Sunday, April 5, 2009

Weekly Assignment #11

1. How do you believe sustainability should be defined for policy-making?


According to Solow (1991), "The environment needs protection by public policy because each of us knows that by burdening the environment, by damaging it, we can profit and have some of the cost, perhaps most of the cost, borne by others." This sentiment shows that sustainability must play a major role in today's policy-making. However, the specific definition that is used may need to vary based on the types of policies being designed.


I think it is essential that policy-making take into consideration both the current environment and the possible future needs of humanity. For this reason, it seems ideal that sustainability should have multiple definitions for the purpose of policy-making. For example, when considering the needs and overall environment of the current generations, it might be best to have a weaker sustainability definition, allowing for more flexibility as environmental preservation begins to move in the right direction. However, when looking at protecting natural resources for future generations, it would be better to have a strong sustainability perspective, so that no one resource is over-utilized.


2. What are the difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal?


It seems that the hardest part about including sustainability in public policy is that there are so many interpretations, definitions and values in existence. Even at the broadest definition possible, sustainability should work toward finding a balance between quality of life, economic development/prosperity, and environmental protection. Trying to define any one of these factors is incredibly difficult, and becomes even more so as they are combined into one overall goal.


There is also the problem of setting individual priorities within the concept of sustainability. For example, one policymaker may perceive sustainability as being a method for current utilization of the available resources. However, another may define sustainability as the preservation of natural resources for future generations, even if it causes the economy or quality of life to suffer today. Box 2.1 on page 24 of Wheeler's book, Planning for Sustainability, gives a great example of the wide variety of definitions and focuses that can be found under the general topic of sustainability. Including sustainability in public policies is a desirable and possible step, as long as policymakers can recognize that there may be differing, and even conflicting, conceptual definitions in use.


3. If you had to design a practical framework to help a state environmental agency achieve ecological, economic and social sustainability, what would that framework look like?


An effective policy framework to address sustainability issues should include political debate, public opinion gathering, and expert advice. As Goodland points out, achieving social sustainability (quality of life, cultural diversity, etc) is an essential step toward achieving environmental sustainability. It seems reasonable to expect that a healthy, happy public is more likely to be willing to spend time and energy engaging in a discussion about both economic and environmental sustainability issues. For this reason, environmental sustainability efforts must go hand-in-hand with policies aimed at improving citizens' quality of life.


Once there is a pool of citizens who are willing and able to be involved in developing environmental sustainability policies, the policymakers must also find a balance between public input and the advice of experts. It may be best to first consult a panel of experts in order to define the areas that need to be addressed by policy. Afterwards, a variety of methods should be used to engage the public in discussion about these areas. It seems likely that the overall outcome may stand a better chance if both citizens and experts have had a chance to give input.


4. Voters and politicians often want short term results, but many argue that sustainable development calls for a long-term policy plan. How do we take the long term view that sustainable development requires in this political environment?


People alive today, including both politicians and voters, stand to benefit the most from short-term policies addressing sustainability. These policies may cover issues such as oil consumption, air quality, etc. However, many people are also concerned about the welfare of future generations, requiring a longer-term approach to sustainability policy. If it was reasonable to assume that the needs and available resources of the future are accurately mirrored by what is present today, it would be a relatively simple task to create long-term policies.


However, it is impossible to know the conditions that humanity will face in the future. There may be discoveries of new natural resources, there will almost certainly be new technologies, and there may also be irreversible consequences as a result of previous resource consumption. Solow gives a good overview of how long-term policies should proceed: "We should choose policies that will be appropriate over as wide a range of possible circumstances as we can imagine." By developing a widely-applicable, flexible set of policies, current generations can take some responsibility for allowing future generations the opportunity to benefit and prosper as well.

6 comments:

  1. Joanna,
    Good work! On your answer to number 4, I agree with Solow's view that the future is "inevitably vague". Because of this your opinion of developing a flexible set of policies that can accomodate our needs of today while also addressing the needs of the future. I believe that it is hard for us to think about how our actions of today may affect humanity in the future. With a holistic approach to sustainability, we can attempt to create a better place for both generations.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joanna,

    Although I like what you stated in response to #4, as does Christen, your approach for developing a policy that is flexible, may also be detrimental.

    If businesses or individuals are not conditioned to "proper" or "no-harmful" behavior that sets standards or measures, and that defines what to do, and not to do, we all have a tendency to make short term life-style choices that are beneficial to us in the short term. And we all do so for we may value the future in a depreciation mode, or, given choices we may opt for the less expensive.
    Just take cars............ how many of us have cars that are not hybrids, or take mass transit.

    (I have an SUV, for convenience of driving with my two big dogs, and hybrids are more expensive and have not come out with a model that is as big as my SUV..........). I behave in the short term....although I do take mass transit options when ever convenient.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought you made an interesting point about have a more relaxed sustainability definiton for the current generation in order to allow for flexibility. It was an interesting point to allow the current generation to get a feel for what we need and then create a more defined definiton for future generations based on what has worked for us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Its funny that I proposed the exact opposite point of having a strict definition of sustainability for our current generation in order to allow for a more flexible definition of sustainability for the next generation. This just goes to show the complexity of sustainable policymaking.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Joanna,
    I agree with your analysis that politicians and voters, stand to benefit the most from short-term policies addressing sustainability. I also think the effects of term-limits contribute to this short-term mindset as some legislators may not feel a drive to focus on any long-term strategy.

    ReplyDelete