Canadian Government Supporting Sustainable Development

Source: http://www.burghoutviola.com/images/ist2_407319_canadian_money.jpg

Last Thursday during my final Sustainability and Community Relations class I learned about funding which is being given out by the government to assist companies with their of sustainable development initiatives. The money for the funds is coming from the gasoline tax, which I thought was quite appropriate as the money is going towards projects which will benefit the environment. The only catch is that there aren’t really any guides or agencies following up with the companies being given the funds. Some companies have been given thousands of dollars just to come up with a design for their sustainable developments, once the design has been done the company isn’t really locked in or committed to going through with the development. I think that companies which receive these found should be forced to write a report on their finding during the design phase and held to an agreement of actually going through with the development if it is found to be viable. Maybe an even better method would be to loan companies money from the tax fund to design their sustainable developments and granting them the money loaned if they actually go through with the development; this would ensure that the companies requesting the loan/funds are serious and committed to carrying out their plans and are not just in it for some quick and easy cash. If the funds are well managed and regulated that they can assist cities in the quest to become more sustainable.

Integrating Sustainability Into Future Planning

The old way of doing things just isn’t cutting it anymore. Many cities are structured around old unsustainable development strategies with hundreds of unnecessary roads and homes miles away from businesses. As the gas price continues to rise more and more people are going to feel the pressure to move closer to work to reduce their millage costs, creating miniature ghost town suburbia’s on the outskirts of the city where only a select few people will be able to afford to live. City planners have to start implementing changes now to try and ease this transition to make heading in a sustainable direction a possibility. The costs of maintaining the unsustainable existing development now make it very difficult to make dramatic changes in a leap toward sustainability. However investments now will pay for themselves in the future. City planners need to ensure all new building are sustainable, sustainable building are show to have a lower initial cost because more planning is done before they are constructed. They also have a higher overall return in the long run. City also need to focus on centralizing business and homes together so that people within a community can afford the cost of going to work and to avoid future suburbia ghost towns. The centralization of business and homes also greatly increases the social capital within the community by increasing the different type of networks available. The city also needs to consider bringing in businesses to the suburbia areas to try and prevent them from their inevitable fate. Developers need to step away from the old ways of doing things and start making changes now to facilitate the development of sustainable cities in the future.

GMO's Sustainable Solution For Developing Countries?

Source: http://www.treehugger.com/do-you-know-what-you-eat-gmo-carrot.jpg

For those of you who don’t know GMO stands for genetically modified organism. I’m sure many of you have heard of the unsustainable agriculture and forestry practices that go on in some of the developing countries. The harsh conditions that are presented in many of these climates makes it very difficult to operate a sustainable practice, farmers are only getting yields from half the crops they plant and the rest is dying from the poor environmental conditions and disease. The agricultural practices currently being used by these famers cannot address this problem. Many of the farmers are substance famer which means there is no money/profits for pesticides or other agricultural treatments. Plants can be genetically modified to prevent them from getting disease and allow them to thrive under conditions which they would not normally. Right now these countries have a low happy planet index as they are unable to provide their citizens with good a standard of living while respecting the environment.

I think GMO’s are a great way for developing countries to become more sustainable. It will allow then to obtained better yields from their crops and make profits instead of just growing enough for substance. There are places in these countries where there is not enough food to go around (which is not sustainable) and GMO’s are a viable method to produce enough food for everyone. Since GMO’s can be engineered to survive under the existing environmental barriers, the integrity of the environmental can stay intake and actually be better managed then it was previously. GMO’s are also a sustainable resource because they do not require any extra equipment, pesticide or fertilizers that many developing countries cannot afford, the same practices currently being used will be successful with the GMO variety of the plant. Therefore GMOs can increase theses countries Happy Planet Index and overall sustainability by providing these countries with a better quality of life by ensuring everyone is feed and providing a sustainable market in the economy while respecting the environment.

Some people disagree with this and think that it is unsustainable because these countries will become dependent on GMO’s. But looking at our western society we are dependent on pesticides, fertilizer and yes even GMO’s. So how their use of GMO is’s any less sustainable than the methods used in western society. And even if they do become dependent on GMO’s they will be able to afford to purchase them from the profits they are making off their additional yields generated by the GMO’s. Seems like a win, win situation to me.

Social Capital

Source: http://www.skitownsitters.com/images/cartoon%20kids%20in%20a%20row.jpg

What Is Social Capital?
The basis behind social capital is that investment in social relations will yield expected returns in many different markets such as, the community, economy, politics and labor; individuals interact and engage in social networking building bonds, trust, bridging and reciprocity which creates expected returns, profiting the community. Thus the more social capital there is within a community the better off the community is. Studies have shown that societies with high social capital tend to be more desirable places to live, educational performance is higher, there is less poverty, kids watch less TV, crime rates are lower, economic equality is higher, there is a higher tolerance of gender, racial equality and civil liberties and an overall higher civic equality.

Social Capital Is Measured Through A Few Key Components Of A Community:

• Participation in the local community – involvement of individuals in community activities
• Feelings of trust and safety – do people trust the people within the community and feel safe.
• Neighborhood connections – do neighbors interact with one another
• Family and Friends connections - are their tight-knit intimate connections between friends and family within the community
• Work connections - do individuals feel like they are part of a valuable team
• Tolerance of diversity – does the community embrace diversity as a way to enhance upon their quality of life
• Value of life –does the community value the individual
• Social Agency – A sense within the community that as an individual and as a whole community differences can be made

Why Is Social Capital Important?
Along with all the benefits of having a high social capital community I previously mentioned, social capital also improves the sustainability of a community. Sustainability is measured by looking at ecologic, economic and social factors as seen in the Happy Planet Index; social capital is intuitively the social piece of sustainability, but also provides economic benefits as well. Increasing social capital is very important to developers. High social capital communities are already involved with community activities, therefore it is much easier for the developers to involve, consult, collaborate and maintain the development with the community. The involvement of a community provides many benefits to the developers as well as the community; decisions are geared towards the community’s assets, values and goals, the process is faster with minimized conflict and maximizes community commitment. Developments undertaken within a community which has high social capital are more likely to be sustainable.

The Happy Planet Index

Source: http://movingimages.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/from-footprints-to-handprints-treading-lightly- on-earth/

The happy planet index (HPI) is a method used to measure a countries ability to support a good life for its citizens while respecting the limits of its environmental resources on which all our lives depend on; thus the HPI is a measure of a country’s sustainability. The HPI is calculated through a country’s average years of blissful life, per unit of planetary resources consumed. Three indicators are used to calculate the HPI, ecological footprint, life-satisfaction and life expectancy. These indicators represent the efficiency in which a country converts the earth’s resources into welfare for its citizens.

HPI = (Life Satisfaction x Life Expectancy) / Ecological Footprint

The HPI is measure on a scale of 0 to 100 with 100 being the most desirable. Currently the highest HPI score is only 68.2 by the Pacific archipelago of Vanuatu. No country has achieve an overall high score in all of the three indicators used to calculated the HPI; thus there is room for improvement in all countries ability to support a good life for its citizens while respecting the limits of its environmental resources. Some countries have scored similar scores on the HPI but have different scores when comparing the three indicators, so even though there overall score is the same it does not mean the two countries indicators are homogonous. The HPI is not a method to determine the best country to live in or the happiest country; it is a method of comparing countries progress in providing its citizens with good life while respecting the limits if it’s environmental resources.

Source: http://www.happyplanetindex.org/map.htm

This is a map of the world coloured according to the HPI. As you can see none of the countries are doing well in all three indicator areas and there is still a large area for improvmnet.

I think the HPI is an excellent indicator of a countries sustainable growth and development. The progress of a countries development is often measured in terms of gross domestic produce (GDP). GDP is not a good indicator of a countries well being as it does not take into account the sustainability of the practices producing the GDP that is factored into the HPI (ecological footprint). If the GDP is being produced by an environmental resource which is being used faster than it can be replenished it is not a sustainable practice and will eventually lead to disastrous effects. The GDP also does not take into account the quality of life for the citizens living in the country that the HPI takes into account (life satisfaction and life expectancy). For example GDP does not take into account countries which have large proportions of poor citizens; the country with the large percentage of poor citizens may be a large exporter and have the same GDP of a country which has a very small percentage of poor citizens and a strong domestic economy. The HPI is going to be lower in the exporting country as quality of life is not as fairly distributed as in the strong domestic economy. Overall the progress of a countries growth and development cannot be determined according to its GDP. The HPI is a much more appropriate tool to measure a countries growth and development focusing on sustainability which in turn improves quality of life for all of us.

For more information visit the Happly Planet Index Website at: http://www.happyplanetindex.org/

Future Search

Source: http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg54/rainbow_girl17/art%20and%20photography/--hands.jpg

New regulations and changes are often proposed within a community and of that community there usually are sub communities with very different opinions. This concept was illustrated in my Sustainability and Community Relations class with the issue of timber licences of Vancouver Island. My class was divided into six different sub communities of the Vancouver Island community which included The Vancouver Island Forestry Unions, Mayors of Mill and Forestry Towns, The Forest Industry, Environmental Organizations, First Nations and Community Forests and Small Woodlot owners; as you could imagine we were bound to have some disagreements among these sub communities.

This is where a future search came into play. A future search is a method for finding common ground in large diverse community (brining all the sub communities together). It focuses on the common interests of the sub communities rather than the differences, which avoids conflict. The future search facilitates the sharing of visions between the sub communities and commitment to actions agreed to by all sub communities. There are three main principles behind a future search. One- have the whole system in one room, which means all sub communities are together and are not divided into separate groups. Two - all issues are explored to their widest context. Three - focus on common ground and policy and not on disagreements and conflicts. A future search will usually last three days to allow time for the sub communities to think about the points brought up by other sub communities. Future searches are also run in the presence of a mediator to ensure the search remains objective and conflict free.

The future search carried out in my class lasted one day and was broken into three main components. The first step was to focus on the present where the sub communities created a mind map that linked everyone’s points to the central issue (timber licenses of Vancouver Island). The second step was to identify any trends and issues identified among sub communities. Once this was done the problems with the current situation was identified within the sub communities which were then reported back to the whole group. The last step was to identify the individual sub communities goals for the future and plans to get there, and then report those goals and plans back to the whole group to determine what everyone could agree on.

I found the future search very effective. It allowed me to see the perspective of the other sub communities and because of this it changed some of my opinions I had entering the meeting. It also allowed me to see how many common goals there were among the six different sub communities; I didn’t think that there would be so many commonalities between the groups. It also seemed as the conference progressed the six different sub communities seemed to agree more than they did in the beginning. By the end of the future search the class/sub communities were able to come up with an agreement that everyone agreed on, coming together as one large diverse community. A future search insures a sustainable action plan because only actions which everyone agrees to are added to the action plan. This insures the commitment of all sub communities to actually carry out the actions outlined in the action plan.