. Will we discover a solution here?
The many different ways we have exploited are environment have resulted in the severity in natural disasters. If this is the case are we setting are selves up for the same disasters only in human form. Through this whole course I have yet to run into a problem or issue as difficult as this one.
I have many strong feelings on how we treat our environment but on the other hand I think we need to consider the world as a whole and the many different issues involved . There are a lot of times that the very thing I support is contradicted by the way I act. Although I do not want people to starve, freeze, or die of disease I won’t hand out money to a transient. This issue of sustainability is confusing and stressful I really feel that breaking it down into numbers might make it seem understandable but doesn’t make it feasible when used in a natural environment.
The future of the human race is uncertain in terms of
sustainability but the trend of environmental awareness is becoming
more and more important. Hopefully this will create a snowball effect
and change the way we treat or mistreat the Earth. Finally I feel
this is a major problem and should be something for everyone to consider.
Linda Gibson Top
I believe that the information provided in this reading is of interest, however, the manner that it is presented did not lead me to focus on the material, much less retain it. It seems that many writers believe that more words, especially those that are unclear to many readers, are preferable to writing in simple language and in such a way that the words create a visual image. I fail to understand why, other than to impress the reader with their genius, that a writer would choose to write such a wordy and flavorless paper. I, literally, was bored to tears.
The material covered in this document is fairly simple and probably at my current level of knowledge on the subject, so I was fairly disheartened that I struggled so with each sentence. The topic covered should be so intriguing and the reader should gain something significant, other than a sense of frustration. Granted, I learn quicker through lecture than by reading since there is opportunity for questions and clarification. I would be interested to have this paper explained to us in a lecture, if there is time.
Of the topics that I didn’t understand in the reading, one was capital equipment. Is it equipment needed to attempt to restore the environment? Is it money? Is this a term that is used often in the environmental/economics world?
The diagram on page 32, Figure 3.1, was confusing as well. I had a difficult time following all of the arrows with all of the lines. Generally, it’s easiest for me to think of the biosphere as a sphere and not a "heavy black-lined box".
I was interested environmental/economic relationship covered
in this reading and it obviously relates to the Trees, Timber and Trade
program. But I don’t feel that I got enough out of the document for the
time spent reading and re-reading and for the annoyance of having to do
so.
Lisa Fredrickson Top
No Paper Submitted
Mary Warner Top
I thought this week’s reading was actually very interesting and I actually understood almost all of the points that the author was trying to get across. I found this funny due to the fact that it was written by the same author as week one’s reading that I could barely understand at all and I am wondering if I am just getting used to reading more technical stuff or if it was on subject matter that I understood better from the beginning. Probably the later.
I thought probably the best and most emphasized point in this reading was the difference in views on sustainability between economists and ecologists. "Economists emphasize human management in human interests…and neglect considerations relating to the function of the biosphere…Ecologists emphasize system function considerations, but cannot relate those to human interests in any direct and simple way". I think this sums up a large part of the reading. I thought the author did a great job at providing pros and cons for each style and trying to find ground for a mix of the two at the end in what he calls a "synthetic and operational approach".
I thought the points made on stability and resilience in this reading were very well delivered. While reading about it and thinking about it, it does become clear how an environment like the tropics can be very stable but not have as much resilience as a temperate system that is less stable but has high resilience. In looking at that it makes it obvious that one individual way (economic or ecological) of looking at sustainability can not be followed, just as one plan would in no way work for both of these systems with out looking at them as individual functions.
I also really enjoyed the fact that this author is very strait forward in his definition of terms and his analysis of diagrams. The diagram really helped me to understand his points and see the interrelatedness of events and the options he was discussing. This helps in the backing up of his points and the understanding of the writing on a whole. I wonder though, who designed these diagrams.
Matt Crawford
Top
Economic sustainability and ecological sustainability,
two very different ideas for the same concept. I have a lot more
problems with the economic view of sustainability after reading commons
words. The idea that as long as the asset being depleted, whether
it is renewable or not, can be replaced by another asset once exhausted,
is just plain stupid for me. Economists seem to assume that as long
as we people can keep going about life as always and just replace whatever
we use up with something else that will work everything is grand.
I don’t understand how that can be known, although I guess it could just
be assumed. What is to say that switching one asset to another after
the first is depleted wouldn’t alter things a lot, either by having to
deplete this new asset, or from eliminating the fist completely?
The idea that economist and economics itself does
not need to deal with real world situations drives me crazy. I can’t
get over all the assumptions, especially when they don’t hold up.
I am convincing my self that economics is in its own imaginary dimension
operating on Earth. This I need to do to separate it from the living
world around. For me sustainability is about sustaining what is here,
all the life on Earth. Keeping the world healthy is the major concern.
I just don’t see how economics can completely ignore everything other than
people.
Meagan Robison Top
No Paper Submitted
Patrick Coleman Top
The six attributes of environmental problems in relation to threats of ecological sustainability concerning was a portion of the article I found especially interesting. To better understand this concept I thought I would apply them in my own words as concerning the consumption of fossil fuels contributing to global warming.
1. Spatial extent: Since the consumption and use of fossil
fuels is a contributing factor in global warming the entire earth is effected.
2. Temporal extent: At least at this time no one knows
how to reverse the effects of fossil fuel consumption has had on earth.
So, as far as anyone can tell right now the effects are permanent.
3. Impact size: Again the effects are global, therefore,
every living organism is or will be affected in some way.
4. Complexity: It is maybe the most complex issue to
date since there is an infinite number of variables and contributing factors
to be considered and to make matters worst human interests are involved
to an overwhelming extent.
5. Ignorance: There is a huge portion of the world’s
population that knows nothing about how the consumption of fossil fuels
contributes to global warming. Until just a few short years ago I
was one of these people.
6. Intractability: The only real good answer to solving
the problem is to stop the consumption. Which is not a likely solution
because, as stated before, there are too many people affected.
Ray Gleason
Top
This chapter was very interesting, addressing many controversial
environmental issues that have political function. The flow chart on page
32 is relatively simple when looking at it before reading the entire chapter,
but after the reading I noticed that the chart is showing many different
complex relationships stated as "economy-environment interconnections".
It seems that much of the current world’s problems (besides
war) are either relative to an immanent approach of a lack of energy resources
(exhaustible resources) as we know them or the negative environmental effects
of their use is becoming obvious and possibly detrimental to our global
ecosystem. Some of the possible answers to our current very flawed energy
resources are known as Flow Energy resources such as: solar radiation,
wave power, winder power, hydro power (flawed from the hydrologic cycle
prospective), and tidal power. These are some of the options none of them
are completely flawless in their own right but may have less damaging effect
than the huge fossil fuel usage of today.
Some of the problems with fossil fuel consumption are
related to the release of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s). CFC’s from
human activities usually derive from economically relative sources. They
have ozone-depleting properties thus reducing the UV-B filtration in the
stratosphere. This reduction of the ozone (sun filtration) has many
harmful effects on the biosphere with negative effects on plants, causes
cancer, lowers immune system, causes cataracts, and may effect phyto and
photo plankton.
One statement that interests be from this section on
UV-B and its negative effects is that "It should be presumed that the extinction
of any species will change the way the ecosystem functions" some more or
less beneficial or harmful to human interests (ex. Grizzly bears, Salmon).
Recycling is defined as interception of the waste stream
prior to it reaching the natural environment and has been considered and
implemented in reducing environmental exploitation. Many different materials
may be recycled and creating many more valuable items that could be considered
less damaging to the environment than extracting more raw resources.
Some that may be recycled are wood, plastic, metal, glass, oils, gasses,
but some that are not able to be recycled are fossil fuels that have been
burned (combustion).
In determining whether our human interests are workable
on a long term we must consider Stability and Resilience. First stability
refers to a system’s ability for return to an equilibrium level following
a disturbance usually related to a population. Second resilience
is a property of an ecosystem rather than a population it describes the
ability to maintain structure and patterns of behavior in the face of disturbance,
a resilient system is one that stays in existence in the same way even
after a major shock to it.
There are some fundamental attributes of environmental
problems in relation to threats to ecological sustainability that were
stated on PG 56.
1) Spatial extent: geographical range of the problem.
2) Temporal extent: duration of the problem through time.
3) Impact size: effect on each individual and the number
affected.
4) Complexity: number and nature of the cause and effect
relationships involved in the problem.
5) Ignorance: human awareness and understanding of the
nature of the problem.
6) Intractability: difficulty of devising and implementing
a response to the problem.
From my personal experiences the Ignorance attribute
is the most noticeable, having lived most of my life in Randle a very small
logging community there has been a lot of excess environmental damage due
to the lack of knowledge, sad.
Rebecca Leach
Top
I liked the cake-eating model described on pages 46-47 to illustrate the ‘core of standard economic thinking.’ ‘A cake of finite size cannot be divided into an infinite number of pieces of equal size.’ So clear and simple. Maybe a little corny but finally I understand a concept in the midst of all this theory and models and speculation that doesn’t seem to apply to the world around me.
I had a hard time with this reading. I couldn’t
make the concepts extend past the text and into the forest or economy.
After seminar I still felt like a lot of interesting topics had been covered,
but without a means to apply it outside the room we were in. Talking
theories around in circles and into the ground makes me start to think
that none of it matters anyway. The earth destroys the life on it
periodically and maybe humans are just destined to be the destroying force
behind it this time. In seminar, someone brought up dinosaurs as
an example of a dominant species that was totally wiped out. Well
if what I learned in elementary school is taken as true, then there were
all kinds of animals and plants in dinosaur times that no longer exist.
The plants and animals around now, and hundreds of years ago, are completely
different than the ones around then. So who is to say that the same
thing happening again would be such a big deal? It almost seems arrogant
to think of humans as such an exception in the life on this planet, that
we are so wrong in our destructive ways. No one criticizes dinosaurs
or other animals or plants for trying to expand their species; ‘nature’
works so that if they have truly gone too far, they will destroy themselves…
Richard Dunn Top
No Paper Submitted
Sarah Lowry Top
No Paper Submitted
Si Bussmann Top
The reading by Commons allowed me a good reference point
from which to interpret the earlier reading by Sagoff. While Commons
explains a view of the stance on the policy of sustainability, Sagoff is
suggesting the social and cultural changes the world would need to take
to achieve a state sustainability.
When considered fully, it appears that as the use of
one resource is reduced the use of another must increase in order to maintain
our way of life. In the case of energy sources, the installation
of many alternatives to coal-burning(solar power, wave power wind power,
hydro power and tidal power) create problems in other environmental arenas.
Likewise, recycling requires large amounts of energy.
The creation of a sustainable economy and ecology would
require a major ethical change as Sagoff suggested. These changes
would greatly threaten the functioning of free-market economies and the
living standard of the first world. Ideally, in order to be sustainable,
would have to implement the philosophy of a speaker(sorry forgotten
name) at the Sustainable Living Conference who asked, "Are you sustainable?"
Being sustainable would require that each individual use approximately
1/6,000,000,000(or total population at any given moment) of the assimilative
capacity of the earth. Are you sustainable means- are abusing your
percentage of the assimilative capacity of the globe? As a species
we are, mainly because the richer countries produce so much more than they
need. The first step would be to use a significantly smaller amount
of non-flow energy sources. This contradicts the ethics of a culture
whose driving force and measure of strength is its willingness to increase
consumption. Either the ethics must change or we must reduce then
maintain a much smaller population. Both are next to impossible to
consciously encourage with a hope of succeeding, unless propelled by a
major environmental calamity that directly illustrates to everyone this
fact.
Considering the gradual changes are libraries packed
with bad science fiction. These futures are a war in which each individual
may victimize their own next of kin -but how can we be held responsible?-
out of ignorance.
Stacey Godin Top
No Paper Submitted
T. J. Merrell Top
No Paper Submitted
Thomas Kolb Top
Sustainability is not an American catch word. Can it be reached today? We would like to say, Of course it can! We humans are capable of anything. But do we believe this? What do we do to make our lives sustainable? In the 1970s Bill Mollison coined the term permaculture for a sustainable agriculture system based on a multi-crop of perennial trees, shrubs, herbs, fungi, and root systems he had developed in Australia. Permaculture (deriving its name from both permanent agriculture and permanent culture) looks to create systems that are ecologically sound and economically viable, or in other words sustainable.
It is possible to create such systems, but they only ever seem to operate on relatively small sites. And I struggle over the naturalness of such sites. As a member of a society that unknowingly divorces itself from the natural world I sometimes fear myself in that natural world. I forget that I am part of the environment and am thereby entitled to some movement that may change what happens around me, much as a Red Alder is entitled to making the soil uninhabitable for itself. Only in my example I hope to not make the system uninhabitable, but more inhabitable and sustainable. It is a difficult thing to attempt to be sure; humans have in their capability the means to manipulate and destroy the environment. But one of the main tenants of permaculture is observation of natural systems. An understanding of natural cycles and systems allows a person to mimic such systems and figure out how to skim from the different benefits of that cycle. And if the system is copied well enough then the system should have some degree of sustainability.
As written here sustainability sounds quite attainable, and I suppose
that it is. Yet, society does not seem to even be thinking in this
direction. Natural systems are not even cared for, let alone observed
and copied. People want their food to come in plastic so they know
it is clean and the want their car to go 80 mph to get to the next appointment.
And even though we know we are not living in sustainable ways, we cant
slow long enough to get out of our current ruts and it seems that we are
heading more toward a red alder’s place in succession than the place of
maestro of our own system of sustainability.
Travis Loucks Top
No Paper Submitted
Tyler Knapp Top
I found this paper to be very complex, heady, and too
intellectual. I had a hard time following what Common was trying
to get at, and felt that he could have left out a lot and simplified it
to make more sense. I understood how he laid Figure 3.1, showing
the environment and all of the human economic gains with arrows and such,
but I didn’t understand the graphs at the end of the paper.
One point that Common brought up, and that I really appreciated
was on page 48. He points out and criticizes how economics is anthropocentric,
or human-centered, and "Humans are seen as feeding off the biosphere, albeit
in rather complex and possibly immaterial ways, rather than being part
of it." I think that this is a huge obstacle that we
must overcome to understand sustainability, and then to enact it. I think
that one of the main causes of environmental destruction/ problems is humans
thinking that they are rulers of and apart from nature, structuring their
activities around selfish motivations, and not considering other species
that have as much a right to live as we do. How can we, or society
overcome this problem, this anthropocentric paradigm that dominates our
culture?
How can the ideas presented in Common’s article be applied
to forests?
V.J. Gomez Top
No Paper Submitted
Will Dezan Top
No Paper Submitted