Comments on Natural Resources

I got "The Importance of Vision - Part 1 from Rachel's Environment & Health News #727 and wanted to provide some feedback as requested in that message.

I really like what this group is doing and agree that sharing a vision is both prudent for us today and the key to a positive future for our world tomorrow. What follows are my initial reflections on the narrative in the document referenced above.

1. In the importance of Vision - Part 1, there is an underlying theme that material consumption is bad and that the United States is chief among the offenders in this area (e.g. para 1 speaks of the "limitless growth of material consumption." and para 2 articulates the United States' "...relentless commitment to growth,..."

Comment: From my perspective, material consumption is a given and is not inherently bad in itself. The key to sustainability is not reducing consumption, but rather matching consumption to available resources so we always have enough resources to continue living in tune with each other and our world. I think eliminating negative connotations about material consumption and replacing them with the importance of good stewardship and balance would make this document better.

2. In Worldviews para 2 there is reference to previous "limitless resources" and the current situation in which "Natural resources have become scarce,..."

Comment: From my perspective, there may have been people in the past who viewed natural resources as limitless, but it wasn't so in fact. Earth's resources have always been limited, albeit at levels higher than people may have needed at the time. Even today, we have many resources well in excess of our needs (take sea water and atmospheric CO2 as examples). By implying that we previously had an overabundance and now we have scarcity, this document presents an skewed view of sustainability - it lays the groundwork for an alarmist approach to dealing with the issue. The best way to develop a vision shared by all is to avoid alarmist approaches and emphasize stewardship of available resources in a way that provides the most benefit to our natural world (people included).

3. In Worldviews Para 4 there is reference to re-establishing "..a spiritual connection to nature" implying that this connection doesn't exist today and that all people today see the world in "humans versus nature" terms. The section goes on to say that "People will recognize that humans are part of nature...and must obey the laws imposed by nature." There is then another reference to the scarcity of natural resources referenced above.

Comment: While there are certainly some people who hold the "humans versus nature" view, I don't see it as a predominant view in global terms. By raising the issue in this way, red flags will go up for those in organized religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) who take seriously their holy writings and traditions that man has been given dominion over the world. A better way to deal with this issue is to say that people will better understand humans' role in nature and how to exist in harmony with the natural systems of which we are a part. By stressing stewardship of our resources and linking their use to long range plans that balance availability with use, we can achieve sustainability - the goal of this process.

4. Para 5 perplexes me a bit. It seems the message is that mechanistic (or mechanical) physics somehow leads to erroneous conclusions about how things work together - in fact that the way things work together in nature is unknowable or unpredictable. Then I think the message concludes that even in the year 2100 we still won't understand the natural systems around us - and then I'm not sure what the "complexity and indeterminacy..... holistic, integrated and flexible..." leads to.

Comment: I certainly think its true that there are relationships and phenomena in our natural systems that we don't understand, but I am not at all comfortable with the assumption that we won't ever understand them or that our actions should be guided by ambiguity. If its important to some that this paragraph be included in the final work, I suggest a different approach to it.

I would start by acknowledging that there are gaps in our understanding of natural systems but that our knowledge in these areas is constantly improving. I like the idea of referencing the value of both micro and macro views of natural systems and stressing the fact that they are all interrelated. It also is important to make the point that natural systems are very resilient and that nature has a tremendous capacity to heal itself given the chance. We should continue to strive for more understanding of the natural systems around us and as we learn more, do everything we can to contribute to the health of those systems for long term sustainability.

5. Worldviews Para 6 makes a strange leap in logic from individualism and community to "heavily polluting single occupancy vehicles." The linkage isn't at all clear and the subject of single occupancy vehicles has many more facets than the individualism and community one.

Comment: Since none of the other paragraphs in this section have such examples, perhaps the easiest way to deal with this is to just eliminate the last sentence. The real issue is not pollution from single occupancy vehicles, but rather the relationship of what we do as individuals to the impact of those activities on those around us. The truth is that there has always been some tension between these two entities as evidenced in modern cultures by things like driving laws, burning bans, zoning ordinances, etc. There is nothing new here that I can see and the linkage to sustainability isn't well made. If you really need to include something about individualism and sustainability, I would focus on individual responsibility for effective community function - things like involvement in community planning, land use/urban sprawl issues, green building, energy conservation, public transportation, etc.

6. Worldviews Para 7 again raises the issue of increasing consumption which I referenced above. If indeed there are going to be more people in the world (which I'm pretty sure there will be), there is going to be increased consumption. Its a given and it shouldn't be characterized as a bad thing.

Comment: I think the message here needs to be that in the year 2100, people will value personal relationships and the human quality of life aspects more than material things.

7. Worldviews Para 9 has some pretty good stuff in it but there are still some negative implications that I think could be better stated from a positive perspective.

Comment: For starters, I think many will misunderstand what is meant by a "steady state economy" and others who will balk at the idea of limiting "...the input of raw materials into our economic system..." I think a better way of dealing with this subject is to emphasize the importance of good stewardship of our resources over the long term. There is no reason to limit the growth of our economy because of a lack of a single resource if there are other resources that can meet the need. This is especially true for developing countries that desperately need the stimulation that growth economies can provide. I would also avoid giving technical solutions such as solar power as the ultimate goal. By the year 2100, we may have developed energy sources much more efficient and less environmentally damaging than solar power. Finally, I would eliminate the last part of the last sentence ("without growing in physical terms.") It doesn't add anything useful and is confusing.

Hope these comments are useful. I've enjoyed the exercise and think the goal here is a noble one.

Dan

I fully agree with your argument that we should emphasis the positive, not the negative, stress stewardship and avoid alarmism. The excessive emphasis on the negative was largely my failure in accurately describing our vision. I will try to correct this in future rewrites, and your comments will prove useful.

However, I believe there is legitimate cause for concern over excessive consumption of resources. Our point is not that material consumption is bad, but on a finite planet, we cannot continually increase the amount we consume without destroying options for future generations. Our emphasis is on the problem of 'limitless growth'. The USA is currently responsible for an estimated 25% of global resource consumption, and those present at the conference believed that available resources are insufficient to sustain this. We also believed that working too hard to obtain material goods leaves us less time and energy to procure non-material things that would make us happier, e.g. stronger ties with the communities we live in. That is, too much emphasis on consumption takes us out of balance. Also, it seems to me that if are to argue against the status quo, we have to offer some justification for doing so. Most people live longer than they did in the past while enjoying better health and more luxuries. Why should we then argue for change in the status quo? Our point is that 6 billion people consume more than 1 billion people did in the past, natural resource stocks are scarcer now than they were then, and human made capital is more abundant.

_____

This is a very specific comment. The entire sewage treatment system of urban areas needs revision.

First, toilets do not need to be flushed with clean, potable water. Minor plumbing modifications could pump filtered grey water from showers and kitchen sink into a holding talk that is the water supply for low-flush toilets.

Second, instead of sewer lines carrying sewage away to be "treated" for re-release into rivers, etc., sewage should be anaerobically composted and the biogas produced should be piped back to the homes that produced it. Outgoing sewer lines and incoming natural biogas pipelines could lie side-by-side in the same trench in new installations. The excess liquid from sewage would be a mere fraction of what is currently treated in conventional sewage treatment systems.

Linda

The technologies and approaches you describe would certainly contribute to the realization of the future we describe.