Back at it!
Posted in: Green Tea Thoughts with TNT | Comments (0)
By Tom Tozier
January 6, 2011
I had more or less abandoned my blogging for coforse months ago. It wasn’t a spiteful neglect, I just got way too busy with my other professional responsibilities, which include being the Executive Director of the Association of College and University Printers (ACUP) (acup-edu.org), the CEO of my own company TNT Sustainable Business Solutions (tnt-sbs.com) and working on the In-Plant Sustainable & Green certification program (ipsgc.org). I can add to that mix my personal obligations and a real bad sense of time management and you can see how easy it could be for me to leave somethings on the back burner, and I put this blog back there.
Well it’s a new year and I feel a fresh start is in order for many of my projects so here I am once again pondering all things sustainable. I am not giving up on my original goal of blogging the 101 definitions of sustainability, although I may digress from those definitions a bit (i still have 75+ definitions to go). I do want to give some insight here as to what I have been doing with the In-Plant Sustainable & Green certification program, the IPSG.
A couple years back I attended one of the annual meetings of the Big 12 printers. Just what you may ask is the Big 12 printers? It is a gathering of in-plant print managers/directors of the universities of the Big 12 conference (NCAA), which as a side note is about to become the Big 9 or something. Anyway there were about 7 or 8 of us (not all Big 12 schools have an in-plant…and even fewer do now…but that’s another story). We were holding this annual meeting in beautiful Texarkana, Texas which if you aren’t aware and may not have figured from the name of the town is on the Texas/Arkansas border. It was also mid-July, a rather warm and humid time of year to be in that part of the country but nonetheless we were there for a special reason.
As guests of Xpedx the Big 12 group toured the Domtar paper mill, which is located in Texarkana. It was quite a tour and a very impressive operation. The agenda for our two day meeting was “paper” intensive, in that we discussed all things paper, which included the subject of sustainability and certifications. The topic of obtaining certification through one of the well known forest council organizations was discussed and the number one concern with such certification was the cost associated with that process. Simply put this type of certification was cost prohibitive for most if not all of the in-plants we could think of. And from this discussion was borne an idea…why can’t we certify ourselves?
It sounds so simple, but to be honest it is quite complex. The number one issue was that self-certification needed to be beyond reproach, quantifiable, substantial and credible…if it did not meet the utmost of professional standards it was sure to be looked upon as mere “green-washing” something we did not want to do.
Over the next couple of years we met and worked out standards for in-plant sustainability certification. Now let’s fast forward to May of 2010, I was laid off from my position at the University of Colorado and being that I had put a lot of work into the certification idea (a lot of my own time, I should add). I took the concept with me and developed it into a full program. The standards that were established are stringent and detailed. It has now been launched and the University of North Texas In=Plant run by Jimmy Friend is the first to become certified!
But everything I just wrote isn’t what I really wanted to blog about today! Here’s what i wanted to share…During the process of designing standards and reporting tools for IPSG, I encountered some “interesting” circumstances, one of the most curious is how CO2 emissions that are generated from energy use can be determined. What I am referring to is the calculation of Killowatt use per hour to Carbon emission (pounds). You see there is no definitive calculation!
There are so many varying factors it is hard to pinpoint any one true formula. How the energy is being generated (coal, hydro, wind, solar..) can be a factor, the time of day can be a factor as well as many other little differences. I just wanted to know how many pounds of CO2 are generated for each kilowatt hour of energy used, here’s a sampling of what I found;
National average emissions factor for electricity is 1.37 pounds CO2 per kilowatt-hour. Source: Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Annual 2005, Table 5.1 (October 2006).
On average, electricity sources emit 1.297 lbs CO2 per kWh http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/carbon_calculators/category/Assumptions
PG&E Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Rates- Electric: 0.524 lbs CO2 per kWh http://www.pge.com/about/environment/calculator/assumptions.shtml
To derive a factor for the electricity that you use, you have to account for transmission and distribution losses by multiplying the emissions factor by 1.065. For example: 1.312 x 1.065 = 1.396 pounds of CO2 per kWh. http://homepower.com/article/?file=HP137_pg32_Mail_3_1
The CO2 emission factor of Talquin Electric Cooperative electricity is 1.295 lbs of CO2 per kWh
Calculation of CO2 from electricity use from regional grid: • 20000 kwh/yr x 1.4 pounds CO2 per kwh
This approach estimates emissions using annual electricity and heating fuel consumption. The factors used are: 1.911 pounds of CO2 per kWh for electricity
I think you get the idea. So what does all this mean? It means that there is much more work to do to understand what, how and why our actions affect our environment. There is no one right answer…there are many answers and those answers are dependent on specific circumstances and at not so specific circumstances all at the same time.
I think that what all of this shows is that in a global sense the answers are found in the micro and not the macro organism. It is the minutia, collectively that make the global difference. It all depends on where you are, and what you are doing on the individual level. That is why being a environmentally, socially and economically responsible community, print shop, home or individual is the answer to the one of those many questions “How can we be sustainable?”
TNTozier @ January 6, 2011
Women in Sustainable Energy (WISE) October Meeting
Posted in: Official Business | Comments (0)
October 12 — Women’s Role in Clean Energy
Recap of the 11th World Renewable Energy Congress WISE founding mother Wendy Larsen is freshly returned from the 11th World Renewable Energy Congress (WREC) in Abu Dahbi, United Arab Emirates, where one of the key areas on the conference agenda was the role of women related to sustainable energy.
WREC’s mission for this conference was to address the pivotal role of renewable energy in the formation of coping strategies for global climate change and to emphasize that sustainability, green building and rapid development of the renewable energy industry must be a top priority on global political agendas.
Wendy’s talk for WISE will explain the unique and very personal relationship women across the globe have with energy, the challenges they face in making energy use more healthy and sustainable, and the growth in opportunities for women to make a difference in our clean energy future.
Date: Tuesday October 12th
Time: 6 p.m. networking; Presentation starts at 6:30pm
Fee: $10 (waived for paid members)
Location: Denver Design Center East Building (to the right of the main building in the Annex)
Address: 595 South Broadway (turn west on Center Street)
Ample parking is available in the lot just south of the main building by the large yellow sculpture.
Hope to see you there! Come back soon and spread the word!
Julia and the Coforse Team
admin @ October 6, 2010
Defining Sustainability - 101 Perspectives (Continued) – Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Posted in: Green Tea Thoughts with TNT | Comments (2)
By Tom Tozier
August 23, 2010
Number 25
“Transforming our environmentally destructive economy into one that can sustain progress depends on a shift in economic mindset, recognizing that the economy is a part of the earth’s ecosystem and can sustain progress only if it is restructured so that it is compatible with it. A stable relationship between earth and economy – an environmentally sustainable economy an eco-economy, requires that the principles of ecology establish the framework for the formulation of economic policy. Economics integrated into ecology.”
– Lester R Brown, Worldwatch Institute/Earth Policy Institute/Eco-Economy)
.
.
.
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall,
.
All the King’s horses and all the Kings men
.
Recalled 480,000,000 eggs!
.
.
The latest food product to cause a scare is the salmonella tainted eggs from Iowa, if you were to include the Ebola spinach from California of last year and the recalled cheese the year before that and you combined them all together you would one hell of a killer omelet, don’t you think? By the way no need to throw out all your eggs, just cook them good and long!
So how does the idea of transforming our environmentally destructive economy have to do with the great egg recall of 2010, a transformation that will produce sustainable progress? Just what does Lester Brown mean by “economics integrated into ecology?”
Well I view the correlation between the two as an illustration of one of the original concepts of sustainable living…Buy Local, Buy Fresh. My introduction to sustainability, some 10 years or so ago was rooted in the growing (no pun intended) sustainable farming movement. When you stop to think about it, sustainable farming is truly a triple bottom line (environmental, economic and social) example of sustainable development.
Sustainable farming is good for the environment in that the farmer’s, rancher’s and growers have a vested interest in maintaining their livelihoods and their families. Many sustainable farms are multi-generational or plan to be. People tend to care about where they live and how that living is in quality, sustainable farming is good for the environment on an organic processing level. It is also good for the environment on a wider scale, reducing
excess carbon emissions that results from from harvesting, processing and transportation needs for foods that are grown outside the local area, for instance like eggs produced on Iowa chicken ranches and distributed all over the United States.
But it doesn’t stop at the environment growing and buying local is socially good in many ways, it employs people within a community, it brings people together socially, ever shop at the local Farmer’s Market? It’s more than just food shopping it’s a place to meet with, talk to and exchange with neighbors.
And buying local is economically sustainable, those people who own or are directly employed by local farms are able to earn a living, the community benefits from those local dollars supporting other local business, taxes support the towns, counties and state and on and on. Sometimes all of this local need requires a farmer to price produce and food a little higher but in the big picture and over the long run it really isn’t that much more than any other way to buy food.
But now this is where our un-sustainable or is it non-sustainable method comes into play, the method that has developed over the last 30, 40 years or more. Corporations supporting giant food producing farms that operate in totally non-environmentally friendly methods, from the treatment of animals to the use of pesticides, hormones, etc. These corporate giants generate prices that can be controlled via supply and demand and often seem attractive from convenience standpoint, lower cost through economy of scale for example, are also a major risk to the triple bottom line.
How many “recalls” or alerts have we had over the past few years for farmed products? I can tell you none of these recalls were from local farms. The egg scare of the summer of 2010 is just one more example of a system that does not work. The only way for us to fix that system is through change. It’s time to stop supporting greedy corporations with questionable safety records and questionable ethics and support our own communities. That is what sustainability is all about.
Peace
Tom
Tom Tozier has more than 30 years of experience in the printing industry, having managed and directed both commercial and in-plant printing operations. Most recently, he served as director of Imaging Services for the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Tom recently ventured out on his own and is now president of TNT Sustainable Business Solutions, a consulting firm that promotes and provides services for creating sustainable business practices, measuring and improving print shop effectiveness, and sustainability marketing. He has recently earned certification from the University of Colorado’s Professional Studies program in Sustainability Management.
Tom can be reached at: tom.tozier@tnt-sbs.com
.
.
TNTozier @ August 23, 2010
Defining Sustainability - 101 Perspectives (Continued) – Cha-Cha-Cha-Changes
Posted in: Green Tea Thoughts with TNT | Comments (0)
By Tom Tozier
August 19, 2010
Number 24
“Sustainable development is the lightest footprint possible on the biosphere and, most importantly, a consciousness that can sustain it.” - Ken Wilber (Author, philosopher, founder of The Integral Institute)
Sun Chip Bags are causing problems?
This story was printed in the August 18, 2010 Wall Street Journal*:
“Frito-Lay markets its Sun Chips snacks as “green.” They are cooked with steam from solar energy, the message goes… But its latest effort—making the bags out of biodegradable plant material instead of plastic—is creating a different kind of racket. Chip eaters are griping about the loud crackling sounds the new bag makes…”
I thought this may have been a joke at first, but it wasn’t April 1st! After reading the entire article all I could do was shake my head…in disbelief. Here is the very essence of sustainable resistance and on such a shallow level. I guess the majority of the population thinks “I’m green, I’m sustainable, unless it causes me some discomfort or money or otherwise impedes on my lifestyle”. Do you think it’s just here in the USA that we have the selfish and self-righteous sense like that?
The article goes on to say….
“A Facebook group called “SORRY BUT I CAN’T HEAR YOU OVER THIS SUN CHIPS BAG” has attracted 29,949 fans, with many posting outraged comments. “It’s the worst when you’re stoned at 2am and trying to not wake up the house,” one person said.”
God bless Facebook.
“Frito-Lay, a unit of PepsiCo Inc., ditched the old sack earlier this year after about four years of research. Its replacement: a newfangled bag made from plant material (my emphasis). It’s part of a trend among companies trying to boost their green cred to woo customers critical of wasteful or environmentally unfriendly packaging.”
I love that preceding paragraph, the author is either dead on right or is making an assumption that corporate America only goes green to increase customer base and thus product sales, oh my gosh could that be true? (I ask with heavy sarcasm). Could it be that the major companies, gigantic, multi-national conglomerates of the world aren’t really concerned about the earth and being sustainable? Oh say it isn’t so Joe!
Well just the same here’s what Frito-Lay did:
“The original bags, made from polymers such as polypropylene and polyethylene, weren’t recyclable. “They are not designed to degrade,” says Brad Rodgers, Frito-Lay’s North American manager of sustainable packaging. “Depending on what scientific research you read, it could be more than a 100 years.”
The new polymers have a higher “glass transition temperature,” which is when a polymer goes from a harder, glasslike state to a rubber state. Because the transition to rubberiness (sic) happens a bit above room temperature, the bag is “kind of crispy and crunchy,” says Mr. Rodgers.”
Kind of crispy and crunchy, well isn’t that how you like your snack chips? Oh right the chips should be crispy and crunchy but not the bag. What a great inconvenience it must be to have a loud snack bag!
The definition I used today from Ken Wilber is short but very much to the point “…most importantly, a consciousness that can sustain it.” Sustainability must be sustained by the people. I love it!
The only way we are going to see real change is when people get real. To create a sustainable planet, it’s going to take a realization that things must change and change in big ways. It’s a cultural change, it’s a standard of living changes, things cannot continue to go on status-quo anymore. Whether it’s a loud bag of chips or a smaller car or extra effort to use energy wisely things have to change.
How deep is the reluctance people have for change, we know that everyone (most) fear change, right? But sometimes the change doesn’t seem to be based in fear but instead it’s based in vanity, or self-importance. If change means giving up something then “I don’t think so” seems to be the mantra. People don’t want to give up luxuries or esthetics or status. I mean look at the difference between an attractive and pristine upper middle-class (does that even exist anymore?) suburban neighborhood and the same neighborhood with solar panels on every roof. Oh god no not in my neighborhood.
When it comes to larger scale changes, say a wind mill generator, wind-farm or solar array the opposing screams you hear are:
NIMBY (Not In My Back-Yard)
NIABY (Not In Anyone’s Backyard)
NAMBI (Not Against My Business or Industry)
And my all-time favorite
BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (or Anyone).
Oh, and if it should cost me a little more, then no way at all!
So look I think the bottom line here is that we (all of us) need a reality check, we need to really consider what is important, is it quiet snack bags or less land fill? Is it pretty little houses or energy efficient solar powered homes? Where are the priorities? Is it just about the here and now or is it about the future? Are we ready for change?
.
.
.
.
.
Peace
tom
* WSJ article:
About Tom-
Tom Tozier has more than 30 years of experience in the printing industry, having managed and directed both commercial and in-plant printing operations. Most recently, he served as director of Imaging Services for the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Tom recently ventured out on his own and is now president of TNT Sustainable Business Solutions, a consulting firm that promotes and provides services for creating sustainable business practices, measuring and improving print shop effectiveness, and sustainability marketing. He has recently earned certification from the University of Colorado’s Professional Studies program in Sustainability Management.
You can reach tom at:
tom.tozier@tnt-sbs.com
TNTozier @ August 19, 2010
Defining Sustainability - 101 Perspectives – (Continued) Musts & Friday the 13th!
Posted in: Green Tea Thoughts with TNT | Comments (0)
By Tom Tozier
August 13, 2010
Number 23
“Sustainability requires us to ensure the Four System Conditions:
(a) Substances from the Earths crust must not systematically increase in nature. (This means that fossil fuels, metals, and other minerals cannot be extracted at a faster rate than their re‐deposit back into the Earths crust.)
(b) Substances produced by society must not systematically increase in nature. (This means that things like plastics, ozone‐depleting chemicals, carbon dioxide, waste materials, etc., must not be produced at a faster rate than they can be broken down in nature. This requires a greatly decreased production of naturally occurring substances that are systematically accumulating beyond natural levels, and a phase‐out of persistent human‐made substances not found in nature.)
(c) The physical basis for productivity and diversity of nature must not be systematically diminished. (This means that we cannot harvest or manipulate ecosystems in such a way as to diminish their productive capacity, or threaten the natural diversity of life forms (biodiversity). This requires that we critically examine how we harvest renewable resources, and (adjust our consumption and land‐use practices to fall well within the regenerative capacities of ecosystems.)
(d) We must be fair and efficient in meeting basic human needs. (This means that basic human needs must be met with the most resource‐efficient methods possible, including a just resource distribution.)“‐ - The Natural Step
The Natural Step is a not-for-profit organization that was formed in the early 1990’s in Sweden. The Natural Step Framework is a proven scientific model that assists organizations make pragmatic decisions to move toward sustainability. It was in the late 1980’s that a Swedish doctor, Dr. Karl-Henrik Robèrt, a cancer specialist considered a simple idea, what if we used the agreement science has for the basic understanding of biological cell structure to create a platform for understanding the continuation and need for wellbeing of human life, sustainable living?
Working with a vast network of Swedish doctors, scientists and others a consensus document was eventually created. With support from the King of Sweden this document was distributed to every household and school in Sweden. Over the next twenty years Dr. Robèrt worked with leading academic institutions in Sweden and continued to expand the offerings of the Natural Step program, which now has helped thousands of leaders, corporations and communities, educational, governments to develop blueprints towards sustainability. The Natural Step has offices in 11 countries around the world.
The Natural Step framework is not a political based, nor religious based or sectarian based for that matter. What the Natural Step Framework builds on is a basic understanding of what makes life possible, how the earth functions and we are part of the earth’s natural systems.
It really is pretty simple isn’t it?
Don’t take more than the earth can produce.
Don’t waste more than the earth can accept.
Don’t use more than the earth can provide.
Be nice to each other.
If we could all live by these four simple steps the world would be a much better place. Wait a minute! It can’t be that simple can it?
—
FRIDAY the 13th
In a rare instance I am taking on two subjects today. I don’t really have much to say about Friday the 13th, it’s just a day that has such an enigma tied to it I had to say something. In keeping with the format I have established here I looked up a definition for Friday the 13th, what surprised me was that there are actually definitions for Friday the 13th. Here’s what the god of all knowledge (Wikipedia) says about this day:
“Friday the 13th occurs when the thirteenth day of a month falls on a Friday…”
Really I swear it says that! Okay to be fair it does go on to say:
“…which superstition holds to be a day of bad luck. In the Gregorian calendar, this day occurs at least once, but at most three times a year. Any month’s 13th day will fall on a Friday if the month starts on a Sunday.”
I think this is a great lucky day. I just received a promotional mailer from a local car dealership in the mail and it has a key attached to it and if I take this key down to the dealer and try starting a special car, and it starts , it’s mine! So be lucky Friday the 13th I should win that 2010 Dodge Challenger!
Is a Dodge Challenger sustainable?
Have a great Friday the 13th!
Peace
Tom
About Tom
Tom Tozier has more than 30 years of experience in the printing industry, having managed and directed both commercial and in-plant printing operations. Most recently, he served as director of Imaging Services for the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Tom is now president of TNT Sustainable Business Solutions, a consulting firm that promotes and provides services for creating sustainable business practices, measuring and improving print shop effectiveness, and sustainability marketing.
-
TNTozier @ August 13, 2010
Defining Sustainability - 101 Perspectives (Continued) – Measuring Goals
Posted in: Green Tea Thoughts with TNT | Comments (0)
By Tom Tozier
August 11, 2010
Number 22
Sustainability exists as a steady dynamic state …“if:
1. Its rates of use of renewable resources do not exceed their rates of regeneration.
2. Its rates of use of nonrenewable resources do not exceed the rate at which sustainable renewable substitutes are developed.
3. Its rates of pollution emission do not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment.”
‐ Herman Daly*
Example of measurement tracking
I attended a class recently that focused on establishing measuring standards for sustainable development. Many proponents of sustainable development believe in the necessity of measuring sustainable goals as metrics related to current standards; for instance with paper usage the measurement is often the recycled content of the paper used and the total amount of recycled paper used over a period of time. But wouldn’t it be better to measure the present state against the goal that is trying to be achieved?
Is it the amount of recycled paper used that is the goal, or is it the impact on the total carbon footprint by the use of the recycled paper that is real goal. Here’s an example:
Acme Printing Company (I know not a very creative name, but they do have Wyle E. Coyote is a big customer) okay seriously, Acme wants to reduce it’s carbon footprint by 50%, the largest amount of consumable resource they use is paper, so they figure they can make the biggest impact with the following changes;
Acme uses 100 tons of uncoated virgin paper per year. They want to convert to using all recycled paper. They convert to using 50 tons of 30% recycle content and 50 tons of 100% recycle content uncoated paper. The metric for this change could be considered a 100% conversion to paper with a 30% or more recycled content. Goal accomplished, right? But how does this measure up to the ongoing goal to reduce carbon emissions?
Looking at the same conversion to recycled paper here’s how it affects the larger goal?
100 tons of virgin uncoated paper = 588, 213 lbs of CO2 emissions
50 tons of 30% recycled paper = 257, 209 lbs of CO2 emissions
50 tons of 100% recycled paper = 171, 114 lbs of CO2 emissions
The total conversion to recycled paper = 428, 323 lbs of CO2 emissions
This change = 27% reduction in total CO2 emissions, a significant reduction to be sure, but just over half of the established goal.
I often wonder just how accurate companies are at claiming they are “green”. Is that claim based on standards or goals they have set for themselves? Giving them the benefit of the doubt, and trying to be an optimist I want to believe that there is a sincere effort on the part of a company or organization to contribute to sustainable development. The proof that needs to be the pudding however is establishing and reporting goals set for advancement of sustainable business practices.
Though I want to be an optimist, the pessimist in me fears that what we really see out there is more “green-washing” than true sustainable business practice.
Those three goals that Herman Daly uses to define sustainable development are not static goals. The commendable goal by Acme Printing of CO2 reduction also, is not static. Sustainability is a process not a destination. If we want to determine how our actions impact the earth, environmentally, economically and socially we need to create goals that are relevant, flexible and measureable. These goals need to be relational to on ongoing effort at becoming a more sustainable operation.
* Herman Daly (born 1938) is an American ecological economist and professor at the School of Public Policy of University of Maryland, College Park. He was Senior Economist in the Environment Department of the World Bank, where he helped to develop policy guidelines related to sustainable development.
About Tom
Tom Tozier has more than 30 years of experience in the printing industry, having managed and directed both commercial and in-plant printing operations. Most recently, he served as director of Imaging Services for the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Tom is now president of TNT Sustainable Business Solutions, a consulting firm that promotes and provides services for creating sustainable business practices, measuring and improving print shop effectiveness, and sustainability marketing.
TNTozier @ August 11, 2010
Defining Sustainability - 101 Perspectives (Continued) – evolution
Posted in: Green Tea Thoughts with TNT | Comments (0)
Evolution
By Tom Tozier
August 9, 2010
Number 21
“Sustainability means creating a world in which we have:
1) A positive ecological and sociological footprint (meaning we leave behind wetlands, not toxic waste dumps; healthy, developmentally appropriate educational systems, not ineffective relics from the Victorian era)
2) Cross‐sectoral coordination amongst the public and private sectors to nurture global economic development and growth (not physical growth, but in standard of living) to occur within our ecological limits, while delivering social justice
3) An alignment of the different levels of our individual and collective consciousness so that we can create, maintain, and healthily evolve all of this.
‐ Barrett Brown (2004), Integral Institute for Sustainability
Okay, you’re wondering why I have that Grateful Dead bumper sticker graphic on this post aren’t you? Well I’m taking an evolutionary view of sustainability toaday and being an old deadhead I just coudn’t resist.
This definition got me to think about the ultimate goal of a sustainable world, is sustainability a social achievement, an environmental protection, a state of mind? Maybe it’s really all of these things and reaching a point in which sustainable living is the norm is an attainment of an evolutionary process. This definition comes from Barrett Brown, who is an organizational and leadership consultant with an impressive resume of experience within global sustainability development. He is a regular contributor to the Integral Institute’s Sustainability branch. I was not too familiar with the Integral Institute when I read this definition and have done some research on its foundations, beliefs and mission. Here is the mission statement:
Mission
Integral Institute’s mission is to awaken humanity to full self-awareness. By providing research, education and events that foster intentional, behavioral, cultural and social self-awareness, the Institute helps global leaders from all arenas to improve the human condition. The Institute’s vision is that humanity lives with the awareness necessary to compassionately integrate the fragmented and partial perspectives of differing pursuits of the good life.
The Institute aims to help solve the world’s most complex problems. Among the primary goals of the Institute are research and cultivation of leadership of complex, global issues facing humanity in the 21st century, and in particular, those issues that can only be solved with a comprehensive, Integral and non-partial approach to the complex interdependencies that tend to characterize these issues. Global warming; evolutionary forms of capitalism; and the culture wars in political, religious, and scientific domains are all examples of problems to which the Institute hopes to bring new clarity.
The Integral Institute’s foundations are in the modern philosophical movement of Integral Theory that was developed by Ken Wilber over the last 30 or so years. As is the case with many new and somewhat radical views it is not without controversy in the world of Academia. I personally find it fascinating and intend on looking into it much deeper. But for the purpose of this blog I am going to stick to the sustainable thought. And what I get out of both Integral Theory and this definition of sustainability is a sense of movement and change.
Maybe sustainability becomes more of a journey than a destination, a continuing process towards improvement, providing a better future along the way. I kind of like that idea. What are the real goals we have established in our development of sustainable living, a better environmental footprint, better education, and social responsibility? Well those goals do not stop at a predetermined level do they? They are ongoing, evolving goals that has they become closer to reality also integrate into each other.
What a long strange trip it’s been.
peace
Tom
TNTozier @ August 9, 2010
Defining Sustainability - 101 Perspectives (Continued) – Society Based
Posted in: Green Tea Thoughts with TNT | Comments (0)
By Tom Tozier
August 5, 2010
Number 20
“Sustainable development means:
1. Ensuring self-sustaining improvements in productivity and quality of life of communities and societies;
2. Ensuring that production processes do not overexploit the natural resource base and compromise the quality of the environment, thus limiting the options of the poor, the present and future generations; and
3. Ensuring that people have basic human rights and freedoms to participate societies.”
‐ Naresh Singh & Vangile Titi (Empowerment for sustainable development - overview of concepts, methods and challenges, 1995)
What is sustainability all about? What is the basis upon which sustainability is built? I mean when you get down to the very basics why should we be sustainable in our existence? Environmentalists see it as a way to save the planet, nothing against this noble cause, but the planet doesn’t need us to help it exist and go on for eons and eons of time. All the planet has to do is wipe out, like a virus, once gone the earth returns to health.
I think that perhaps sustainability is a balance, if we are to continue as a functioning part of the ecosystem then we must learn to get along with that system and not to fight against it or harm it. But that’s still not entirely what sustainability is about. It’s about us, it’s about us.
If we are to survive, if the human race is to go on, then it must go on in a balanced and fair way. Where is the equality in the world? Where is the care? Where is the quality of life? Am I more important than a child in Ethiopia? Are you?
The desire to save the earth is and should be about saving the human race for the present and for the future. I’ll say it again the earth doesn’t need us to save itself. If we were to vanish tonight, the earth will heal itself of any destructiveness we may have caused. Oh t may take a few thousand or even millions of years but it will heal.
You can accuse me of being to simplistic or not being a realists but the bottom line is we aren’t really needed as a part of a functioning ecosystem. But if we want to play a part of that ecosystem then we must think and act beyond the care of the planet. We must act to care for each other.
peace
tom
TNTozier @ August 5, 2010
Defining Sustainability - 101 Perspectives (Continued) – Early Visions
Posted in: Green Tea Thoughts with TNT | Comments (0)
By Tom Tozier
July 23, 2010
Number 19
“The simplest definition of a sustainable activity is that it can be continued for the foreseeable future. And this has at least three dimensions: it means not unreasonably depleting natural resources, not producing waste products that significantly alter natural systems, and not undermining social stability.” - Professor Ian Lowe, (1990)
When I look back on the decade of the 1980’s I think hey that was just yesterday wasn’t it? And then I am reminded that I graduated high school in 1980 and that was 30 years ago! I remember a lot about the 80’s (don’t ask me about the years 1978-1980 though…it’s all blank!). I remember we had an actor for US President, Commodore Computers, Pac-Man Games, The Brat Pack, Michael Jackson (Thriller!!), Madonna, E.T. (phone home), Mt. Saint Helens erupted, but I don’t remember much about sustainability.
Was it just me? No, probably not. I knew a lot about ecology, recycling, pollution, but not a whole lot about sustainability. There were however, in the 80’s groups of scientists, professors and engineers among others that were working with the idea of sustainability fueling (no pun intended) their pursuits. From 1983 to 1989 Professor Ian Lowe from Australia was a member of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council, chairing its standing committee on social, economic and environmental issues. He was named Humanist of the Year in 1988 (that’s a good thing).
So by 1990 when he wrote a journal article titled: Sustainable Development: How Do We Get There?, (Australian Society, June, No. 5) I would say Professor Lowe was an outstanding expert on the subject. It would still be another two years until the Rio Earth summit was to be held. Personally I have often considered 1992 to be quite a pivotal year for sustainability awareness because of the Rio Earth Summit.
But here we have an early visionary who provides us with a simple definition of sustainability. And I can see that in the twenty years since Professor Lowe wrote this article and in the hundreds of definitions to come (hey I’m only on number 19 so far) the basis is solid and the meaning seems pretty clear.
I guess there’s always a lot of change happening in the world, both for the good and the bad. Awareness of the need to create a more sustainable world certainly has come about over the last 20 – 30 years, what hasn’t changed so much or for that matter never needed to change is what sustainable living is, the definition is clear and has just about always been there. You have to thank the early on adopters whose vision of the future they have shared with us all.
By the way what is Professor Lowe doing today, you might ask.
He’s working with TNEP, The Natural Edge Project (TNEP) is an engineering for sustainable development and climate change working group based at Griffith University and the Australian National University. TNEP operates as a collaborative partnership for research, education, and policy development on innovation for sustainable development.
TNEP’s mission is to contribute to and succinctly communicate leading research, case studies, tools, policy and strategies for achieving sustainable development across government, business and civil society. Driven by a team of early career Australians, the non-profit Project receives mentoring and support from a range of experts and leading organizations in Australia and internationally.
Happy Friday!
Peace
Tom
TNTozier @ July 23, 2010