Comment on: Re: Are development and environmentalism incomaptible?

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:37:22 +0100

I was just thinking about how part of the problem is the paradigm of inifinite growth to sustain the economy, which sustains livelihoods.

Yet collectively it seems that society is slowly coming to terms with the fact that there are limitations to this. It can't go on like this indefinately.

New paradigm shift. What is indefinate? Change. Things will always change. What if "industry" thus livelihood was oriented around how to support and sustain change vs. upwards growth of "more."

For example, what an incredible amount of work to be done (jobs) to totally reconstruct the systems that generate and distribute power in every household across the globe AND find good ways to recycle, reuse, whatever the material components of the old structures.

The business of change vs. the business of more - and always staying on top of the next evolution that does NOT throw away the past and mine more resources (our limited resources) but finds ways to incorporate what we have already taken into the new.

Seems like there is a lot of work to be done in the business of change, and money to be made.

Comment on: Re: Are development and environmentalism incomaptible?

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:30:05 +0100

I don't think they are totally incompatible. There are sustainable ways to develop. We could develop a disposal fee (kind of like the way some states operate their bottle recycling programs). That fee (that is added to the price of the product) could then go towards disposal programs (possibly run by the company that created the product) for that certain material or product to be recycled, reused, or reclaimed. I did my grad work at a landfill, it is amazing to see all of the things people throw away.

Other development such as housing can be designed to be Low Impact. This is called Low Impact Development (LID). It allows for more open areas so that the ground is not over consolidated. That allows more rainwater to infiltrate into the aquifer and to be used by plants. It also uses more swales instead of concrete curbs to route storm water. These systems use nature to better the water quality by routing storm water (via swales) through littoral zones or wetlands (storm gardens) so that plants can filter a lot of the nutrients out of the water. High nutrients can create water quality issues (i.e., eutrophic lakes). This however does run contrary to stopping urban sprawl (build higher buildings within the cities-then you have traffic problems).

The biggest problem however is creating green, sustainable energy. This, however, will not happen until this becomes more economic. Once people can start making real money, that rivals the amount earned by current unsustainable means, by creating green energy, then I fear things will not change. I think renewables are gaining ground since the price of oil has shot up.

Sustainable means will not become prevalent until they become economically sustainable.

Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Re: Are development and environmentalism incomaptible?

Comment on: Re: Are development and environmentalism incomaptible?