Loki Anderson wrote:
"Finally, we are in the midst of a dramatic population bloom fueled by a
comfortable way of mis-using fossil fuel resources without regard for the
consequences. Perhaps this was excusable when we were naive about the
nature of our relationship to the environment, but such naiveté is no longer
possible."
Peter Vevang writes:
I think Loki hits it here. The real cause of unsustainable environments is the
way we choose to live. I differ a bit with the tone of his post. People
follow that pattern because the government created the conditions and supports
the infrastructure that allows that kind of growth to continue. It is not a
question of political will, it is that way because we have directed our
institutions to support this system, it is a process issue. It takes time to
change that, and we need a sustained political effort to make it work. As long
as we are unable to provide a better alterantive, and back that alternative up
with votes, I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to want to change.
I support ethanol because it helps farmers, it is an economic opportunity based
on sustainable principles. I think the success of ethanol shows that there is
money to be made by following practices that protect the environment. It is
possible to earn a living from this industry. I think it also shows that you
need to create a constituency, and gain political support if you want to
sustain any effort.
That idea translates to the city, there is money to be made. People can make a
living by supporting sustainable practices. Sustainable practices are not an
economic disadvantage, they are an advantage, it is an untapped industry. If
you divide up the percentage of energy usage, 50% of the energy we use goes
toward construction, maintanance and operation of buildings. Only 20% goes
towards transportation, cars, including air travel, ships, trucking and so on.
We could completely eliminate all SUV's and replace them with E-85 hybrids and
it would only slightly dent our energy usage. The single best way to cut back
on wasting energy in the building industry is to renovate, repair, re-use what
we have, to renovate and rebuild our existing infrastructure in a more energy
efficient way and to repair and maintain our buildings in an energy efficient
way. That is something we can do here in the city. It would provide jobs, and
it would save money for the people owning the buildings, giving them more
resources for other projects.
Farmers needed government subsidies and help inventing the technology for
ethanol, they had a development model. What we do not have in the city is an
effective re-development model, we don't have systematic subsidies, regulatory
support or support with the technology and building process that follow a
sustainable model. Our building codes, ordinances and approval process aren't
geared toward supporting sustainable development. Our current regulatory
process was invented in the 1940's and implemented in the 50's. We haven't
changed the fundamental principles we use for 50+ years.
I think the trick to making sustainability work is to make it economically
beneficial and to have the proper support and regulatory system in place. If
you can do that, people will come to you. You won't be in a position of
forcing people to do something they don't want to do. We will not succeed by
making others fail or punishing them. We succeed together.
Peter Vevang
Audubon
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
