Sustainable Developmenthttp://www.justmeans.com/editorials/sustainabledevelopment/7.htmlJustmeans's blogs for Sustainable DevelopmentSat, Nov 21 01:55:24 -21600http://www.justmeans.com en hourly 1 Don't forget food in the new Climate http://www.justmeans.com/Don-t-forget-food-in-new-Climate/5485.html Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:21:08 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/Don-t-forget-food-in-new-Climate/5485.html
What if food was like that?

Fear decades, agriculture has been on the back burner of much of the international agenda.  Recently, that has changed, as some of my past posts on sustainable development and agriculture have shown.

But of particular concern is the extent to which agriculture has been left out of the climate change debate. In short: it has been left out, and this is really bad. Because we gotta eat. Sustainable development and green economies need to include food security - lest we have riots, or maybe wars, famines, hunger, misery, starvation - all those things that happen to people who don't have enough food and who don't know where or how they are going to get their next meal. But climate change negotiations do not, now, include attention on agriculture.

Which is why Nora Ourabah Haddad of the Internatioanl Federation of Agriculture and representing Farming First (about which I've written other posts) has been paying close attention to the Climate negotiations. I spoke to her right after she had been in Barcelona, trying to support the process of mainstreaming agriculture into the text.

"What we need now is a framework to be able to develop further work programs on agriculture. It is too premature to talk about trade. Most important right now are drawing big lines to recognize the role of agriculture and food security and to do more research  on mitigation and funding of adaptation for agriculture.  Right now, the less details you give the better."

Unfortunately for sustainable development, she felt that the negotiators are getting caught up in the details, and into many of the controversial issues that come up with agriculture.

"Agriculture is difficult in part because it is unclear what and how you measure things. Agriculture - from forests use to land use to cows to bush fire - puts out a lot of carbon dioxide and methane that are not, strictly speaking, man-made, so it is hard to know how to count it. (Plus), there are many technological solutions, but that raises the issue of technology transfer, which we've yet to solve."

It is also difficult because too much focus on agriculture could lead to a tax on agricultural products - which most in the field want to avoid. And its an inherently multi-disciplinary/multi-sectoral issue, that brings in issues of trade, transportation, energy, livelihoods, and culture, just to name a few, in a world and a climate that does not always know how to handle cross-cutting issues. Which are, for better or for worse, the nature of most of the biggest challenges facing sustainable development.

Difficult, maybe. But necessary.]]> Beyond the Drawing Board http://www.justmeans.com/Beyond-Drawing-Board/5428.html Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:47:33 GMT Kendra Pierre-Louis Kendra Pierre-Louis http://www.justmeans.com/Beyond-Drawing-Board/5428.html Some days I take a look at the world, and feel an overwhelming desire to give up the superhero gig, pack my bags and wander the planet experiencing as many of its wonders as possible before the Greenland ice shelf melts and turns once peaceful nations into Mad Max styled dystopias.


This does not represent the sort of cheerful thinking that the development world needs.


My frustration stems not from the belief that we can't bring about the necessary changes, but rather from the reality that though there are tens of thousands of amazing ideas on how to create a sustainable planet, most of those ideas seem stuck in neutral. Meanwhile, society en masse pushes forward doing the same old unsustainable things, only faster, bringing us ever closer to the teetering edge.


Take for example cleaner energy. In the places where wind works, for example, it can be price comparable with burning coal or oil when one removes the benefits of government subsidies. Yet, in the United States anyway wind is still struggling to gain a foothold. The government continues to push for continued exploitation of coal and natural gas even when extracting those resources represents the potential destruction of a habituated region (Appalachia), as in the case of coal, or when those resources means exposing a local population to radioactive water supplies (Ithaca, NY) and no clear idea on how to deal with that radioactive waste.


Across the Atlantic Ocean, the European countries that have pioneered the idea that companies should have to take back their products when consumers are done with them seem to have stalled in its application. The idea was simple. If a business has to deal with the full lifecycle of a product, not only its production but also its disposal companies would be more inclined to make products that were easily and fully recyclable and less filled with toxic substances.


This inability for great ideas to really take off I think comes from two main ways of thinking. The first is that people have a tendency to cling to the familiar. As loudly as we complain about the environment, about the limited supply of fossil fuels, for those of us who have access to the fruits of our carbon addiction, the system is working. Not well, or perfectly, but well enough to make leaping into a different technology seem a bit too much like gambling.


The second reason stems from the idea that there is a single solution. There isn't. There is a plurality of solutions some which will work better in some locations rather than in others. Our best bet is likely to throw as many onto the wall and see which ones stick.


We need to move the ideas from the drawing board and into the world.

]]> The Zoning Hurdles to Alternative Green Building http://www.justmeans.com/-Zoning-Hurdles-Alternative-Green-Building/5419.html Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:26:11 GMT Kendra Pierre-Louis Kendra Pierre-Louis http://www.justmeans.com/-Zoning-Hurdles-Alternative-Green-Building/5419.html alternative green building techniques is that of building zoning and development regulations. The International Code Council (ICC) which says it 'serves to protect the health, safety, and welfare of people by creating safe buildings and communities' by 'providing the highest quality codes, standards, products and services for all concerned with the safety and performance of the built environment' is often the guiding force of many of the building regulations which prioritize standardization. In the process however, it stifles innovation, creativity and sustainable building practices.

Although building zoning is often determined on the county or municipal level, supposedly to separate buildings from uses that may be incompatible   (for example putting an elementary school next to a toxic waste dump), as well as to ensure that a building is safe for human habitation, the ICC's heavy influence can be felt in zoning laws that despite regional climate differences look more similar than not.

How is this manifested?

Many alternative house designs are designed to heat, cool and ventilate passively without external power or mechanical systems.  Most building codes, however, are not designed for that technology and thus require alternative home builders to prove, that not only will the house be safe but that it will also perform within extremely narrow comfort parameters. For example the International Building Code requires that interior spaces that are intended for human occupancy need to be able to maintain a minimum interior temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit at a point 3 feet above the floor.  Not 65 degrees or even 60 but precisely 68 degrees. Without such precise proof, builders are required to add backup mechanical systems (which are costly to install and maintain).

Yet, the codes have no problem with buildings that ignore passive-solar design principles, that have windows which do not open, rooms with no natural light or ventilation and that require massive mechanical systems to maintain their use, and when the power fails renders the building dangerous or even lethal.  As someone who lived in a house that could potentially reach an internal temperature of 68 degrees if I was willing to spend $500 a month on heating, and who spent more than one night without water when snow on the power lines cut the electricity to the electrical pump that moved water from the well to our house, this prioritization of active systems (which easily and often fail, are costly, environmentally deleterious and are not required to have a backup) over passive systems seems absurd.

In addition, as zoning has become more entrenched, what was once about safety has become increasingly about aesthetics.  Conditioned, perhaps, by one too many viewings of the Stepford Wives an increasing number of municipalities seem hell bent on creating   'houses made of ticky tacky which all look just the same' regardless of the effect on the environment.  Regulations no longer merely limit what sort of activities (agricultural, open space, residential, commercial or industrial) can happen on a particular lot of land, but also minimum sizes for homes (with no correlation as to how many people the home is intended to house), to ordinances that encourage the use of energy hungry clothes dryers by banning the use of outdoor clothing lines (provoking a right to dry movement).

The solution to this kind of absurdity that stymies green development is not to simply broaden zoning regulations - building codes exist for a reason as anyone who has ever seen a house crumble like clay can attest- but rather to find a way to incorporate vetting processes that allows for ingenuity and creativity but without being so cost prohibitive and time consuming that only the most determined and affluent home builder can embark on that path.  Humans are not computers; we are not simply a series of commands. A house that maintains an internal temperature of 70 during the day and goes down to 50 degrees at night during the winter is a livable house; anyone with half a brain could see that. Unfortunately building codes don't have brains, but it's imperative that those who wield them do.]]> Big Business, Hunger, and putting farmers first http://www.justmeans.com/Big-Business-Hunger-putting-farmers-first/5390.html Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:13:53 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/Big-Business-Hunger-putting-farmers-first/5390.html
CropLife International is a collection of Big Companies engaged in plant science -  that's fertilizer, biotechnology, improved seeds, and other agricultural inputs. CropLife mostly focuses on encouraging policy that supports some of these big companies - names that you are probably with even if you are not a farmer, such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Dupont.  Part of CropLife has been to support the process not only of driving policy that is supportive of the plant scientists, but also in working with USAID to support farmers and communities in Latin America to train them about safe and appropriate use of pesticides to reduce the risks to those communities - a necessity if one is to take the principles of sustainable development seriously.

Known in some circles as being primarily profit driven, these companies are part of the relatively new public-private-farmers-scientists partnership, Farmers First, which places the farmer at the heart of the solution to many of our developmental and food security problems.  I've been impressed with - and covered - the work this coalition has been doing for the past year or so.

Minigh just spoke to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) at their current conference in Rome about the importance of finding common goals to work together with the private sector. He pointed to the work that Farmers First has done as an excellent example of multi-sectoral, multi-disciplinary work.

Jim Butler, the Deputy Director of FAO, has been encouraging that organization to work more closely with big business (and medium and small businesses.) Minigh welcomes this shift. 'It's really important to reach out to the private sector. We bring a lot of skills in management, resources, knowledge of how sustainable business models work. We've been bypassed in the past, and it has not worked very well. We welcome this new conversation."]]> End Petitions to End Hunger http://www.justmeans.com/End-Petitions-End-Hunger/5352.html Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:59:07 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/End-Petitions-End-Hunger/5352.html
What got me was the call on the website for a global petition to end hunger, a problem that effects over 1 in 6 people around the world. It's a serious problem in sustainable development. Those numbers have only gone up in recent years, due largely to domestic food prices, lower incomes and increasing unemployment - a result in part to the financial crisis slowly rippling down and around the world.

Why are people hungry? They can't afford to buy food or are not able to produce their own. Solution?  Various solutions can (and have) included: lower food prices, enable them to produce their own food (or produce higher quantities/better yields), enable them to buy food (cash transfers, for example), increase their income/spending power, end extreme poverty, food programs (giving out food during certain periods/for specific groups of people), improving access/transportation/distribution (so that the food we have goes to the people who need it.

And in my experience of having watched the number of hungry people grow, petitions are not going to do anything. They may even make the situation worse. People will think that if they sign a petition to 'end hunger', that counts as doing something that addresses the serious systemic challenges that are at the heart of why people continue to starve when we, at least theoretically, produce enough food to feed everyone.  It's not as if if everyone suddenly said, oh, this is bad, it's gonna stop. I don't know anyone who says, hungry people is good.  This is the same reason that I get frustrated about movements such as the 'end poverty now' campaign. Does it raise awareness? Yes. Does that awareness do anything to create sustainable change for sustainable development? Sometimes - right now, I'm not convinced. Do we need massive public action? Maybe. The critical question is, action to what effect, and to what impact? I think there is a recognition that this is a scandal, but I would not say this is a time for mobilization. It's a time to assess which actions will be most useful, and how are we going to address the systemic causes of malnutrition.  There is, historically, real resistance to looking at the root causes of hunger. And it is that which we must do.

Instead, the UN Secretary General is going to go on a fast - part of FAO's going 'hungry to protest hunger'.  I'm a fan of direct action, including fasting, where it is appropriate, and I always respect those who choose to deny themselves in hopes of furthering the public good. But will his fast tackle the systemic problems? Will it change the way people see this issue?  Or will he just arrive on Monday rather tired and hungry, and not able to work well?]]> The paid - and the unpaid http://www.justmeans.com/-paid-unpaid/5294.html Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:37:49 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/-paid-unpaid/5294.html I'm struggling with how I want to respond to the hard facts about what we get paid for - and what we don't get paid for. My last post on 'End unpaid internships' raised some interesting discussion and questions, including the real truth that many of the best opportunities for sustainable development are unpaid (especially when one is relatively new in a field, but not only then). Several people shared their experience that they would not be where they are today had it not been for the hours of unpaid labour they contributed to what they saw as worthy projects that gave them invaluable contacts and experience.

In this lies a challenge. I want to get paid for the work I love to do. Me, and everyone else who has to live in a formalized economy, that is, where I can't survive (at least not that well) without hard cash.  And I'm like many others- some of the most valuable things I've ever done, including starting up several for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, have entailed massive amounts of unpaid work. Those ventures never paid off for me financially, but I know I made a difference.

'Free' work isn't just volunteering in cool projects, interning or starting your own business. Most social movements haven't been run simply by paid staff - they've been successful because of people  - often working class, often over worked - who put in their time (and often risked their jobs if not their lives) for 'free.' Some of the most valuable services - cooking, shopping, cleaning, washing, caring for my health, caring for sick friends and family, etc. - are things I do because they have to be done, not because I get paid to do them.  Yet these things are not valued in financial terms.

Without these non-valued, 'free' things, we have nothing. They are, as feminist economists (and many others) say, the uncounted-for baseline upon which all other services and work rely. They are often called 'womens work', though these tasks are less gendered than they used to be. When these essential services have price tags attached to them (such as health care), that means that those who  can not afford the price tags  must continue to do it - 'for free'.  Which means they are not out earning money, or 'contributing' to the economy.  Even if their work enables that larger, formal economy to function.

My own mother is one of a billion examples. When my father fell ill, she (eventually) 'retired early' from a meaningful career to take care of him, because they could not afford a carer. She became a caretaker for years, and when he recovered enough to no longer need her, she found it near impossible to re-enter the job market. She's been doing largely unpaid work since then - volunteering at an animal hospital, working at the municipal level for better public health, growing a beautiful garden, and helping her community to become better gardeners. She contributes in countless ways to the natural and social environment around her. I'd say she works for sustainable development, though she'd probably raise an eyebrow at that. She is also having trouble finding enough money to afford a new roof, now that the old roof is leaking. She'd really, really like to bring in more cash.

Does capitalism work if the most valuable services - cooking, cleaning, care giving - as well as interning, starting up organizations, serving the community, working on social movements, etc., are rarely paid for, and are not accounted for in any national figure? And while I share many JM members' experience that good work often necessitates free work, what if you can't afford to work for free? What should determine what we get paid for? Maybe sustainable development is radical indeed - maybe it requires a fundamental shift in how we think about paid and unpaid work.

One thing I know - whoever said that greed and self-interest is at the heart of human nature is, I believe, wrong. Yes, I am self-seeking, I've got a streak of greed in me, no doubt about it. But I don't think its any more fundamental than other aspects of myself - especially my powerful need to make a contribution, to love others, to be loved in return, to belong, to support future generations, to be engaged in cool projects.  More often than not, I say 'yes' to unpaid (or poorly paid) projects, simply because I care. Sometimes it's very unsustainable - and not necessarily developmental. Yet my life - my whole life - is much richer because of it.]]> End Unpaid Internships http://www.justmeans.com/End-Unpaid-Internships/5244.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:22:50 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/End-Unpaid-Internships/5244.html Surely sustainable development is about long term positive changes - about supporting future generations. And surely it is important for young professionals to be engaged in sustainable development. And if we are concerned with sustainable futures for all people, then young people from disadvantaged backgrounds - or just your ordinary middle class young person - should be able to train with and learn from experienced sustainable development practitioners - whether that be NGOS, businesses, governments, But the system doesn't support this - not in the least.

A friend of mine has recently started sending letters to organizations that say, in brief, 'hello, you look like you have a fabulous position, which I am highly qualified for, and I would love to work with you. I would bring tremendous experience to this position. But I will not be applying to it because it is an unpaid position, and I can not afford to live in England without being paid.'

I applaud her efforts (and am considering sending some of those myself.) So many of my friends and colleagues are searching for jobs, and are finding great positions that are unpaid. My friends are not fresh out of University - they often have several years of working experience behind them (though perhaps in a different field) and a MA. Even so, they are not considered experienced enough for many paid positions. And its not just my friends who work in international development - the NGO and even some of the business community is filled with this tendency. The result - the young people who can fill those positions have some kind of financial support (usually parents) who can support them. Which excludes almost all of the bright young people I know from Africa, Asia and South America - not to mention myself, from the USA (and it effects UK citizens as well, though not quite as much, as they often have higher social capital).It also perpetuates a system where hard work and experience is not valued.

Working in England for a few years would be immensely helpful not only for their CV and their future work in the field, but for the organizations that they would work for, who are in desperate need of the ideas and experiences that people who don't look or think like they do would bring.

So the system perpetuates itself.  England attracts thousands of overseas students - who pay high fees - and who often have valuable experience to enhance sustainable development of all types, but it does not benefit from that experience in the workforce. While I understand that many NGOs can not afford to hire more staff (especially now),  there needs to be some way to address this challenge, else we shall continue to live in a state of hypocrisy.]]> Build It Green - Part 2 http://www.justmeans.com/Build-It-Green-Part-2/5198.html Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:02:16 GMT Kendra Pierre-Louis Kendra Pierre-Louis http://www.justmeans.com/Build-It-Green-Part-2/5198.html Monday there are a variety of lesser championed green building techniques that tread lightly on the planet and wallet. On Monday I profiled Rammed Earth building techniques and today I touch on several others.

Despite the bad rap that straw gets from the three little pigs Strawbale buildings are cheap, easy to build and extremely energy efficient. They resemble rammed earth houses with thick walls, wide window sills and rounded corners but with additional insulation. They were first developed in the grasslands of Nebraska where there was plenty of straw and few trees. The structures are built by stacking bales of hay and then plastering the hay with plaster, stucco, or earth plaster. The resulting house is quiet (the thick walls provide natural sound resistance), warm, sustainable, and fire resistant. Because the bales of hay are so tightly wound they're exceedingly difficult to burn - a typical wood framed structure can burn in as little as 30-minutes, a Strawbale home will take 2-hours. They're also sturdy: strawbale structures from the 1800's are still standing in the US and Europe today, and strawbale structures have withstood California earthquakes while in wind tests bale structures see no movement in a sustained 75 mph gale. In addition, the United States burns or otherwise disposes 200 million tons of "waste" straw annually, releasing carbon in the process. Using this easily renewable material (straw has a one year growth/harvest season) for house building would reduce our need to destroy slower growing forests.

Cob building involves mixing clay-bearing earth with sand, straw and water to make a thick mud that can be hand sculpted into a house which is typically finished with stucco or plaster. Because of its free form Cob houses can (and do) look like just about anything. Like other earth houses the walls tend to be thick resulting in a high thermal mass; thus cob houses are cool in summer and warm in winter and more energy efficient than frame houses . Additionally, because dirt is well, dirt cheap, the houses are extremely cost-effective to build, in addition to being fire resistant, and pest resistant. . It is a very old building method -there are Cob homes still standing today in Wales that are at least 500 years old.

If while watching The Lord of the Rings you wondered to yourself how you could go about building your own hobbit hole, you're in luck such building design already exists and much like the hobbit's lifestyle, it's sustainable. Underground or Earth-Sheltered houses fall into three broad categories:

  • Envelope houses which consist of a central pit courtyard open to the sky with rooms tunneling off, from the central courtyard.

  • Slope houses, are essentially a conventional home cut back into the side of a hill. All the windows and doors would be on one side, while the back of the home would have no windows etc as it is cut into the hill.

  • A Bermed house is a house that is dug into the ground and then covered up by dirt.


The benefit of underground construction, apart from being able to say that you live in a hobbit house, is energy-efficiency. Because the earth stays at 50 degrees year round, earth houses also maintain a consistent temperature. Depending on location and size of structure a few people and a greenhouse may provide all of the additional heating the dwelling requires even in winter. Earth sheltered houses can cut energy use by as much as 85%.

The methods which I've hi-lighted in the past two blog entries are only the tip of the alternative green building iceberg. Depending on your location, Slipform Masonry houses, Log Homes, and Earthships are additional building techniques that are not only sustainable but also affordable house building options. As we sit in the midst of an economic and ecological crisis brought about in no small part because of how we choose to shelter ourselves, thinking outside of the frame house box can yield benefits for generations to come.]]> Map - or be mapped http://www.justmeans.com/Map-or-be-mapped/5233.html Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:48:43 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/Map-or-be-mapped/5233.html
Despite innumerable reports, visits by presidents and noted celebrities, many slums do not actually exist on most maps. Part of this has to do with the complicated politics of city planning. If they existed, then the government would have to provide services for them - like sanitation and access to water. But many local governments can't afford to do that (or don't want to), not least because those people often can not afford to pay enough taxes. There's a reason people live in slums - and a reason why their governments have struggled to get them out.

Among the many human rights campaigns to address the often appalling condition of slums is variations of participatory mapping, Geo- mapping, mobile-cell-phone-mapping, and other ways for regular people to assert that they do indeed exist and that they can produce maps - maps that can then enable NGOs, outside experts, and the communities themselves to address issues from sanitation problems to violence inside of their communities.

In a fast-moving world, maps are constantly changing - and are constantly being used to determine safe and non-safe zones (the Green Zone in Iraq being one of many prime examples) to define and redefine 'nature' versus 'society' (such as national parks that do not enable people to live off the land) to where and what kind of businesses can do what nasty things to the environment. Maps enable us to define and thus create our world - and with GIS and impressive satellite work, old techniques such as participatory mapping, where communities themselves map their own environment can combine with new technologies to take steps towards sustainable development.

And I have to wonder - which one will you be? The mapped (or the unmapped!) - or the mapper?]]> Build It Green-Part 1 http://www.justmeans.com/Build-It-Green-Part-1/5176.html Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:00:32 GMT Kendra Pierre-Louis Kendra Pierre-Louis http://www.justmeans.com/Build-It-Green-Part-1/5176.html the standard of green building. It provides third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using sustainability strategies including: reduced energy use, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and environmental stewardship of resources. LEED certified buildings often incorporate recycled materials, solar panels, low VOC paint and other modern sustainable sensibilities to help reduce the building's environmental footprint. When one considers that buildings are responsible for 48% of global greenhouse gas emissions, any attempts to reduce the negative environmental impact of buildings is a laudable step forward.

When it comes to green building design, however, LEED is not the only sustainable design on the block. LEED represents the cutting edge of sustainable building design - perfect for larger developers or individuals with deep pockets. For the rest of us, however,  our options are not merely go super green or go toxic. There are other equally sustainable and gentler on the pocket building options.  I am going to spend today and Wednesday profiling some of these other green (or greener) ways of building including taking a peek at building techniques such as rammed earth and cob construction. Next week we'll take a look at some of the laws and policies that hamper the development of these sustainable building techniques, and ways of changing, bending, and altogether circumventing these restrictions.

What's most interesting is that these alternative building designs do not represent a technological leap forward, but rather a technological leap back to  where our ancestors had to learn to erect structures that could maintain a livable temperature without the climate modification abilities of fossil fuel based central heating and air conditioning. These ancient techniques, tweaked slightly for the modern era, are excellent options for the home builder and many can be used for broader applications such as schools and churches.

Rammed Earth is an ancient building technique in which soil mixtures are pounded into a form, as the mixture hardens the forms are removed and the resulting free standing structure forms the shell of the house. To visualize the process it's a bit like building sand castle, only instead of flipping the bucket the bucket has removable sides which pull away. Once everything is packed tightly, the forms are removed and what's left is a solid stable wall. The process is repeated until the entire house is complete.



This is a method of building construction with a long history - parts of the Great Wall of China were built using  the rammed earth technique and are still standing over 2,000 years later. In addition, examples of rammed earth building are found all over Europe and churches, homes and other buildings can be found in the US from New York to Florida thanks to the French and German immigrants who brought this style of building with them to the United States.

Beyond the inherent sustainability of the materials what makes a rammed earth construction uniquely 'green' is what also makes it stand out. The thick walls which usually run between 18 inches (45.7 cm) and 24 inches (61cm) contain excellent thermal mass rendering houses cool in summer without the need for air conditioner or a fan, and warm in winter without the need for much heating.  Paired with passive solar design techniques which take into account the sun's different positions throughout the year, rammed earth homes use one-third as much energy as a conventional home, saving on energy bills.

The thick walls of rammed earth homes are also extremely fire-resistant because there are no flammable components in the earth and the materials have been packed so tightly there's little chance of combustion.They are termite proof because there is no wood, and rodent resistant because they don't offer any food sources for rodents. In short, rammed earth houses are one of the the simplest ways of building a responsible home.]]> The Indelible Automobile http://www.justmeans.com/-Indelible-Automobile/5139.html Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:13:11 GMT Kendra Pierre-Louis Kendra Pierre-Louis http://www.justmeans.com/-Indelible-Automobile/5139.html "bicycle kingdom" as the emerging middle class increasingly forgoes clean and energy efficient bicycle transport in favor of the car and Chinese government policy follows suit.

But the automobile as the primary form of transport is a highly unsustainable pursuit. The contribution that cars make to climate change are well documented, but even if cars did not have a negative effect on the climate they are still not the ideal form of transport.

There is sadly, a high human cost associated with driving. According to the NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System roughly 35,000 Americans are killed annually in automobile accidents. Worldwide auto accidents take 1.2 million lives a year, a number that rises to 2 million per year when the effects of car related air pollution are taken into consideration. It is not only those riding in vehicles for whom cars pose a risk; pedestrians and bicyclists are often the unwitting victims of auto accidents.

In addition cars are expensive. They are often the most expensive item a household owns apart from their home. When one factors in the cost of gas, insurance, maintenance and repairs it becomes easily understandable that the average American family spends 17% of their income on owning and maintaining a car. This is more than the average family spends on food. The high cost of car ownership, in a society that requires cars to go to work, to go to school, to move, means that it both requires a middle class income to comfortably possess a car and that it a car becomes a barrier towards attaining middle class status. This barrier is twofold. First, if one does not have a car it is difficult to secure employment, and secondly, if one is poor and has a car a larger proportion of their income has to go to maintaining their vehicle. In short, in a society that bases itself around auto transit, the car acts as a sort of regressive tax.

As a development paradigm, this is problematic. The way a society moves, helps to shape that society. And a society that is dependent on the personal car is one that says it doesn't value children, the elderly, the poor, or the disabled. This is bad enough in developed countries which have the resources to mitigate some of the worst effects of car transport (school buses for children, special transport services for the elderly and the disable), but in developing countries in which the majority of citizenry are often poor and below the age of 18 this is a transportation policy that prioritizes the needs and the desires of the affluent few at the cost of the many. There is an increasing shift on this priority on a local level to move from a focus on car transit to mass transit, but often these efforts begin when a car culture is already entrenched. In countries that are only beginning to develop their infrastructure those of us involved in Sustainable Development should be aware of our innate bias towards the car and investigate and develop other infrastructures that are friendlier to the planet, to the easily disenfranchised. Infrastructures that do more than just shuttle us around, but also bring people together.

In other words, we need to recognize that the automobile problem is not simply a carbon problem, it's a social one.]]> Playing God: Are We Trying to Make Developing Countries into Our Own Image? http://www.justmeans.com/Playing-God-Are-We-Trying-Make-Developing-Countries-into-Our-Own-Image/5093.html Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:03:15 GMT Kendra Pierre-Louis Kendra Pierre-Louis http://www.justmeans.com/Playing-God-Are-We-Trying-Make-Developing-Countries-into-Our-Own-Image/5093.html Development is difficult.

Solving world hunger, for example, is not simply a question of feeding the hungry. Food aid argues the charitable organization CARE, may actually spur on hunger by destabilizing local food economies and driving local farmers out of business.

Teaching the hungry how to more efficiently farm, can actually create new unexpected inefficiencies. The Green Revolution in India, in which farmers in the Indian state of Punjab switched from traditional methods to American-style farming - with chemicals, high-yield seeds and irrigation- was once thought to be a rousing success. However, under scrutiny the shiny label of success has lost some of its sheen: India's Green Revolution has depleted ground water, destroyed soil through salinization, locked farmers into cycles of debt and turned what was once a localized hunger problem into a structural one. It also hasn't actually solved India's hunger problem: 1/4th of the world's hungry call India home. A whopping 230 million people or 18% of India's 1.25 billion population is hungry.

It is this model (with the addition of GMO technology) that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a driving force in development, is tenuously throwing its support behind to end hunger in Africa.

Einstein is oft attributed as having said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. This, my friends, is insanity.

So why are we doing it?

I would say it's because, we in the so-called 'developed' countries have a bit of a God complex. Much as in the Old Testament, where God is said to have made man in his own image, the so-called 'developed' countries want to make developing nations a little bit more in their image.

We take a model of agriculture created in the US, export it to Mexico, then from Mexico to India, and now we're poised to move that food model to Africa, even as we develop a nascent recognition that even in our own countries this model is unsustainable.

In addition, the very idea of a development model is questionable. Cultures, economic systems, and people are diverse for a reason: diversity is sustainable, uniformity is not. Even within the United States the community development model of a single family home, with a resplendent green lawn, located outside of the main commercial area just doesn't fit in many places, despite its rapid growth. Where I am in the Northeast, multi-family units, or apartments are more sustainable in terms of energy use. In the Southwest lawns, which suck up far too much scarce water, just don't make sense. Most areas would benefit from mixed use zoning, where commercial establishments are mixed in with residential (assuming those establishments are not industrial businesses) which would allow the local coffee shop to be within walking (as opposed to driving) distance of the customers who would frequent it. Across the country people would benefit from housing structures that took into consideration the local climate instead of pop-up frame houses, which while quick to build, depend on vast amounts of energy to make them livable.

The writer Eduardo Galeano wrote in his book Upside Down in regards to Latin American development,

"if we are doomed to be imitators can we at least be a bit more selective of what we choose to copy?"

I argue, why do we have to copy at all? As humans we pride ourselves on ability for innovation. We should tap into that vein of creativity to build a more beautiful planet.]]> Mitigation - a public good? http://www.justmeans.com/Mitigation-a-public-good/4959.html Fri, 30 Oct 2009 10:26:02 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/Mitigation-a-public-good/4959.html
Technology transfer is not going very well. No surprise if you've been around sustainable development for a while. Developing countries are not being given the low-carbon technologies they need to mitigate climate change.  Once again, intellectual property law - and the profits behind these technologies - becomes a barrier for low-carbon development.
If sustainable development is going to be real, then so will low-carbon development. If low carbon development is going to happen in the developing world and with emerging markets, then there's going to have to be good transfer of technology. That's not happening. Why that's not happening is disputed. For years, developed countries have insisted that developing countries create strong intellectual property laws. However, a new study conducted by a research team from researchers in Malaysia, China, India and Indonesia suggests something different: intellectual property laws can be part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Malaysia and Indonesia has a strong set of Intellectual Property laws, including being active members of the World Trade Organization. But neither country has benefited from low carbon technology transfer. Often the firms who have developed the technology have been reluctant to give it over - or firms in the emerging market can not afford the high price of the technology.

There's another problem. Technology needs to be adapted to fit local needs. That's true almost regardless of the technology in question. However, many patents (held by firms in the developed world) insist that the technology stay the way it is - researchers and firms in developing countries are thus unable to adapt it to local needs. Unable to adapt, the technology fails.  Sustainable development struggles falters.

So what to do? The report offers a somewhat radical and exciting solution, one that rests in a careful reading of the intellectual property law.  In a state of emergency, countries are allowed to override a patent law. So: the report suggests declaring climate change a national emergency. And declaring mitigation a public good.

It's a novel notion - mitigation as a public good.  I like it. Adaptation would need to be a public good too. Though it makes one wonder, what, then, is non-mitigation? A private good? Or a 'public evil'? Now that's a new legal term!]]> Changing Paradigms http://www.justmeans.com/Changing-Paradigms/4830.html Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:45:21 GMT Kendra Pierre-Louis Kendra Pierre-Louis http://www.justmeans.com/Changing-Paradigms/4830.html
Full disclosure: I have not watched Michael Moore's recent opus on the evils of our economic system, Capitalism: A Love Story. What I have seen, however, is how much scorn and derision, sometimes veiled, sometimes explicit, Mr. Moore received as he made the rounds of the mainstream press while promoting his movie. Sure, you expect that kind of reaction from certain less progressive news outlets, but watching Chris Cuomo on Good Morning America, and Bill Maher on his show Real Time dismiss Michael Moore was a bit of a surprise.

Some of it is because Mr. Moore incorrectly argues that the replacement for capitalism is democracy; capitalism is an economic system, democracy is a system of governance. His general premise, however, is correct: people with more money wield more influence within our system - capitalism has eroded the foundational basis of our democracy as a 2006 Mother Jones does an excellent job of explaining.

What I found uniquely interesting from a Sustainable Development perspective is how many people feel that his efforts are a bit like whistling in the wind. Apparently an economic paradigm other than the flavor of capitalism we're currently practicing cannot exist.

If this is true, we're in trouble. Our current economic system is based on perpetual economic growth . That is to say, we need to consume more this year than we did last year, and more next year than we do this year. If we don't consume in ever increasing amounts, the system collapses. Unfortunately, we live on a finite planet. And, as we're becoming increasingly aware, our current methods of production and consumption are literally consuming the planet. At the same time, however, billions of the world's people exist in a constant state of hunger and without basic sanitation. In short we have both a resource and an allocation problem, and in many ways our current economic system (in which wars are profitable and peace is not) is the root cause of this problem.

Whenever one says that, however, it's stated as fact that Capitalism is the best system we've developed and then communism and socialism are trotted out as examples of far worse systems. Putting aside that few people bother to ask "For whom is capitalism the best system?", the real question is are our only choices really Communism/Socialism on the one hand and unfettered Market Capitalism on the other?

No, say a rising number of voices that argue that our form of capitalism is not sustainable and needs to change. At least that's what Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) a nonprofit which advocates for a steady state economy, argues. A steady state economy is one in which population and amount of consumption are stabilized, allowing for qualitative instead of quantitative growth. The Steady State Economy is not the only possible economic paradigm. Bhutan for example, has chosen to forgo use of Gross Domestic Profit (GDP) the economic indicator which supposedly tells us how well a country is functioning for Gross National Happiness instead.

Whether these other lesser known systems have merit is debatable, but it's something that we should at least have the cultural space to debate. And what Michael Moore's movie illustrates is we don't yet have that space.]]> Culture Clash http://www.justmeans.com/Culture-Clash/4816.html Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:45:28 GMT Kendra Pierre-Louis Kendra Pierre-Louis http://www.justmeans.com/Culture-Clash/4816.html
Last week I attended an Anti-Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining event, co-sponsored by Earth Justice and the coal ash is often improperly stored; just last year a billion gallons of toxic sludge spilled across 300 acres of East Tennessee.

And yet, despite all of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining's deleterious effects there are residents of the region who are reluctant to end the practice. I didn't understand why until I attended this event which featured a screening of the documentary film, Coal Country , which explains the effect of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining, followed by a brief concert by musicians from the Appalachia region. As I sat in the red velvet seats of New York's Town Hall Theater, I was pulled from the hustle and bustle of Broadway to the rolling hills of Appalachia. Sitting there, it struck me that although Sustainable Development is often framed as an ecological and an economic issue, at its core it's a cultural issue.

"Well, I was born a coal miner's daughter\ In a cabin on a hill in Butcher Holler\We were poor but we had love\That's the one thing my Daddy made sure of\ He shoveled coal to make a poor man's dollar" begin the lyrics to Appalachian native Loretta Lynn's famous song Coal Miner's daughter. This song is one of thousands, if not tens of thousands of songs from Appalachia that highlight the complicated relationship that Appalachians have had, throughout their history, with the coal mines. The mines give them enough to survive, but often little more, and are often the source of much loss and grief. However uneasy that relationship is, when carpet bagging environmentalists enter this region to say that coal is bad, they are in effect saying that the foundation upon which Appalachians have created their identity is bad, which in turn means Appalachians are bad too.

No wonder people resist.

Appalachia needs to shift away from coal for its own preservation. Not just because coal is environmentally toxic, but because the newer technology shifts means less people are needed to work the mines; machines are doing an increasing amount of the work. It will not be long before Appalachia has no coal, no mountains, no jobs and nothing to show for it but a polluted environment. Environmentalists, however, will not going to get very far if they ignore the cultural relationship that Appalachians have with the coal mines. The writer Antoine Saint-Exuprey wrote "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea."

These are not stupid people; they, like people everywhere, want a bright future. But they do not want it at the cost of their sense of self. Those of us committed to the field of Sustainable Development, both nationally and internationally have to give people the space to articulate their vision for the future, and then show them how sustainable options can help bring those dreams to fruition. Appalachian's have already shown when given a choice between sticking with coal or taking a chance on wind, which means increased jobs and a cleaner ecosystem, they go for the latter. We just have to allow them the freedom and the framework within which to choose, and to accept, that they might say no.]]> Clean Coal? clearing some smoke http://www.justmeans.com/Clean-Coal-clearing-some-smoke/4740.html Thu, 22 Oct 2009 20:40:26 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/Clean-Coal-clearing-some-smoke/4740.html
But then I had a conversation with a man I respect who said how much he hates it when granola-eaters (me - and yes, I do love my granola, especially with yogurt and bananas) - are so darn closed-minded. I agreed wholeheartedly. But inwardly I shrunk back like I'd been stung. He'd hit close to home: I was anti-'clean coal', but I didn't even really know what 'clean coal' was.  Not exactly good Sustainable Development Thinking!

Fortunately, the great thing about admitting one's ignorance (at least to oneself) is then you can rectify it. With a little help from google and SPRU at the University of Sussex, I found out a few things I didn't know about 'clean coal' - and about what it means for sustainable development.

1: 'Clean Coal' and 'carbon sequestering technologies' means a lot of different things. It's what some academics call a 'fuzzy' or 'boundary word', a word that allows different people (many of whom have a lot of power and influence) to talk together without always meaning the same thing. If you are really into clear, simple definitions, this can be difficult, but it can also be beneficial.

2. There really are gradations in the cleanliness of coal. These include making coal-fired facilities  more efficient and 'end of pipe' to reduce emissions of pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, which isn't exactly a nice-n-dandy chemical .There are quite a number of commercially available technologies that can make a serious impact right now, but the have not yet been taken up.  For example, an 'advanced clean coal' factory emits 36% less CO2 than does Chinese coal-fired fleet (in 2006). That's a significant amount.

3. Carbon capture remains a future goal - something that we probably won't see for a number of years. The basics are all there, but it has yet to be done on the scale necessary for even one coal plant. And it's very expensive.

4. Often, coal companies in developing countries are not using the 'cleaner' and readily available technology. For them to do so, some sort of technology transfer is needed - and is possible. Making that technology transfer work is a two way street. Donor governments (like the UK) can't do it by themselves. Private firms in developing countries - as the main potential users - must be engaged in the process.

5. For sustainable development to be successful (and sustainable!) technology transfer isn't just about  transferring technology - it's also about transferring - and translating to local contexts - the knowledge behind and around the technology, so it isn't just something people use, but something people can work with, fix, repair, build on and innovate from.

After considering some of these issues, I came back to what most articles on this topic start with: coal is a major source of energy. We are using it, whether I like it or not.  Energy demand is expected to significantly increase in the next 20 years - especially from developing countries. I want to see a 'technological lockin' of renewable energy. But whenever and wherever coal plants are built - and right now, today, they are being built - I want to see them be as efficient as possible.

As for coal sequestering? Well, I'm not yet convinced. I'd rather see that same amount of mental and financial energy go to developing renewable energy. But I'm just a sustainable development REG.]]> Sustainable success in the US http://www.justmeans.com/Sustainable-success-in-US/4719.html Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:21:18 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/Sustainable-success-in-US/4719.html
Questions remain - questions not just for Green For All, but for the rest of the international community as it struggles with sustainable development.
How can these kinds of successes be replicated in other parts of the world? How can sustainable development come to integrate the green for all mentality - where all people benefit from a greener economy? Do these initiatives make sense in a developing world context?

* September 25, Green For All and Living Cities launched the Energy Efficiency Opportunity Fund at the Clinton Global Initiative. This fund will leverage an estimated $200 million to increase the energy-efficiency of thousands of buildings and create thousands of jobs.
* September 26, Green For All, the Hip Hop Caucus, and Wyclef Jean hosted a celebrity-studded launch party for Green The Block at the Congressional Black Caucus annual conference.
* September 30, The U.S Senate released the first draft of its historic climate bill, and it includes our provisions to expand access and opportunity for all!
* October 1, We partnered with the City of Portland to pass a groundbreaking Community Workforce Agreement that will create thousands of good paying clean-energy jobs, and be a national model for implementing Recovery Act investments.
* October 16, We launched a series of reports and resources to help people access investments from President Obama's Recovery Act.
* October 19, We testified at a public hearing on green jobs in Pittsburgh, hosted by Senator Arlen Specter.
]]> Energy Poverty http://www.justmeans.com/Energy-Poverty/4488.html Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:36:53 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/Energy-Poverty/4488.html
What is energy poverty? Let's see. Why? Because energy is critical, more critical than we often realize. It's up there with water in terms of how essential it is - not least, because energy is what enables us to get water.

Energy poverty is when you don't have enough energy to meet your basic needs, or you don't get your energy from a 'modern energy system' (ie, you burn wood to make your tea in the morning). Which is about 1.6 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. 2.4 billion use wood or other forms of biomass (like cow dung). Despite all the 'bads' associated with burning biomass (bad for health, takes up a lot of time to gather wood, unfair burden on women and children, etc.), I'm not preaching an end-to-biomass as a source of fuel (though some will say sustainable D. requires it).

But the thing about energy poverty that we often don't realize is just how bad it is - most people in the North know, or at least have heard about, the hours and hours that it takes to gather firewood to cook food. They forget that what that also means is there isn't much electricity and not many (or very poor quality) batteries - which means no laptops, difficulty in irrigation, running medical equipment, teaching students, charging cell phones, keeping shops open. Education, health, business, long-distance communication - its all effected by energy. In the UK, it might mean not being able to pay your heating bill. So for many, energy poverty is the same as poverty. Solutions? Lots of them, and many of them are renewable and work best when managed by locals for locals - no surprise in sustainable development. But they can be expensive. More on that next time.]]> BBC, ask the right questions about affordable energy! http://www.justmeans.com/BBC-ask-right-questions-about-affordable-energy/4379.html Fri, 09 Oct 2009 14:43:24 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/BBC-ask-right-questions-about-affordable-energy/4379.html
I'm not going to get into a rant about how clean coal isn't clean and nuclear power has certain negative consequences that make global warming look neat and easy to deal with.  My complaint is elsewhere: that the reporter in question tackled Ed Milliband and other guests on the rise in prices - not on the impacts of climate change of continuing even 'clean' coal plants or the security impacts of nuclear power. And this is because , time and time again, the BBC portrays itself as being concerned for climate change. Yet climate change was barely mentioned in the report, and the very real need to massively invest in renewable energy - much more than the UK is currently doing - to ensure any kind of energy security and try not to drown millions of people in southeast asia.

It's not like I want to see my heating bills rise. I would like to be able to afford solar panels on my roof, and generate my own energy - and maybe give some back to the grid. I'd like my neighbor at the top of the hill to be able to install her own wind turbine.  I'd like to have water catchments systems to water the garden in case England ever has a drought (hard to believe at the moment). Those things would reduce my energy bills dramatically - and, if the infrastructure were there, it would give me the chance to contribute to my local community.  That would be sustainable development in my own back yard. Something even my neighbor's kids could understand - and maybe some of them would even like to learn how to build those solar cells themselves.

But right now I can't do that - I can't afford it, and there aren't enough subsidies or the right kind of investment plans with my local bank that would let me do this. Sustainable energy development that reduces, not increases, energy bills is possible - but it will take some major shifts in infrastructure, legislation, institutional habit, and mindsets that we haven't begun dealing with. And the BBC is one of the most important groups who have the power to make that happen. So don't just ask about how wind turbine farms require 5 times as much energy to make them equal coal - so why aren't we building new coal plants. Ask about why aren't we building 5 times as many wind farms in addition to local, individually owned and affordable energy solutions. If the BBC assumes that coal is a solution, so will much of the British public. And coal is not sustainable development.
]]> Sustainable Joy http://www.justmeans.com/Sustainable-Joy/4338.html Wed, 07 Oct 2009 17:33:19 GMT Sara Wolcott Sara Wolcott http://www.justmeans.com/Sustainable-Joy/4338.html
I'm really not interested in pursuing any of those things.

I am interested in joy. Sustainable joy - the kind of joy that lasts over the long term, for many people. That kind of joy, the joy that comes from doing the right thing at the right time with the right people (or even just muddling through), is radical. It's not about consumerism, its not about marketing, its not about getting people to change their minds and do something different. It's 'deep', it's even spiritual (understood as you will).

Recently I'd almost forgotten about it. I came back from vacation and learned that hte job I thought I had is not there - and neither is the second job I thought I could easily get. So now I'm one of thousands/millions of unemployed around the world, many of whom, like me, want to make the world a better place and are now worried about paying the rent.

So when I heard a recent talk by Allistair McIntosh, a Scotsman as solid and earthy as the land he loves, talk about having hope in the midst of climate change, it hit me, hard. Yes, I thought to myself, yes. And later, a deeply religious friend of mine reminded me of what I'd let myself forget: that the opposite of faith is not doubt but despair, and that the response to climate change should not be about denying ourselves, but about coming into a place of deep joy. That joy may be a great deal simpler and slower than the lives we now live. But it does not have to be a deprivation. Indeed, we are not necessarily turning away from something, but we are, if we do it right, turning towards something. And while turning is often difficult, it is not necessarily unpleasant.

It was the joy in these people's voices that got me, even more than what they said. And I felt something inside of me was re-kindled, a fire I'd forgotten to feed, that is more about joy-from-within and connection-with-others than about making my mark in the world.

I've been really enjoying applying for jobs recently - and enjoying the freedom for a deeper level of reflection. Still not happy about the uncertainty of paying next month's rent. But there's many different parts of sustainable development, and right now, part of the good work that I'm doing is re-kindling my own personal development, an integral part of any truly sustainable pathway I wish to be part of building.]]>