Sustainability in Action: What’s wrong with this picture?

Sustainable design practices impact many of the routine things that we do. Things like southern alignment of a building on a lot, the selection of windows and building materials, waste water and rainwater runoff from sites, and how we plant our gardens or crops for improved growth without damaging the ecosystem.


The work being done here is an example of an effort that promotes increased, not decreased, use of electricity due to the complexity of the flow path from the pump.

The team is putting three 90* turns in the pump’s flow path through its piping run. This drastic change in direction increases the load on the system and makes the pump motor work harder, using more electricity and increasing the heat (due to resistance) exposure experienced by the motor, which will reduce its life-cycle.


A less resistive flow path for pump discharge lines will allow designers to use smaller motors for their systems, again reducing the electricity used to accomplish the desired work. Long curves and softly angled paths, instead of 90* turns that create a ‘head’, are much more in line with sustainability of resources.

The savings gained by these reductions, even on small systems, adds up. And on big systems where gradually angled flow paths reduce or eliminate significant back pressure the savings are able to reduce or even erase the costs involved in system upgrades.

Earth Charter

There is an Earth Charter that was Launched onto the World Stage in the year 2000 as a United Nations initiative, but it was carried forward and completed by a global civil society initiative.

It is a declaration of fundamental ethical principles for building a just, sustainable and peaceful global society in the 21st century. It seeks to inspire in all people a new sense of global interdependence and shared responsibility for the well-being of the whole human family, the greater community of life, and future generations. It is a vision of hope and a call to action.

The Earth Charter is centrally concerned with the transition to sustainable ways of living and sustainable human development. Ecological integrity is one major theme. However, the Earth Charter recognizes that the goals of ecological protection, the eradication of poverty, equitable economic development, respect for human rights, democracy, and peace are interdependent and indivisible. It provides, therefore, a new, inclusive, integrated ethical framework to guide the transition to a sustainable future.

The Earth Charter is a product of a decade-long, worldwide, cross cultural dialogue on common goals and shared values. The Earth Charter was finalized and then launched as a people’s charter in 2000 by the Earth Charter Commission, an independent international entity.
The drafting of the Earth Charter involved the most inclusive and participatory process ever associated with the creation of an international declaration. This process is the primary source of its legitimacy as a guiding ethical framework. The legitimacy of the document has been further enhanced by its endorsement by over 4,500 organizations, including many governments and international organizations.
In the light of this legitimacy, an increasing number of international lawyers recognize that the Earth Charter is acquiring

Universal Responsibility

To realize these aspirations, we must decide to live with a sense of universal responsibility, identifying ourselves with the whole Earth community as well as our local communities. We are at once citizens of different nations and of one world in which the local and global are linked. Everyone shares responsibility for

the present and future well-being of the human family and the larger living world. The spirit of human solidarity and kinship with all life is strengthened when we live with reverence for the mystery of being, gratitude for the gift of life, and humility regarding the human place in nature.

Read the Earth Charter at http://www.earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html.

Fixing the Right Price

When a farmer fertilizes his corps with a high nitrogen fertilizer he pays for the chemicals, the tools to apply them, and the fuel for his tractor to pull the rig. But are there any other expenses that should be assigned to the farm to cover the costs of his process?

What about the run off that occurs when it rains, or the irrigation process kicks in? The fertilizer saturates the soil, and some of it becomes water born and runs off of the land and into the stream...flows down through the descending bed and ends up in the lake or river. This increased nitrate promotes algae blooms, kills fish, over burdens the next stream or river it runs to. The county or state then reacts to the algae, tries to save the fish by reducing the quantity of algae in the water...taking hours in labor, and money for equipment and preparations.

That is just one example of an economic Externality experienced by one typical event that occurs in America today.

And what about herbicides and pesticides? They promote general destruction of plants and animals while being promoted to address only limited infestations of specific plants and insects...and often these chemical tools just don't work. Again, an Externality... collateral damage coming from the production side of agriculture, and not answering the important questions of who should be held accountable for these pollution events and the issues that they raise.

There are just as many...no, there are more situations that need tending when it comes to Externalities. Water, Air, Desertification, CO2 release, Methane production from cattle and Dairy Herds...the list truly does go on. Most of this external impact is not covered by the producers (industry or agriculture) as it is difficult to equate these costs...so instead they are coming out of our taxes for cleanup...and never paid for by those who are generating the pollution.

We need to act on this...find a way to Tax or assign accurate charges on these events and attach them to the right organizations so that they will either pay for the cleanup or change their processes so that there is less pollution, and they save money due to their paying less in penalty charges.

It is time that we begin crafting policy in the United States that will allow us to properly fix the right price on these environmental externalities. The industries causing this pollution, and profiting from their manufacturing... profiting even more so because they are not being held accountable for the damage they are doing to air, water and land that they impact, need to be held accountable. Yes, their prices will go up, but that is appropriate as they are causing this pollution and should be the ones who act to correct these problems.

Fix the Right Price and the economy will properly align with the tennants of Sustainability.

Economic Growth…Is It The Cause Of Our Environmental Woes?

Each year many economists join the increasing body of their peers who believe that economic growth, as defined by increased through-put of resources, yields an increasing amount of waste and pollution that is forcing us toward global calamity. 

The Earth, after all, is not inexhaustible…it is in fact finite. We have a limited amount of water to sustain life; limited land to grow our food; a limited quantity of resources from which to make things; and limited space in which to store the waste that we create. The Earth is finite…not infinite. 

And it is these facts that drive the Ecological Economists who believe that we must change our cultural and economic direction toward continued growth driven by our markets in our capitalist economic system. We need to limit, even stop growth in its tracks, and in its place we need to promote economic and political processes that will promote excellence that will enhance the quality of life for all while working to meet the sustainable demands or our current and future civilization.

There are two types of Sustainability; Strong and Weak. Strong Sustainability argues and strives for positive action that fully protects the environment and human health. In Strong Sustainability the environment is sustained, and Natural Capital is sustained. In Weak Sustainability economic growth is sustained…you see, in the weak approach Natural Capital can be consumed as long as there is a substitute for it, like manmade capital. 

Which is better? Difficult question. Sustainability is intent on supporting the Environment, the Economy, and Equity…both globally and for future generations. In the strong approach these will be maintained through positive actions that retain and share…while protecting all. In the weak approach resources and species will go away, but there will be other things left to provide for Equity.

Today’s industrial giants and their sponsors in Government fully support economic growth, so how will we reverse this centuries old trend? No answers there… that’s the point. Growth is what our institutions are engaged in, and they are not going to readily give that up. But if they don’t we will not be able to overcome the slippage that we suffer in our current programs, slippage that allows the bypassing of regulations, or the intentional refusal to comply in full by many organizations who deliver more and more pollution to our doorstep with each hour of production.

The Impact of our Faulty Regulatory Process...

The environment, and for that matter the future of Sustainability, is often addressed through laws that establish regulations that demand compliance. Once the standards are set we seem to step into a difficult process that, year after year, calls for completion of programs that industry just seems to be ill equipped to handle. As a result we tend to under achieve when measuring corporate performance to the standards.

But how bad is it…well the specifics are on record, and you should go there to check them out, but the concept is right here and it can help us to understand why regulatory compliance is falling very far from the mark.

We have many companies unwilling to meet the standards…fighting for their right to keep on doing what they have always done…pollute without regard to the environment in order to make a profit that does not pay for the impact that they generate, let alone the readily available natural resources consumed in their process…like air and water…that are almost never paid for by industry. Instead our modern political-industrial process leaves these expenses, a $400 Billion annual burden, to the government to cover with taxes and loans…debts that should have been covered by the industrial giants who caused them in the first place.

Consider this… it is all about the slip between ‘cup and lip’. If only 80% of the problem was actually covered by the regulations…leaving 20% unaddressed; and then only 80% of the companies try to meet compliance, leaving 20% nonresponsive, and only 80% of the effort was successful…another 20% still on the table, we are in real trouble. It boils down to a math problem. 0.8 x 0.8 x 0.8= ….well that is 80% of the total problem times 80% of the companies…leaving a first result of 64% of the issue addressed...then multiply that by 80%... or 0.64 x 0.8 = .512… or just over 50% compliance to regulatory expectations.

Now if that was in a static system…with no change to the volume of production nor the quantity of pollutants dumped into our environment…then we would be seeing improvements…yet in our profit driven modernistic system production rates continue to advance at near 100% per year…so our 50% reduction represents a real slippage of regulatory goals…simply stated…we are falling behind due to industrial growth and the regulatory slippage that we are experiencing because of industry’s unwillingness to step up and comply with the real requirements.

Regulator Slippage needs to be corrected…clean air and water, and GHG (that’s Green House Gases) all need to be covered effectively, and while we are at it we need to get industry to meet its responsibilities to clean what they use, or fund the cleanup in full so that it does not have to be a tax burden.

Modernist Society...and the need to transition...post 1

The world around us, and especially in the developed world, is operating within a consumer driven, capitalist economic system supported by a modernist political model in which the economic engine, with its wide open throttle for growth, has doubled the world’s economy in less than 25 years, and will double it again in less than 10.

When we look to the three columns established within the field of Sustainability we have to question if this is what is best for Planet Earth… After all, even if we reduce the per capita rate of pollution (per person / per dollar earned) the growing population and the increasing income levels associated with our economic model demand that pollution go up…The economies of the developed world are growing, and those of the developing world are demanding the right to grow along side of them.

Add to that the increasing polluting trends in the developing nations, especially China and India, and we find that the burden being placed on our planet to overstress her finite ability to absorb the toxins we are dumping on her…and to clean our air and water so that we can live longer lives…all at little or no economic charge, tax, or donation…

This growth is spewing out carbon and nitrogen at an alarming rate…into an environment that is failing, and onto a population that is living longer with most-times less quality of life, especially in the third world.

Our politicians are being driven by economic factors, sometimes greed…sometimes goals to succeed…sometimes the desire to aid our society with better perceived standards…all of which are fueling the fire.

Nitrogen Pollution...Just one US Example Among Thousands

In 2010, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services listed parts of the Bellamy River, Cocheco River, Exeter River, Great Bay, Lamprey River, Oyster River, Piscataqua River, and Salmon Falls Rivers as impaired or threatened by nitrogen pollution. Simply stated, New Hampshire’s coastal waters are in trouble, and the danger comes from people over fertilizing and causing N2 pollution in our waters.

Why is this a problem?

Excessively high nitrogen levels in a water body can trigger explosive algae growth known as algal blooms. As the algae dies, it depletes dissolved oxgyen levels in the water and block out sunlight, potentially leading to a loss of habitat for fish and aquatic plants. This deadly process is known as eutrophication.
The Great Bay Estuary is already exhibiting signs of eutrophication:

• 42% increase in total nitrogen to the estuary load in just five years
• Adult oyster populations in the estuary have plummeted from 125,000 bushels in 1997 to just 10,044 in 2009.
• 1990-2008: 65% percent decline in eelgrass habitat

Source: Piscataqua Region Estuaries Partnership. State of the Estuaries 2009