Greenville in the News

Some time ago, I posted a link about United Solar Ovonic and its new plant in Greenville, Michigan, my home town.  Well, the piece finally aired:  NBC Nightly News & United Solar Ovonic.  It’s a short piece that describes how former Electrolux employees are being trained and employed at the new solar-cell plant.  The company will manufacture solar panels that stick on roofs, and will then be distributed across the world, especially Europe.

I love to hear that  my home town gets to partake in the reinventing that is needed given the current economy and how awful it has been for folks living there.  But, caution is the word that comes to mind when I hear stories like this.  Sometimes, it seems we become so eager to jump on any bandwagon that screams new jobs when so many are hurting for lack of work, we then forget to ask questions to see if it is truly a good idea.

In my previous post, I wrote about how Greenville has a history of smokestacking to attract industry and how that has contributed to the situation Greenville now faces with no industry where industry once flourished because the jobs have all fled to places that offer cheaper labor, such as countries in Asia or south of our borders in Mexico.

I suppose, the only thing I want to offer to anyone reading this blog is to consider the 3 Es of sustainable development, economy, equity, and the environment.  So, even though the new plant boasts green energy, how is the product manufactured?  Is it done with the 3Es in balance with each other?  Does it reach the Triple Bottom Line? Are the folks working the line being paid a decent wage, with adequate time off so they can spend time with their families?  Is the company borrowing on borrowed time to pay for its venture, or do their own books balance?

I just hope those questions were asked before this deal was brokered.  I do hope the Green can be put back in Greenville, both monetarily and with the environment in mind.

The Triple Bottom Line

One aspect of sustainability is something called the Triple Bottom Line. It’s gone by different names such as the three-legged stool concept and the 3 Es. The idea is that you factor the economy, the environment, and social issues on the same or a level playing field, each getting equal weight when being considered for a decision. So, if something doesn’t consider the economic impacts of say an environmentally sound project, it wouldn’t balance by the Triple Bottom Line assessment. The questions we should be asking ourselves, according to this idea, would be: “How does this policy/plan/product impact the environment/people/economy?” If we’re considering outsourcing jobs, for instance, who is being displaced then by lack of a job? How would that benefit those who are losing there jobs? Is there another plan we could use that could balance the economic side while not exploiting the people who get the job done?

A Last Push to Deregulate itemizes some of the recent rules President Bush plans on putting through as his term nears an end.  How does relaxing drinking water standards, for example, impact people and the environment?  Is it a good decision for either?  Would it balance under the Triple Bottom Line assessment?  Does it take into account a longer impact such as health impacts from drinking potentially contaminated water?

No, rules like this do not take a Triple Bottom Line assessment into account. How long will we go before we realize that this type of planning will only serve to harm us? Perhaps the November 4th election will proffer hope or change no matter which party rules this new administration. Perhaps we can see a more complete form of planning for the next 4 to 8 years.

Sustainable Knowledge

In today’s Oregonian, the headlines rang a different tune. They spoke of hope and frugality instead of fear and another depression. The main headliner, Sure, we want stuff, but do we need it?, interviewed a local woman who runs a blog, Frugal Living. I found this very interesting since Peter & I have been living frugally for months. She is working on getting her budget down to $2,000 a month. So, I checked out her site. She has full disclosure! Talk about accountability! She pares down what she spends, where it goes, the size of her family, and what money is coming in. She describes her desires to live debt-free and her and her husbands goal of owning their own land in 5 years to build their own house. My vote is for Cob, but I haven’t mentioned it to her.

So, on her, site, I sent her a message. Her budget is similar to ours, and we have a similar family size and income. There are gives and takes here in there, but it’s a similar plan. I left her a comment asking her where she shops for food, for I firmly believe knowledge should be shared. I was pleasantly surprised to receive a reply back just a few hours later.

Several months ago, another sustainabily-inspired mom, was interviewed in the Oregonian. I also wanted to connect with this mom to share ideas on how she did it. Unfortunately, this mom was more interested in getting cash than sharing knowledge, so we have yet to connect.

Sustainability is more than just green building. It’s about building greener lives, inside and out. It’s about shared responsiblity and a desire for change so we can all live in a cleaner, healthier world. One aspect of this is sharing knowledge. No one person has all the answers, we can’t individually. Our world is much too big for one person to understand it all. We all have strengths and weaknesses, and it’s important to connect with others so we can empower our strengths and recognize our weaknesses. But, to do this, we have to share knowledge. It’s understandable in the ways our economy is structured that one would guard and hold their ideas close to their heart, and in many respects we should lest someone take advantage of that we have worked so hard to cultivate. But, if we are truly looking for a more sustainable society, we must open the door and begin bridging with one another so that a true sustainable bond will be made. Let’s set aside fear and depression and raise up frugality so we will have hope for a greener future.

A New Dialogue

Today’s Oregonian talks about Climate Change and the affects it will have on migration and Oregon. If, as many models predict, the Southwest dries up, the Gulf Coast is inhabitable due to severe hurricanes, the East Coast floods, and intense fluctuation between drought and flooding happens in the Midwest, the question naturally begs, “Where will the people go?”

One prediction is that they will come to the fairly temperate Pacific Northwest (or any place north for that matter). In order to plan for this, since it’s so difficult to see the future, I would like to recommend a new cliché to help guide our policies, “Look back first, then look forward.”

We have to see where we have been before we can see where we are going. We need to look back at other societies that have collapsed due to climate change and Jared Diamond does a great job of synthesizing those cultures. We need to look at the mistakes we have made and the good things we have done. We need to examine why we have went to war and really question if they were noble causes. We need to look at how we’ve been able to survive, has it been keeping fairness in mind for all or just a few? If we look back and can resurrect policies or technologies that haven’t been used we can capitalize on our intellectual capital of the ages. We can reexamine design aspects to transport water, get people around, and look at how others have lived to decide how we want to live.

The first step needs to be questioning how we do things. So, if we adopt a “look to history first policy” guided by the simple act of “looking back first, then we can look forward” we will train ourselves to learn from history. The key is honesty and being true to ourselves, our intentions and our ancestors intentions. If we aren’t, then no learning will take place and Climate Change will get the best of us.

New Priorities for a Greener Earth

What would happen to our world if we balanced three target interests: environment, economy, and equity? What if our decision-balance sheet held that these three goals and priorities had to balance to neutral before we proceeded on any decision? What would happen if when considering equity, we understood that it means everyone has all their basic needs met?

FDR’s 2nd Bill of Rights held several tenants:

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

When I read this for the first time nearly 8 years ago, I felt appalled. Why do we need another bill of rights? Isn’t what we have good enough? Well, 8 years of thinking about it has reversed my initial thought. What we already have isn’t enough because people do not exercise the freedom in which they are entitled and have. How can you think about what you should do when your tummy is rumbling? How can you think about your dreams if your main concern is finding a safe place to sleep for the night?

Some of these ideas are already incorporated into our mode of thinking, but have we come so far as to think of them as rights? Do we allow ourselves the ability to be entitled to safe, decent housing, for example? How do we balance these rights while keeping overseeing agencies, or government, in check?

Now is the time to find answers to these questions. Now is the time for a new call to arms, a call to arms that claims freedom from fear for everyone.

From the Voters Guide: Accountability

If as individuals we recognize the importance of closing the loop of waste, then corporations should certainly be held accountable for closing the loop. If we realize that it is best to use what we have before we take more, because honest accounting tells that really is the best way to budget, then we should also do this together.

If you make a mess as a child, chances are your mother instructed you to clean up after yourself. Together, we need to clean up our mess and we need to be accountable for that mess we made.

From the Voters Guide: Liberty

“Liberty of any kind is never lost all at once.” David Hume

What does it mean when we sacrifice a lot of liberty for the sake of a little security, pondered Franklin and Jefferson. What does a society look like when we agree to limit our choices? What choices do we have on this planet, in this country, in our states and neighborhoods? We are all blessed with freedom of choice, the ability to choose to make our own decisions and forge our own path. So, what does it mean when we let others make those choices for us and what does it look like?

If we value the choices we have, like going to whatever grocery store we choose to purchase our weekly goods, then our votes should reflect that. We should be electing candidates into office who also value the importance of choice. Individuals should be able to choose for themselves as long as their choices don’t hinge upon the rights of others.

“There can be no assumption that today’s majority is ‘right’ and the Amish and others like them are ‘wrong’. A way of life that is odd or even erratic but interferes with no rights or interests of others is not to be condemned because it is different.” Warren E. Burger

From the Voters Guide: Responsibility

What types of responsibilities do we or should we have to the environment?

In order to respect all peoples and their right to live upon this earth, we should recognize that to pursue health and happiness we all need some basics: clean air, clean water, and clean soil. It may sound elementary, but how current politics swing it is worth repeating. We all need clean air to breath lest we are burdened with disease like asthma. We all need clean water to drink lest we are made sick with E. coli or other ferocious bacteria. We all need clean soil to utilize for building, living, and eating.

Franklin D. Roosevelt desired a new bill of rights in the wake of the Great Depression that would spell out clearly the right to healthcare, education, and a securer future. In order to claim our rights, though, we must admit our responsibility. We have a responsibility to ourselves and future generations to secure these things for us and them. We have a right to make sure our water is clean so that others may have clean water. We have a right to make sure that our practices keep the air clean so all can live and breath easier. And, we have a right to ensure that we don’t contaminate our soils. If our soils are contaminated, where will our food come from?

It is our responsibility, together, to make sure we are accountable for our bad deeds in order that all may live in a clean world.

Cradle to cradle

G.M. Reports Quarterly Loss of $722 Million. This was the headline of the NY Times as I checked the headlines one morning in July. The article goes on to explain that it’s $1.28 a share and compared with the $950 million profit or $1.68 a share from the same period last year. That’s a difference of $1.672 billion dollars. Peter keeps saying, you just watch, G.M. will close all its U.S. plants and head to Mexico (or whatever 3rd World Country wins the next smokestacking bid).

Why can’t they utilize, though, something more inclusive in their planning? Why do we have to stay stuck in the same pattern? Wasn’t it Einstein who said, “Insane is defined as doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.” Let’s change our practice from Cradle to Grave to Cradle to Cradle.

With Cradle to Cradle a company would be responsible for their creation for the entire lifecycle. This would put the burden of disposal on the producer. If the producer is forced to care for their product, they would have a resource to build new products without mining for many new raw materials. They would create jobs within their sector for properly servicing their product and it would be in their best interest to create quality products.

So, what do you all think would happen if G.M. decided because of this what seems to me a huge loss, that they would take this information, learn from it and decide we need to do something differently. Let’s take up the Cradle to Cradle philosophy and build quality cars that people could drive for 50 years, we’ll truly service them, and we will use the old cars for new cars. Then, we could be more Green than Honda or Toyota could dream of. Or would people pooh-pooh it, and when the economy has an upswing, they’ll be fried again? Can it happen? In our lifetime? Our grandfather’s fought for those union jobs, and now they are disappearing.

What is ‘The Natural Step’ framework?

While looking for more secure employment, I have come across a few jobs that require familiarity with ‘The Natural Step’ framework. Considering I took a class based on this framework two years ago, I am now writing about the framework as a refresher course for me and anyone interested in learning more about the framework.

The Natural Step (TNS) framework is a way to frame ’systems thinking’ and apply it to businesses or community planning. It includes four guiding principles for consideration when addressing policy and planning in business and community planning. The guiding principles of TNS are as follows (taken from James & Lahti):

1. In the sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth’s crust.
2. In the sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing concentrations of substances produced by society.
3. In the sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing degradation by physical means.
4. In the sustainable society, human needs are met worldwide.

In addition to the more holistic systems-thinking approach, TNS incorporates the 3Es (Triple Bottom Line) and ideas from the Brundtland Report.

The Triple Bottom Line is the idea that instead of simply measuring our economy as a measure of how well we are doing, we should also add equity and the environment to that bottom line. Hence, creating the ‘Triple Bottom Line’ which includes Environment, Equity, and Economy. If each measure is thought of as having the same importance, one wouldn’t weigh more than another. We would consider economy in the same light as people and the environment, so decisions would have to be fair for all three. We wouldn’t choose, for example, to close a plant because it would raise profits if it meant 26,000 people lost their jobs and would face economic hardships of their own within 6 months. Instead, we’d find a different way.

The Brundtland Report states that Sustainable Development meets the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations. This concept puts into policy the idea of looking at development in an inter and intra generational mindset. If we know, for example, that in order to power our lives we need x amounts of oil per day, and that amount we are able to extract will be lower as years pass, we would adjust how we extract because future generations would not have the same benefits as we do now.

Taking these additional concepts within the systems-thinking approach offered by TNS means we don’t intentionally harm the earth and all of its inhabitants; we use caution when deciding how to live and work. We don’t sacrifice one group of people over another under the guise that it is for the common good because when one group suffers at our expense, it simply cannot be for the common good. So, in the sustainable society we don’t take more than we need, we don’t pollute intentionally nor do we destroy intentionally, and we are mindful of all peoples of this planet both living now and years from now.

Notes
James, Sarah and Torbjorn Lahti. 2004. The Natural Step for Communities: How Cities and Towns can Change to Sustainable Practices. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers. Pages 279.

Oregon Natural Step Network. n.d. www.ortns.org

Savitz, Andrew. n.d. The Triple Bottom Line. www.getsustainable.net

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Sustainability: Basic Information. www.epa.gov/sustainability/basicinfo.htm