Community Sustainability: Personal Definition and Closing Thoughts

Defining Community Sustainability
My definition and outlook upon community sustainability has fluctuated drastically throughout the semester. Every reading or discussion it would seem some new idea would capture my attention and cause me to re-think my previous stance on the subject. This was by no means a negative thing, but led to a variable definition for me for most of the year. However, with the close of the semester, as well as themester, I believe I have my definition in place.
Community sustainability, is a grouping of people, working as one, to consciously diminish their impact on the natural environment and Earth's resources, while meeting their needs to live comfortably.

I chose this definition because of the numerous elements involved. "A grouping of people, working as one", emphasizes the social capital and civic mindedness necessary in addressing the issue of sustainability as a community. "to consciously diminish their impact on the natural environment and Earth's resources", this statement addresses both carrying capacity and ecological footprint, a community that acts in this manner would be conscientious of their resources use (water, energy, fossil fuels, food), while actively protecting the natural area around them, in a way which would leave the following generation in a better position. The last component of the definition, "while meeting their needs to live comfortably", addresses that these people are not making sacrifices, they are comfortable living within this lifestyle, simply choosing a different way to live, that does not emphasize waste and consumerism as the end all. I feel that this definition encompasses the most important ideas that were emphasized during the semester, from class discussion, readings, guest lecturers, and themester events, while maintaining a air of simplicity, common enough the majority of the people to buy into the concept.


Thoughts on class and sustainability as a whole
As with my definition, my thoughts on sustainability have fluctuated greatly during the semester. Like a sine curve, there were moments I doubted that achieving sustainability was possible and moments were I thought it could be realized in my lifetime. The biggest problem I currently see is that the majority of people concerned with sustainable development are those that have already bought into the concept. Even at the themester closing events, it was apparent that the consensus of the crowd was that they understood and accepted the challenges ahead. Many events and meetings regarding sustainability have the same theme, it is only the people who have already accepted what is going on. If we could get the majority of the planet on the same page, living sustainably would not be as lofty a goal as it is now. Perhaps this country needs to see some more drastic effects from our lack of sustainable living in order to push this point home, or maybe the shear growth of the "movement" will attract patrons, but whatever the means, it remains clear that there will be vast hurdles to sustainable living unless the majority of a nations constituents understand and accept changes that need to occur.
With that in mind, the more sustainability can be showcased in an academic arena, the more credit it will receive. This class has empowered me with a multitude of information, and knowledge of methods and people necessary to construct sustainable communities. By reading other students blogs as well as participating in discussion I was able to take in many different concepts and viewpoints, which have given me a toolbox, from which to build upon the ideas we have discussed. The projects were an arena to tackle a real life problem facing the sustainability of our Bloomington community, and coupled with themester it became an excellent opportunity to make an impact in the city.
It may be after I am too old and senile to understand, but I do feel that that within my life we will see major changes happen to the economic, environmental, social, human, and natural capitals present in this country, either we will be make this decision consciously or we will be forced to by unavoidable circumstances, but it will happen.

Themester Closing Events

For those of you who couldn't make it, the Themester CLosing Events nicely summed up the goals and events of this semester. The event began with opening remarks by provost Karen Hansen, discussing the importance of being a sustainably forefront university. She then presented the Office of Sustainability Service Award to Geology Professor Michael Hamburger for his outstanding contributions to starting the Office of Sustainability and getting the ball rolling on IU's overall sustainable consciousness.
Next, English professor Scott Russell Sanders presented his talk "Taking Care of Home". DIscussing the myriad of issues and important features that we will be facing through the transitions of the next generation. A student followed him, giving her presentation on her experience working with a group to make IU coal free. An interpretive dance followed, and then our water group presented a brief on our project regarding Bloomington Water Conservation Issues.
Another dance followed and then Volunteers in sustainability spoke before Bill Brown. Professor Brown talked about 20 goals for IU for the year 2020, and don't worry we will all be back February 2nd 2020, 02/02/2020 to see those goals accomplished.
After the closing events the poster session followed.

Governing Sustainable Communities

Governing and the governance of sustainable communities is paramount to their success. Like any aggregate group of people, from the community, to the city, to the country, state, or national level, leadership is a necessity. Roseland defines the difference between governing and governance in that government the doing aspect, while governance is the leading aspect. Both of these are necessary for a sustainable communities success.

As with any democracy besides government and governance, a sustainable community also needs public participation, even more so than a regular community. The notion of public participation relates back to one of the earlier ideas we have discussed in this class, civic mindedness. The concept of civicness. Civicness is a component of social capital and is necessary for attaining the full potential of the agents within a sustainable community. By having aspects of public participation such as shared decision making or consensus decision making, within a sustainable community there is a certain amount of civicness being cultivated. With an increase in civicmindedness of the constituents of a sustainable community the social capital increases. This leads to a healthier and more equitable living situation.

An example of public participation within governance in Bloomington, is one that we have been working with all semester, the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability (BCOS). Although BCOS has appointed officials it is open to the constituents in the city. These people can share in the decision making process by attending meetings and bringing in helpful information. The leadership that the commission provides can then work towards forwarding these people's agendas, thus creating an outlet for Joe Everyman to be heard, however, this does require active participation to be part of the decision making process.

A counter example would be my hometown of Tucson, Arizona. The city had received a surplus of monies which was to be determined for a variety of uses. The city held closed door meetings to determine the best use of the money. Community members clammored for different uses, such as education and various sustainable infrastructure. In the end the money was sent to road projects, in many areas that did not even require such improvements, but since there was not a hared decision making process the community members were left voiceless, jaded, and feeling everything but civic. In the future the city could do many things to avoid this hit to its social capital. Especially in a city where the members know both water and energy shortages loom, many people have the desire to be involved, but not the outlet. Past attempts to set up government structures such as BCOS in Tucson have failed due to weak leadership. I can only hope that since I have been absent from my state someone has taken it upon themselves, as a group or individual, to lobby the city for more governance towards the sustainable aspects the city will require in the near future.

Natural Capitalism

Paul Hawkin (Natural Capitalism 1997) defines Natural Capital as the resources we use, both non-renewable and renewable, wherein the importance of their value lies in the services they provide distinct from the resources themselves. Roseland sees natural capital as any stock of natural assets yielding a flow of valuable goods and services into the future. The resources that are defined as natural capital can fall into three categories.
-Non-renewable resources: an example of this in Bloomington would be coal, as the cities electricity is primarily dependent on this resource.
-Renewable resources that are only renewable if their natural systems are not overexploited: there are numerous examples of this in Bloomington such as water supplies from Lake Monroe, food supplies from nearby farms, and forestry products from Yellowood State forest and Morgan Monroe State Forest.
-The capacity of natural systems to absorb our waste, pollutants, and emissions without side effects: and example of this in Bloomington would be the city owned street trees in the city which assimilate carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.

The important part of natural capital is the service provided from the resource. For instance, the service provided by street trees in this example would not be trees, but CO2 sequestration, the service provided by a forest would not be the wood, but forest cover and soil stabilization, and the value of farms would not be food, but be topsoil. The most important thing to note about natural capital is that there are essentially no substitutes for these natural services. Natural capital for that reason has become the limiting factor for development. Development is slowed by a lack of services provided by natural capital. Hawkin points out the following limits which would typically occur due to limited economic capital yet are caused by lack of natural capital: limits to increased fish harvests, not due to boats, but due to lack of productive fisheries, limited irrigation, not due to pumps or electricity, but lack of useable aquifers, and the limits to pulp production are not sawmills, but lack of productive forests.

The American Southwest serves as a prime example where development has taken a large step back due to limited natural capital. In an area already dry and sparse, metropolitan cities like Tucson, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Las Vegas have all been affected by a similar problem, lack of water caused by depleted groundwater, depleting reservoirs, and reliance on the lowering Colorado River. The lack of water has caused some suburbs to become ghost towns, and the same problem has stopped some planned communities from being approved, because they can't provide a guaranteed water source.

What are some other examples of regional, or community development stagnation due to limitations caused by lack of capital from your neck of the woods?

Themester Event 11/4 Thomas Friedman Q&A

On the day Thomas Friedman came to give his lecture at the IU Auditorium, titled after his book "Hot, FLat, and Crowded" he gave a question and answer session at Woodburn Hall. Although questions were only open to the undergrad t-200 class there were a few notable questions and responses.

One of the questions was regarding some of the issues which arise due to the problem that, global warming and other current issues will not likely effect us but future generations. Friedman addressed this as a question of environmental stewardship, and noted that this problem is difficult because CO2, the main climate change factor is a gas you can neither "see, touch, or smell", which makes it difficult for people to deal with. These people don't want to take action and this creates a problem with demobilizing people. This is an issue that we should notice from our Roseland readings of social and community capital. If we can increase social capital it will cause people to care more about what happens to those around them, even generationally. An increased social capital will increase not only awareness, but the desire to make a difference.

Another question dealt with Friedman's concept of "crowded", and how we can deal with crowding. The solution he put forth was to make education and technology available to everyone on the planet. This would serve to lower birthrates. Additionally, economic development also reduces crowding, but also increases environmental harm, so there must be a balance, which can arise from technologies which reduce environmental degradation from development. Unmentioned in Friedman's response was the possibility that development does not necessarily have to incorporate growth, and we could develop and retrofit existing areas to provide more use and support to individuals and communities.

Another question was what can developed countries do to aid developing countries. Friedman's response was akin to my own thoughts on this subject, in that the developed countries must further and purvey technologies scaled for nations which will allowing developing nations to grow in an environmentally sound manner. This is an example of stewardship but on a much larger scale.

Co-housing and Its Gaining Popularity in the United States

Co-housing is a type of shared living community that meets multiple aims of sustainable developments. As defined by the Co-housing Association of the United States; "Cohousing communities are old-fashioned neighborhoods created with a little ingenuity. They bring together the value of private homes with the benefits of more sustainable living. That means common facilities and good connections with neighbors. All in all, they stand as innovative answers to today's environmental and social problems."

From this definition a few sustainability issues should jump right out at you. First off lets address the impact of co-housing on land use and urban form. Co-housing takes existing developments and retrofits them to support more individuals, thus increasing density. The goal of co-housing is to increase density by creating shared facilities. Some might feel that the effects of increased density could be strongly felt with shared facilities, but this is done in such a manner that the people do not feel on top of each other, but along side each other.

Which brings us to another trait of co-housing, a greatly increased community capital. This occurs from a multitude of interactions which result in increased community capital. The minimization of the consumption of natural capital from the conservation of natural resources that occurs when from the shared facilities. By sharing kitchens and laundry services the wasted utilities are minimized and by sharing duties energy use is also minimized thus increasing natural capital. Also economic capital becomes strengthened. This is due to the affordability of co-housing, saving residents countless dollars in mortgages and services. Human capital becomes increased from the increases in health, education, and safety that accompany co-housing. These may not be as direct, but by creating a community which implores and necessitates that people work together, they are more prone to watching over one another and caring for each others well being. Finally the biggest impact on increasing community capital comes from the multiplied social capital which will come from co-housing. Co-housing requires a certain level of collaboration and partnerships which is guaranteed to bring the community closer together. This thoughts correlate with what Roseland supplies for "Strengthening Community Capital for Sustainable Community Development".

These reasons are why I believe co-housing has received an increase in popularity. By increasing community capital and thereby integrating a certain mindset of civic mindedness co-housing gives people peace of mind when it comes to sustainability. Their footprint is lowered and they feel more attacthced to the community. Additionally by working together within the shared facilities a certain burden is reduced that comes with owning and living in a private house, and that comes with knowing that you have like minded people working with you in the hopes of achieveing a common goal.

The following are a few websites for co-housing communities:


The Cohousing Company Architecture firm, with examples of cohousing neighborhoods, even offering cohousing neighborhoods

Pioneer Valley Cohousing, Amherst, Mass

Jackson Place Cohousing, Seattle, WA

Our Trip to the Monroe Water Treatment Plant

On Friday October 29th the water group, Stephanie, Natalie, Rachel, and myself went to the Monroe Water Treatment Plant, South of Bloomington next to beautiful Lake Monroe. It was incredibly interesting to see how our drinking/shower/tap water comes from Lake Monroe to the Water Treatment Plant to our homes.






The journey for water starts here at the Intake tower,





which is home to the intake pumps which uptake from the lake.












One must be careful in this room.











The water runs uphill to the treatment center where it undergoes its purification and filtration steps.



It starts in the settling basin where chemicals bind with impurities and settle out from the water.




















The water undergoes more chemical treatment and then goes to the rapid sand filtration which eliminates many microbes and continues filtration.

















After more chemical treatment the water is sent out to the town and other holding basins, while some is stored onsite in a 5million gallon reserve tank.










So you may be asking what happens with the by product or sludge?









Well it is left out in retention to dry and is then compressed into this comact version, which smells not so pleasant and feels like clay rubber.







Thanks to Tom Golson and Jon Callahan from the Monroe Water Treatment Plant for giving us the tour.

Low Density, Cheap Fuel, and Decreasing Community Sustainability

Sustainable land use can do so much for a community. It can increase economic, social, human, environmental, and community capital. However, factors such as low density and spread out housing as well as cheap fuel work against community sustainability. One of the ways that these two factors interlink is through the efficiency and compactness of land use patterns. In the United States recently there has been a strong move out of the city. This move leads to cities made up almost entirely of sprawl, with no central point. This creates inefficient transportation within the city, and discourages people from using public transportation. Cheap fuel only serves to compound this problem by giving Americans little financial incentive to change these patterns.

Cities that are more centralized and have higher densities reap great benefits. According to Roseland they have more intense land use, which consists of more people and jobs per unit area, which also leads to increased social and economic capital per area, they are more oriented to non-auto modes of transportation, which leads to greater environmental capital due to less automotive air pollution, as well as place more restraints on traffic, a prime example of traffic calming, which creates an environment more suitable for bicycles and pedestrians. Cheap fuel seems to work as a barrier to becoming centralized. There is almost a stigma to the centralized city and town structure in some areas of the country which can be noticeable from satellite images. Pan over a random city using Google street view and see if the city is grid based or if the roads take on the dead worm form, bending and breaking into culdesacs and roundabouts.

So would the two solutions then be increase density and centralization as well as fuel costs? Saying that out loud you can almost hear the arguments build. Wheeler makes note of how density is often viewed as a negative, people many times feel increasing density as encroaching on their personal space. However, increased density brings residents, jobs, and business to a community, and by using infill development with shops on the bottom floors and housing on the top floors, well executed architecture can create appealing buildings that serve multiple purposes. The arguments against increasing fuel prices are not as easy to address, and it simply stems from America's obsession with the automobile, and until we ween ourselves from the personal auto, or an engine is invented that can run on a literally infinite source of energy, this will continue to be a problem. However, if land use patterns can change as to make a personal vehicle obsolete, at least in the city, the effects and or arguments to increased gasoline prices wil be less profound.

The picture shown are examples of proposed infill for a neighborhood in Baltimore, MD. Here is a link to another blog describing the survey

To end I would like to pose two questions to you. Does Howard's "Three Magnet Model" (from the first reading) pose an accurate description of where most people live nowadays and if so, how do we bring the town-country people back to the town?

From Here to There in Bloomington

Or How to Avoid This

The transportation plan for Bloomington is quite in-step with the city’s ideas regarding peak oil and climate destabilization. Even though it is a small city, geographically and population wise, Bloomington has some very lofty ideas and goals. Since the city has made a clear acknowledgement of the issues it will face due to peak oil, it is imperative to consider alternate transportation means. Bloomington plans to do this via a well planned bicycle and pedestrian transportation network, along with well implemented public transportation. The Bloomington Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation and Greenways System Plan addresses the issues and implementation of non-motorized transit. The plan addresses some of the concepts visited in Bicycling Renaissance in North America (Pucher et al. 1999), such as expanding bicycle facilities and making all roads bikeable. In a town where the majority of traffic occurs in a centralized area, this seems like a well thought out response towards decreasing private vehicle traffic.

Bloomington is already ahead of the curve in terms of sustainable transportation thinking around the country. The city has a centralized and rural bus system, sidewalks on almost all of the streets near and in downtown and the campus, as well as the B-line bike trail, which only continues to expand. In addition Bloomington makes good use of one way streets, and many streets are one lane, with ample street trees, and stop signs, which are all good tools towards creating “visual barriers that encourage cautious driving”, some of the techniques which are used to create street calming. However, there are some factors, which induce weaknesses to Bloomington’s transportation sustainability. The number one issue at hand here is the use of motor vehicles by the student population. Since most of the students that attend the university live nearby, it creates traffic issues when the majority use cars to get to class instead of walking or taking the bus. The streets nearby campus are continuously blockaded by cars, at times before and after class, with most of the impact around “rush hours”.

If I were to make additions to the current transportation system/planning there would be a few additions. The largest problem I see everyday is the vehicle traffic through campus, most notably on 10th street. If the campus became a car-free zone, and only allowed bus traffic, it would greatly increase the hospitability of campus to bicycles and pedestrians as well as reduce traffic and noise pollution. 3rd street and 17th could absorb much of the traffic that makes its way through 10th street, and since most of that traffic is going to points on campus, it would not be a significant burden for those people to park off campus or not drive at all, while instead taking one of the many busses available or riding a bicycle. The next change necessary would be to address more issues, which could aid in street calming. Changing the texture of some of the busier roads to brick or slate would slow the traffic, since there is already an abundance of street trees, stop signs, and traffic lights, this change could only work to enhance street calming, another measure which would influence an increase in bicycling. Since, many of my aims here are to increase bike use, another change would be adding cover to the many bicycle bays around town and campus.
The weather in Bloomington does not exactly behoove bicycle transport, since the cold and precipitation hinders the comforts of being open to the surroundings, however if there were ample awnings where bike lockups were located, it would make the transition off of one’s bicycle and into class/work that much easier during unpleasant climate. One final feature that would make life easier for bicyclists and pedestrians would be to separate lanes for the two. Both bikes and walkers create hazards for each other and well deliminated space for the two would create an easier trip for both to any destination.

The Living Building

With the adaption of the USGBC Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards in 1998, there became the first scalar measurement for sustainable buildings. The concept of a living building has stemmed from another rating system, The Living Building Challenge, put forth by the International Living Building Institute. The Living Building Challenge is the most advanced metric of sustainability in the built environment, and is viewed in six areas of performance; site, energy, materials, water, indoor quality, and beauty and inspiration. Living buildings can be comprised of a single building, park, college campus, or even a community. The Omega Center for Sustainable Living was the first building in America to gain both LEED Platinum status and Living Building Challenge Certification (link to article). The Living Building Challenge essentially takes the LEED certification to a new level, and it is no coincidence that the first building to achieve these lofty reccognitions was designed by Kansas City-based BNIM Architects, the firm led by Bob Berkebile.

The Godfather of Green Building Soul

(Berkebile center in signature Bow-tie)

Bob Berkebile has been one of the foremost proponents and developers of green architecture. In the late 1980’s he lobbied the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to create a committee to study how buildings could be designed with a more environmentally friendly goal. He took an organization that was reducing its environmental research efforts, and brought them into a mindset where that trend was reversed. However, Berkebile’s most important contribution may be how in 1993, he helped to create a new group, not restricted to just architects, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). In addition to being one of the pioneers of the green building movement, Berkebile also worked with greening the White House, during Clinton’s presidency, and worked with the National Science Foundation in making the McMurdo Research Station in the Antarctic more environmentally sound.

Sustainable Communities as a Function to Combat Air Pollution

Air pollution is having drastic effects on climate change. The current air pollutants designated by the EPA are particulate matter, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitric oxides, and lead, also known as POCSNL. Each of these pollutants contributes in some manner to climate change. In addition carbon dioxide is the most well known of the climate change pollutants, however air pollution manipulates atmospheric temperatures and light adsorption, as well as causes smog and acid rain.

There has been much debate over the proper options for mitigation of the effects of air pollution and climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believes that “technologies that exist in operation or pilot stage today” will be sufficient to tackle the current trajectory of air pollution over the next hundred years. In contrast, a current review in Science believes that acertation to be false, and feels that revolutionary technological changes need to be attained to combat these problems. Regardless of which view is correct, it may be far more pertinent to view sustainable practices as a greater cure for these ailments.

Besides not requiring a vast array of technological breakthroughs there is a great deal of mitigation for air pollution and by default climate change, than can be brought about by buying into the concept of sustainable communities. 80% of today’s global carbon dioxide output is due to fossil fuel consumption; in the United States that figure is 98% (EIA 2002). Fossil fuels are consumed in a plethora of everyday activities, but most greatly in energy use and transportation. Sustainable communities, which are more efficient at using energy and reduce the need for petroleum-based transportation, will greatly reduce the flux of carbon dioxide to the Earth’s atmosphere. Sustainable communities will aid this problem by decreasing the need for energy through having smaller homes, being placed on a grid pattern as opposed to the “dead worm”, using more efficient heating and cooling methods, utilizing alternate energy sources where possible, and reducing water consumption through concepts such as rain water harvesting and grey water use. In addition the planting of urban street trees will have a positive impact on net carbon flow by assimilating carbon dioxide and exuding oxygen.


View Larger Map
In thinking about the previous paragraph and the ways in which sustainable communities can help aleviate air pollution, I was reminded of a neighborhood, from my hometown of Tucson, called Rita Ranch. This neighborhood is an excellent example of how a community should not be set up. The neighborhood had a distinct "dead worm" pattern to the streets, so ridiculously convoluted that from entering the community to making it to one of my friend's homes there could take up to 20 minutes. Now keep in mind there are no services in the community except on the outside edges, and with the design, the majority of the homes are located in the center. The fuel cost of living in this moderately priced suburb of Tucson would quickly equal the housing price difference of living. In addition to the horrid street set up, the neighborhood also boasts only "cookie-cutter" houses, with poor insulation and a roof structure which inhibits rainwater harvesting. The one saving grace of this community is a fairly large park in the center, but with a neighborhood teeming with sidewalks, there are no street trees. Future planners could take good note not to copy this design, based solely for fitting the most homes in the cheapest, quickest manner.

Is Your Job a Green Job?

The US Department of Labor had the Bureau of Labor Statistics create a formal definition to determine what are green jobs and what are not. See the article here: How the Government Looks at Green Jobs

Build them to last, build them to fulfill a purpose, build them green

We as humans really require few things, food, water, air, and shelter, are enough for an individual to survive. However, with food being produced on clear cut forest land, and shipped across nations, water being produced with petroleum products, air throughouly polluted through everyday human practices, and shelter being the number one user of energy, the very things needed for us to survive are slowly becoming our civilization's downfall. Luckily we have not reached the tipping point, and through sustainable practices life's essentials can become more of a benefit and less of a bane to our future.



One of the new concepts to emerge from the concept of sustainable living is green building. The US Green Building Council(USGBC) is working towards making green buildings available to everyone. A green building is a structure wherein the process of its construction and its life-cycle are resource efficient, and environmentally responsible. A green building is rated based on the LEED scale, and is given points for using sustainable sites, being water efficient, having no negative effects on energy and the atmosphere, using renewable materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and bonus points for innovative design and regional priority. The scale is based on 100 points (+10 bonus points) and ranges from Certified (40 points) to Platinum (80 points). Indiana had it's first platinum rated home early this year in Franklin. From "Principles of Green Architecture" (Vale 1991), similar standards are addresed for defining green building. They submit principles of conserving energy, working with climate, minimizing new resources, having respect for users, and having respect for the site.

Understanding the concept of green building is one thing, but it is another task to implement these practices. There are many policy options in place to facilitate the amount of green building being pursued. Offering financial incentives would be paramount to attracting builders, corporations, and homeowners into looking to build green. By giving them tax credits or money back for using sustainable building practices, many entities would be driven to build green. Also by spreading information and educating people, they can understand that over the term life of a building, green building will make it more affordable, by lowering energy costs, requiring less inputs, and serving its purpose for a longer amount of time. Cities could also encourage green building practices by requiring all building projects to offset that buildings effect on climate by planting the equivalent amount of forest. An idea offered up by William McDonough when offering to construct a green building in Poland. This could be applied to all buildings, and the less sustainable buildings will be far greater penalized in costs to plant forest. Perhaps not the most feasible idea, but not only would it encourage people to build green, but it would also have a positive net effect on energy by planting the trees.

Hi, my name is America, and I'm addicted to Energy

The United States uses more energy per capita than any other nation. This is no secret, and it is not information kept behind closed doors. In fact, statistics and analysis of energy use for the United States is well documented and open source for the people. This "addiction" to energy has been around since the lightbulb, and only increased with the innovations that followed. However, not much attention was paid to this as a problem until recently, when it became clear that we were using energy at a rate, which would leave us writhing for another jolt as the supply dried up.

Our energy addiction has created many problems in this country, and the negative outcomes continue to amass. The rising costs of petroleum alone have led to increased taxes, which in turn has weakened our economy, which is inherently dependent on oil. Since so much of our daily lives revolve around petroleum, the fluctuations and increases seen in the price per barrel have a direct effect on weakening the value of a dollar. In turn, many people in power feel that the availability of oil must be protected, and this leads to military defense of this precious commodity, which many blame for the current war in Iraq. In addition to these issues, energy addiction also has a profound effect on the environment. Until there is 100% clean source of energy, any use, especially a drastic overuse, of energy will have some spillover into the environment. Besides the negative by-products in the production and consumption of energy, there are also many detrimental environmental impacts from the extraction fo energy. Most noteably for this country would be coal, but the mining of coal, tears apart landscapes, destroys watersheds, and alters soil regimes. A long or short term coal operation will leave the area barren.

So, how do we end this addiction.

How To End the Addiction to Oil

Hopefully, we have not yet reached the tipping point for energy use, and a move towards more sustainable communities can turn this effect around. One of the first things that must be done is an increase in capital, and not in a traditional sense, such as economic capital, but an increase in social and community capital will be necessary to evoke change. To truly reduce energy addiction the movement must start at a person by person and community by community level. With this thinking, it will require strong community cohesiveness, because in a sense weaning ourselves off of non-sustainable energy will be a drastic change for many people. It will be integral to advance technologies dealing with renewable energy; such as light volitics/solar energy, hydroelectric energy, and wind power. In addition it will be important to increase the efficiency of energy delivery systems, which will require retrofitting old plants, and building more efficient and sustainable new plants. From a policy perspective the best way to move information through a community will be to increase awareness and offer eduction, so that those dealing with the changes will be best informed. Regulation will also be needed at the community level, which along with increasing community/social capital will best allow for communities to become civic minded and aimed at a sole goal, reducing energy consumption.

Waste Not, Want Not

"The US alone produced 483 million tons of solid waste in 2002 and per capita municipal solid waste rates are still climbing, despite the fact that more than 100 million Americans now recycle... Recovery and recycling are ranked as the lowest priorities, yet energy recovery and recycling programs have blossomed across the continent, while little has been done to promote source reduction or material reuse."
-Roseland "Waste Reduction and Recycling"

This is one of the first problems addressed in Towards Sustainable Communities where community capital is already a positive for this problem. Individuals and communities have become increasingly conscious towards recycling thanks in part to strong eduction movements and economic incentives in some areas. However, recycling only attacks part of the waste problem in this country. As Giradet points out in "The Metabolism of Cities", a natural ecosystem has an "essentialy circular metabolism", where in the output of one organism is an input for another and this becomes a cycle for birth and rebirth. Whereas, in a city "metabolism is esentially linear", resources come into the city and vast amount of waste are released, and although a growing proportion of that waste is recycled, the resources being consumed are only increasing, countering the positive effects of recycling.

So, how can it be that we as a society have become more conscious about recycling materials, but waste continues to grow. Roseland lends much of that blame to the production cycle of many consumable goods. "Most waste production originates in the manufacturing and distribution phases of production of consumer products."

Shipping, manufacturing, and distribution have led to ridiculous practices, which only increase the amount of waste flowing into our urban ecosystems. As a society, "We are far better at making waste than at making products. For every 100 pounds of products we manufacture in the United States, we create at least 3,200 pounds of waste."-Hawken 1997. These practices however, are not economically stable for the businesses that promote these ridiculously wasteful schemes. With the rising cost of fossil fuels; paper products, shipping costs, and plastics will all increase, forcing industry to change practices, and in effect reducing waste and creating a more sustainable environment. Luckily however, there are many people already working on waste reduction even in some of the simplest everyday packaging/delivery methods; pizza.


A green pizzabox may not seem like a big deal, but the fact that numerous chains are considering or have adopted this technology shos the direction in which industry is heading, and with many foreign cities, like Cairo, searching for methods to become zero waste environments, hopefully it will not be long until the vast majority of everyday materials we use do not need to be disposed of, but simply transferred to some other use.

Themester Event 9/30

Redefining Prosperity: The Economics of Sustainability
Heather Reynolds Department of Biology

This talk, presented by Heather Reynolds was part of the themester lecture series. The lecture was broken into three distinct sections; "Conventional Economics and Prosperity as Growth", "Abundance or Limits", and "Ecological Economics and Redefining Prosperity". In discussing conventional economics, and prosperity as growth, Reynolds emphasized limits to growth and highlighted weaknesses to the conceptual and conventional economic model currently in use; such as a lack of equity, ignoring non-monetary aspects of life (such as natural, human, and social capital), and the model does not take into account external costs such as environmental depletion and degradation. The points that were raised here were interesting because they mirrored the concepts of capital which we discussed from the Roseland readings, and pointed out similar weaknesses to conventional economic theory which were discussed in class.

The abundance or limits to our current patters of consumption discussed ideas such as; The Next Industrial Revolution, causes and impacts of invasive species, the impact and function of natural and human capital, ecological footprint, and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment put together by the United Nations. This section of the lecture focused on more issues with the current way we as a society look at being prosperous and how we have made detrimental impacts to our planet in the efforts to be prosperous in growth and development.



In discussing ecological economics and redefining prosperity Reynolds how we should be concerned with appropriate sustainable economic scale of growth. She proposes that to achieve sustainable development we must adopt/strive for a steady state economy, where in growth is not beyond the Earth's capacity and we "must thrive within our means". She argues that growth and development are inherently very different, where in growth is a quantifiable aspect, and development is a qualitative aspect. Therefore, development does not have to be growth and our society can be developing in a more sustainable manner. One example of this which she provided was for transportation, building/construction of new roads would be growth, where as increasing public transportation would be development, which in this example is far more sustainable. Other examples would be expanding size and distribution of a food processing center would be growth, where as creating more community based agriculture is development.

In concluding her lecture, Reynolds espoused the efforts of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, whose mission states that "Perpetual economic growth is neither possible nor desirable. Growth, especially in wealthy nations, is already causing more problems than it solves."

Water Conservation: How is Bloomington Affected

The water issues facing Bloomington are rather unique. With the climate and rainfall that is associated with Southern Indiana, one would not expect Bloomington to be in a situation where they should be at all concerned about their water supply. However, the unique feature of Bloomington’s water distribution is that it all comes from one source, Lake Monroe. Since the city and surrounding area only has one water supply it becomes that much more important to conserve it. In that sense Bloomingtonians should be concerned and informed about their water supply.



Conservation goals from Bloomington’s Water Conservation Plan include increasing customer water use efficiency, developing and promoting a water conservation ethic within the Cit of Bloomington Utility (CBU) and its customers, increasing the water efficiency of CBU supply operations, and establishing regular monitoring and evaluation of the water conservation program.
The recommended tools to use for the city’s conservation program are very familiar, and similar to Roseland’s Policy Instruments, including; economic/financial incentives, policy implementation/regulation, expenditure towards water management and finding an alternate supply, and voluntary instruments of public education.
There are also economic, environmental, and equity issues at play here that Bloomingtonians should be aware about.
Economically, water conservation in the short and long term would serve to keep utilities prices low, for industrial, commercial, and residential uses. In addition to lowering service prices, conserving water would lower household bills as well. Such devices as low flow toilets and showerheads can quickly earn back their cost in savings.
Rainfall in Bloomington this summer neared historic lows, and currently Southern Indiana is in a drought, due in part to these meterological circumstances as well as overconsumption. The continued water use pattern will only add to further lowering the water table. As the volume of the lake decreases, the concentration of pollutants that comes in from ground water become higher, decreasing water quality.
Equity is also an issue here. It is important that clean and affordable water be provided for use for everyone. With a raise in prices and/or decrease in purity, that equity is gone, and those who cannot afford other water sources will adversely affected.

Water and Sewage: Solar Aquatic Systems

With increasing knowledge that clean water may be a finite resource if we continue our manner of consumption, water conservation and reclamation technologies/techniques are at a scientific premium. Water use must become increasingly sustainable if we expect to move towards a future in which water rationing is not the only option. One such sustainable method for water reclamation are solar aquatic systems (SAS). SAS are a biological approach to reclaiming and purifying water from sewage and sludge. By using plants and microorganisms in a greenhouse setting SAS can filter out and consume contaminants. This process mimics that of natural wetlands for processing waste, however SAS is a much more compact and efficient device for removing contaminants from sludge than wetlands.


SAS in action, compact and efficient

It is important to note that the use of wetlands to mitigate and purify sewage and sludge requires large areas of land, in order to fully replicate the natural properties of a wetland. In constructing these reclamation wetlands we are taking away from land that could be used for other purposes, as well as bringing in the tools, materials, and labor to construct a man made wetland. In that respect SAS is more sustainable because it creates less of an ecological footprint once put into action, since it can be more compact than a wetland the inputs for constructing a SAS are much less than a wetland. Using a natural wetland for mitigation however, would have much less of a ecological impact, however, natural wetlands are hard to come by in many areas, and in areas in which there are no natural wetlands the construction of one requires far more resources than putting in SAS.

A man-made wetland, note the area used to create this wetland, and how it most likely required the clear cutting of the forest it is in the middle of to make room for it.

Peak Oil

The peaking of production in liquid fuels and other energy sources in the near future will reshape our everyday lives. It will profoundly affect our community most in the areas of sustenance, transportation, land use, housing, and municipal services. We must all begin now to build other, more resilient supports for our common life. These supports will consist of understandings, agreements, assumptions, physical structures, and cultural practices that will recognize lower energy availability not as a problem, but as an opportunity and a condition to which we must adapt ourselves individually and collectively.
- Bloomington Peak Oil Taskforce
Redefining Prosperity: Energy Descent and Community Resilience

It feels as if it has only been a short time since the dollar gallon of gas, streets full of Hummer SUVs, and never ending supplies of oil were running rampant in this country. In fact, I remember when I first started driving; I could fill up my 16 gallon tank for about $15.50. What we see nowadays is a far cry from the past. The growing knowledge of peak oil, has such accentuated the desires for this commodity that anyone still committed to their Hummer is most likely spending $50 on a trip across town.

It is no question that we as a country and planet, dependent on petroleum, should be concerned about peak oil. When the oil production begins to decline the exorbitant prices for oil, and general scarcity which will occur, will greatly change our lives if not carefully planned for ahead of time. If not carefully addressed, peak oil could make personal transportation a luxury, greatly deplete national energy reserves, and effects many everyday products. The price of the myriad of products made with oil/petroleum will cease to become affordable, and that is only on a personal level. Nationally it could strongly affect the economy as well as create violent resource wars over the waning amount of product. There is a strong feeling in the scientific community that we could see peak oil within the next 15-20 years, however if demand for oil shrinks along with supply it could greatly reduce the effects of peak oil.



That is why it is integral to set up community commissions, because to really have an effect changes need to occur at both personal levels (driving less, consuming less plastics, reducing power usage) and community levels (more efficient and increased public transportation, promoting larger bicycle populations, converting to sustainable energy sources). By increasing the social capital, equity, and knowledge of a community, it will be even easier to make transitions. Coming up with smart solutions, and eliciting civicminded peoples to bring about change could very well hold off peak oil. However, it is inevitable that we as a planet will inevitably use up our oil supplies, so even if changes are made, suitable substitutions will eventually be required for petroleum based technologies and products.

Reflections on Greening the City and Urban Ecology

Tucson, AZ

I found the concept of Greening the City to be more closely associated to what I originally thought the practice of sustainability was prior to taking this class. Thanks to the readings and discussion we have undertaken I know understand the different forms of capital and community action now necessary to commit to a sustainable community, while bioregional practice overlays more strongly with the scientific aspect of sustainability. Coming from a background strong in ecology and environmental science I was waiting to see where my expertise would fit in to community sustainability, and with bioregional practices I see that opportunity, to use my knowledge of natural systems to help develop techniques that are applicable to specific sites/ecosystems to renew the natural systems and process, which make the system thrive.

One of the benefits of increasing green space is a reduction in the urban heat island effect. This is something that I have been able to experience first hand. Growing up, I lived in a more rural part of Tucson, Arizona, which at the time had not experienced much development, so it experienced the typical desert summer night. After a day of scorching 100°+ temperatures the sun would set, and the temperature would drop back down to make for an enjoyable relatively cool night. As development in the city saw a dramatic increase, and I moved into the more urban center of the city I noticed an extremely unpleasant change. Now, during the summer evenings, the temperature barely fluctuates, as the concrete, asphalt, and brick radiate out the heat, which it absorbs throughout the day, leaving the evening as abhorrently hot as the day.

An infrared image of Phoenix, Arizona


As Roseland points out there are a plethora of benefits to creating functional green space in urban areas. The difficult part thus becomes achieving an integral level of greening. To be able to implement some of tools and technologies for greening the city there are numerous policy instruments that can be used, and here Roseland shows us that regulation and voluntary instruments seem to be the policy instruments of choice. It is here that you can really see aspects of policy, biological science, and social science, converging to create a sustainable community. The biological sciences explain the ecology of an area, describe the necessity for returning these urban areas to some aspect of an ecological norm, and give us the knowledge and technologies for greening the city. The social sciences describe the ways to bring communities together, create cohesiveness, and determine the manner in which to motivate the citizenry to elicit change. The policy is the last tool, as it takes the concepts from biological sciences and the information from social sciences to give people incentives (legal from regulation or financial) and information to ensure that the change happens. This truly shows the multidisciplinary manner in which sustainability must be addressed.

The Precious Commodity of Water

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100910130557.htm

Dynamic breakthroughs in technology are creating new methods of extracting drinking water from air, detecting leaks in distribution systems, and clean and purify sewage waters.

With the ever increasing need for sustainable water practices, it is possibly technology and not supply/abundance could be the ultimate limiting factor in conserving potable water supplies. Yet, in the long run maintaining a sustainable water supply will come down to both intelligent management practices/policies and innovative technologies, which will enable us as consumers to really get the most out of a drop of water.

Ecological Footprint

One’s ecological footprint is directly related to carrying capacity. The carrying capacity for an ecosystem is the population, or number of a species, that the area can support with out having detrimental effects. The ecological footprint of a person is the physical area required to support themselves with regards to energy production, food production, and other goods and services. If a group or population has a fairly large ecological footprint their carrying capacity for the area they occupy would be much smaller than a population with a small ecological footprint. The best way for a population to increase its area’s carrying capacity is to lower its ecological footprint.

The calculators used:

Global Footprint Network Calculator: Personal Footprint

National Geographic Greendex Calculator

look at food consumed, specifically beef, poultry, and fish, distance the food travels, textiles consumed, paper products consumed, electricity consumed, methods of travel, and type of living space. All of these are successful proxies of one’s ecological footprint. The two differ in that the Greendex calculator also attempts to see what your mindset in the future will be by asking if you plan on doing certain things in the foreseeable future, such as buying energy saving appliances, or luxury automobiles, or large houses. Also both calculators attempt to address recycling the greendex by asking if you repair things or simply throw them away, and the Personal Footprint calculator asking if you recycle and what.



Some things that I see that are left out would be specific questions about recycling such as; do you recycle curbside or at a recycling center, do you compost waste, and what percent of your monthly waste is disposed of as “trash” as opposed to recycled or dealt with in another manner. Also there were many questions about transportation but not a direct one such as do you carpool. It was asked if you have a passenger, and how often, but not the amount of passengers or distance for carpooling. One other question that could have been asked would have been are you active in the community, and what types of activity, this would not directly be related to ecological footprint, but would be related to sustainability.

After calculating my footprint I have to say I am very disappointed in the number I saw from the Personal Footprint calculator. I think my actions that have the most impact on my large number deal with my travel and electricity usage. My family lives in Arizona, so I have to make that 6 hour flight a few times a year. Alternatively I could use a train, but the time it would take out of my small vacations would be too much. If only there were a highspeed rail system in this country. Additionally my car travels are significantly high because my girlfriend recently moved to Indianapolis and I drive there once or twice a week. One thing that I can change with my driving habits is to use the bus more when doing in town driving. I often ride the bus to class when not hurting for time, but I could ride it more if I woke up earlier, and I could ride it to downtown instead of driving. Alternatively I could use a bicycle until the winter months come. As for my electricity, my footprint will go down drastically once my air conditioning is no longer needed, but I could make a more concerted effort to not leave my laptop plugged in, and better insulate my apartment. All together, I feel I could reduce my impact significantly in the future, but as a student, living on a small income, far away from my family, I can only do so much at the moment. Hopefully in the future I will not have that excuse.

Changing Community Policy

Community Policy

110° summers, an ever depleting groundwater table, no major reservoirs within a hundred miles, a desert ecosystem, and palpable lush green lawns thriving throughout the year. This picture is inherently flawed, but this is the norm for those who can afford it in Tucson, Arizona. Without community policy in place for water use, those citizens who do not mind paying outrageous water bills can consume water at astronomical rates in a city where water should be viewed as a scarcity. However, with no current water use policy in place there is nothing keeping those who choose to misuse their resources from doing so.
If I were to change some community policy in my hometown it would be regarding water use during the summer months, especially when rainfall is below annual average. There is policy currently in place, which requires the city to conserve and plan for sustainable measures, such as the use of grey water for golf courses and management of the Central Arizona Project, but nothing regarding homeowner usage. There are a couple of policy instruments that could be used to address this issue.
Voluntary instruments would aid in reducing homeowner water usage. Information is a powerful tool, and it is likely that many homeowner do not know the amount of water they are using to maintain their yard. A program aimed at increasing knowledge about natural desert landscaping would spread information about positive alternatives. In addition simply supplying information about the detrimental overuse of water could sway many homeowners to better ration their use. Along those same lines providing technical assistance to show homeowners how to get maximum efficiency from irrigation systems would curtail unnecessary usage.
In conjunction financial incentives would be another useful policy instrument for establishing change in the patterns of homeowner over water use. Pricing along a curve would be one option, where in once a homeowner passes a sustainable amount of water usage based on square footage or property acrage, the chargers would accrue at a greater rate. Along the same lines taxing on those who go over established water use amounts would achieve the same results. However, financial incentives would not be as useful as voluntary instruments in this case because the majority of homeowner who overuse water are not handcuffed by financial restraints. Therefore, I feel that a policy using information and technical assistance would be best to curtail the overuse of water in my desert community.

A recent article about the plights facing Arizona’s water policy due to budget cuts
http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/article_7eb61ffd-331a-5956-887f-af9de9ea32be.html

Bloomington Sustainability Indicators

9/13/10

Sustainability Indicators

From the Bloomington Commission on Sustainability “2008 Sustainability Trends Assessment Report for the City of Bloomington” http://bloomington.in.gov/media/media/application/pdf/5917.pdf

The indicator of Annual Rate of Bus Ridership addresses more than one aspect of sustainability. By looking at the total numbers of ridership in a year, this indicator is a proxy for the proportion of people using public transportation opposed to private transportation, and can also be used as a proxy for proportion of people who use more sustainable modes of transportation such as bicycling or walking. Besides the obvious issue being taken into account here, of using sustainable modes of transportation and reducing the need for non-renewable resources, this indicator also shows something related to sustainability and not directly measurable, a form of social capital. In a society where people tend to not have their first social interaction of the day until sitting at their desk at work, riding the bus puts individuals into a group setting, one which may not be ideal for a social gathering, but which still provides more group stimulus than a car ride where in the only entertainment is the radio.

Since the data appears as total ridership it is inherently flawed because it does not take into account riders who use the bus system more than once a day, or use different busses to make connections. Therefore we can assume these numbers to be generally inflated. However, what may be more important here is the trend. Which shows that ridership for both Non-IU riders and IU-Students has steadily risen over the past 3 years, argueably this could be due to increased population in Bloomington or increased student population. This also serves as a poor proxy for the proportional measures mentioned above, but until a more through and direct indicator can be made for percentage of Bloomington residents who use sustainable transportation modes over private motor vehicles, this indicator can tell policy makers a good deal about the sustainable nature of transportation in the city.

Annual Rate of Bus Ridership would be described as a forward looking indicator according to Maclaren. It describes progress being made increase the use of mass transit, which in turn decreases the use of fossil fuels (a non-renewable resource), and moves towards intergenerational equity. It lacks a distinct reference point, but clearly shows a trend moving towards sustainability. Maclaren may not have described this as an integrating indicator, yet based on the arguments above that this indicator also indirectly measures some of the social dimensions of sustainability, and could thus be seen as an integrating indicator as well.