How do you believe sustainability should be defined for policy-making?
I believe sustainability should be defined for policy making by what a nation is capable of. Policy makers must understand what they capable of creating policy for. In the United States we must create policy that creates sustainability for our future in transportation. This is something that is within our grasp and can be completed. We are able by depending on our human capital to relieve pressure on natural capital by creating alternatives to oil. This is how sustainability should be defined for policy making. What is the particular country capable of. In smaller developing countries weak sustainability may be the most appropriate approach since they do not have human made capital to replace their natural capital. They must deplete their natural capital in order to progress. Even though "most forms of capital are more complimentary or neutral and are less substiutable"(Goodland, 17) some policies will have to circumvent that in order to maintain a basic level of development.
What are the difficulities associated with making sustainability a policy goal?
Thre are many difficulities associated with making sustainability a policy goal and I believe implementation is one of them. Once sustainability has become a policy goal and ultimately policiy it is difficult to implement. For example obtaining environmental sustainability by decreasing our demand on oil. This will lead to an increase on the price of oil in order to reduce use and the creation of alternative modes of transportation. This will be difficult to implement since many are resistant to giving up their vehicles and raising the cost of gasoline would upset many citizens. For as much as those in the public sector have sustainability as their goal sometimes support and implementation for that goal is a dificult pill to swallow.
In designing a framework for the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality I would begin by defining what the goals are and how they could be acheived to create sustainability. How could we use our capital to work together to create sustainability. Our human capital would work to involve the citizens on what they feel is important in Environmental Quality. We would establish ecological standards that work hand in hand with our economic goals in order to maintain our sustainability. For example, the citizens would like to see the trees not cut down in order to keep their community beautiful. However, we need this natural capital in order to provide for our human and social capital by providing wood for houses. A agreement with the citizens can be met to use nautral and human made capital to build houses and limit the tree removal in the local forests. This will help meet all of our capital and the social capital will be included as well.
Experts will of course be brought in to present different ways in which sustainability can be met without substituting one form of capital for another. The experts will seek the input of the citizens in order to understand their social captial and how they see sustainability being successful in their community. Not all needs will be met, but by involving the citizens compromises are approached in order to succeed.
A long term view is very important in environmental sustainability. Part of the reason we are dealing with so many environmental issues today is that no one wanted to look long term. What are the long term effects of carbon emissions? What are the long term effects of non-recycled waste? What are the long term effects of logging? There were warnings but many felt that since the effects were not visible at that moment there was no need to worry. There has to be a shift toward planning long term to achieve sustainability. Voters and politicans have to understand that change often does not occur overnight. There has to be time to left forests regrow, or fish to repopulate in the oceans. In order to achieve sustainability voters and politicans must be made aware that even though the effects are not clear and present today they steps that are being taken today are most certaintly effecting the future.
So this is my blog...not really sure what I am going to do with it, but I had to create it for two of my classes in my masters program at ASU. Last week I turned in my final paper and I am graduating next week. But I still have this blog. So I guess I will continue to write and see where it takes me. :)
I totally agree that implementation will be incredibly difficult-- and I didn't even think about it. Not only will implementation efforts take an insane amount of money and consensus (to just get the policy passed in the first place) but it will also take a vast deal of oversight. Furthermore, implementation can be a scarry thing as many policies are left up to broad interpretations-- which may, in the end, create different results than the ones anticipated. Also, whenever implementing a policy, a wide range of side-effects occur that were not anticipated. This too can completely change the outcomes of the policy and indeed may destablize the notion of sustainability altogether if implmentation mechanisms destroy other areas of policy and affect different types of people.
ReplyDeleteWow, implementation, I didn't even think of that nightmare!
Although I agree that the implementation of a full blown new policy may be costly, time consuming and politically-problematic, a policy with several tiers that follow each other maybe an answer.
ReplyDeleteThe readings discussed about the 3Es. What about creating a policy that starts with one E, then based on the success and/or weaknesses review that language and include another E. That can be done progressively.
That allows for the public and businesses to warm up to the new requirements and the policy makers to build control points for evaluation and growth.
Just a consideration.
I am intrigued by your definition of sustainability for policy making. I like that it is based in the ability of regional government. However, would this definition allow third world countries to cut down acreage of rain forest for use of heating due to a lack of their ability to use alternatives. I like that it is based on capacity, but I worry that it may open the door for non-sustainable practices.
ReplyDeleteI am also intrigued by how you defined sustainable policy making. I liked your take on wealthy countries using human capital to supplement for the over-use of resource capital. This would also give ease to developing countries that do not have the human capital to spend and rely solely on natural capital. Very good.
ReplyDelete