Working for an Organization

Working for an Organization

"Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a voluntary commitment by companies and other organizations to take responsibility and be held accountable for their environmental and social impacts. Such organizations go beyond legal requirements and fiduciary responsibilities to acknowledge a moral responsibility toward the environment and society of which they are a part, taking responsibility for their negative social and ecological impacts, striving to increase their positive impacts, and being accountable for both."

In my opinion, corporate social responsibility is a great thing for a company to have, as it shows to the people that they aren't like the greedy corporations protested against on Wall Street and are actually making an effort to give back to the community. The Hiring Success Journal lists the top companies for corporate social responsibility, with Ben & Jerry's, Bosch, Starbucks, IKEA, and Salesforce in the top five respectively. Ben & Jerry's alone donates more than $1.8 million per year to philanthropy and sustainability efforts, and it's actions like these that increase awareness for sustainability efforts and encourages us to work together for a better future.

https://sites.google.com/site/meaganehoffs/home/mock-advertising-and-creative-campaigns/ben-jerry-s-circle-of-sustainability-campaign

"Transformation toward sustainability requires good governance and strong leadership. Eventually, involvement and support from senior management will be required; transforming the organizational culture and successful long-term maintenance of sustainability initiatives are nearly impossible without support from the power brokers in the organization (Doppelt 2003b, 5). Progress toward change typically occurs faster when initiatives are sponsored by or at least supported by senior leaders."

Leaders push others to be better than they are and practice what they preach. Leaders are found even in animals, who rely on those leaders to guide and keep them safe. Without them, our society would cease to progress. This is why companies stagnated or failed when factors such as nepotism decided who would lead. A good leader would recognize the need for sustainability in our work environment today and push to achieve a greater environmentally-friendly presence on the planet. This is the kind of leader I hope to be one day in the real estate business, doing things such as selling properties exclusively to sustainably minded companies and people that want to live in self sufficient homes.

https://inhabitat.com/tag/self-sufficient-home/

Sources:

Robertson, Margaret. Sustainability Principles and Practice. Routledge, 2017.

Vilas, Nupur. “Top 20 Socially Responsible Companies 2017: SmartRecruiters.” SmartRecruiters Blog, 22 Aug. 2018, https://www.smartrecruiters.com/blog/top-20-corporate-social-responsibility-initiatives-for-2017/.

Climate

Climate

Waste

Waste

"Every day the average person living in the US throws away 4.6 pounds of solid waste (Center for Sustainable Systems Factsheets 2008, 1), and for every pound of household waste we discard, 40 to 70 additional pounds of industrial debris were generated during its production (Rogers 2005, 4). But as one of Barry Commoner’s “four laws of ecology” makes clear: “Everything must go somewhere. There is no ‘waste’ in nature and there is no ‘away’ to which things can be thrown” (Commoner 1971)."

The problem of waste in today's society has truly become a problem bigger than any single person can understand at this point without getting a good lake at our waste management system. Since not many people have the time or the will to go out of their way to do this, the waste problem continues to escalate and cause even more harm to our planet. I believe one of the biggest contributors to this problem is the way we package things and the rules we have in place associated with it. I'm of the general opinion that lawyers can manage to ruin anything, and they've certainly done so with packaging. Lawsuits have led to the requirement of more packaging for the safety of the minority consumer that doesn't understand how to handle products safely, which in turn has created more waste that ends up being discarded in landfills. Landfills aren't even a good option for waste management as the quote describes, because landfills were areas that were originally vital parts of diverse ecosystems that was then designated as a waste site by humans.

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2019-01-18/austins-least-loved-landfill-may-be-poised-to-grow-again/

"Incineration produces ash in two locations: Bottom ash collects at the bottom of the combustion chamber; lighter-weight and more-toxic fly ash forms in flue gases in the stack. When scrubbers and filters are added to stacks to remove pollutants such as dioxins from flue gases, the pollutants do not disappear but are transferred from the exhaust gas to the fly ash as it collects in the filter media (ibid.). The contaminated ash is sent to a landfill, where dioxin and other toxins can become mobile in leachate and enter soil and groundwater (Rogers 2005, 5; Leonard 2010a, 214)."

I liked this quote because it reminds me just how far we've advanced in scientific knowledge, and it made me imagine how the early pioneers of these waste management systems must have felt creating what they thought to be an ingenious solution to a problem they had the foresight to recognize. Before science, people usually believed that if you could no longer see it, then it wasn't there anymore. We now know better and recognize the threat of microscopic toxins that are poisoning our environment, allowing us to act and conduct ourselves in a more responsible manner. One way we could combat the problem posed in the quote could be by using more sustainable resources in things such as packaging that don't release pollutants such as dioxins.

https://www.ecomaine.org/our-facility/waste-to-energy-plant/

"In the waste hierarchy known as the 3Rs, the priorities for dealing with waste are to reduce, then reuse, and finally recycle as the last line of defense. Some sustainability specialists recommend adding a fourth, higher priority, 're-think,' to the beginning of the hierarchy: re-think, reuse, reduce, recycle. They point out that we may be asking the wrong questions. Maybe the question should not be, 'how can we recycle more?' Maybe the right question is, 'how can we stop producing so much waste in the first place?'"

It looks like I already understand the concept of 're-think' pretty well given the example I gave in the first section of this blog. Using less packaging on products would drastically decrease the amount of waste created and would make it much easier to recycle the necessary waste conducive to every day life. I believe many people today have become too soft given the abundance of regulations that cater to the inept and indifferent. In my perfect world, these people would unfortunately fall victim to the natural selection process, allowing for the others to successfully manage their waste in a safe, competent, and environmentally-friendly manner, which would do wonders for the health of our planet.

https://www.boredpanda.com/unnecessary-wasteful-packaging/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic

Sources:

Robertson, Margaret. Sustainability Principles and Practice. Routledge, 2017.

Energy

Energy

"Power plants use mechanical energy to turn generators. A generator is a device that converts mechanical energy into electrical energy. Mechanical input for generating electricity can come from a wind turbine, a turbine in a hydroelectric dam, ocean wave action, diesel engines, or a steam turbine. . . When a coil of wire in a generator rotates inside a strong magnetic field, the motion induces electrical current to flow in the coil."

I think this quote did a good job of explaining how generators create electricity, as it was a concept I had previously struggled with or maybe didn't care to really remember the first time it was explained to me. I've noticed that a lot of people today are content with not knowing how things work as long as they actually work. I believe this can be attributed to the rise of the era of specialization in the workplace and the need for people to be able to do one thing very well while sacrificing passable knowledge in other subject areas. Inventions have also become more and more complex as time has passed, and it has become harder in general to just understand how a complex piece of machinery such as a printer or a car works unless you work with them directly. 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/how-electricity-is-generated.php

"Generating electricity from sunlight is not free. Although costs are coming down, the initial costs of installing a PV system remain high. Government subsidies will be essential until the solar industry comes up to scale. In Germany, government policy which guaranteed a long-term premium price and access to the grid led to rapid growth of solar power in that country (Brown 2015, 68)."

Maybe I'm biased, but as a strong capitalist and libertarian, seeing government subsidies being described as essential just makes me fume. To me, it seems like Margaret Robertson believes you can solve any problem just by throwing more money at it. Even worse, taxpayer money that comes from those that may not even agree with the plans for its use. Solar power is still nowhere near becoming a reliable source of energy, so it'd be hard to sell an expensive push in solar research to the average taxpayer. Sure, our current sources of energy are becoming increasingly less stable as time goes on, but that doesn't give anyone the right to steamroll over others in order to get what they believe is most important. Furthermore, the source Robertson uses isn't even entirely accurate. Yes, the presence of solar power in Germany has increased, but the way she frames it makes it seem like the government subsidies were successful and had no negative impact on the country. In reference to Germany's solar subsidies, Ball says, "But all that ambition is bleeding Germany. The mounting costs are testing its resolve. Leading politicians, even those with strong environmental credibility, are racing to rein in spending. If they can’t achieve that, then Germany’s near miracle may be remembered as the environmental equivalent of, say, heart-transplant surgery: a worthy endeavor, undoubtedly, but one that remains unattainable for all but the very wealthiest" (Ball) Even worse, he also quotes an actual German citizen that takes advantage of the subsidy who says, "If a business owner ran a company the way the German government has structured its solar subsidies, he would be bankrupt" (Ball).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05/if-saving-the-climate-requires-making-energy-so-expensive-why-is-french-electricity-so-cheap/#3e6a43a1bd98

"So-called “traditional biomass” is wood, charcoal, agricultural residues, and animal dung burned for cooking and heating in developing countries. This material often comes from unsustainable harvesting and results in unhealthy air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2014c, 48), and climate impacts from black carbon (OECD 2012, 135)."

I shouldn't have been eating while reading this quote, I almost couldn't finish my sandwich. It's hard to imagine someone that can stand the smell of burning animal dung and still be able to eat whatever they cooked afterwards. This is a great opportunity for us to band together and work towards a solution that doesn't require the help of the government and that we can feel personally proud of.

http://bengaluru.citizenmatters.in/k-r-puram-bangalore-garbage-burning-problem-23599

Sources:

Robertson, Margaret. Sustainability Principles and Practice. Routledge, 2017.

Ball, Jeffrey. “Germany's High-Priced Renewable Energy Revolution.” Fortune, Fortune, 14 Mar. 2017, https://fortune.com/2017/03/14/germany-renewable-clean-energy-solar/.

Livable Cities

Livable Cities

"New developments are almost always based on the assumption that people travel in automobiles every time they move from one place to another. Buildings are set back from roads, fronted by driveways or surrounding by parking."

While I do believe there is some truth to the problem of urban sprawl, I don't agree with the sentiment in this quote that personal cars are an evil that needs to be severely reduced or eradicated. Cars have become both a symbol of our freedom as individual Americans as well as a personal method of expression and personality. Having a personal vehicle means you can go wherever you want whenever you want without having to submit to the predetermined routes of public transportation. You don't need to be on time and you can make as many stops along the way as you want. This level of freedom is something that I believe is vital to the sense of liberty and freedom that Americans have. Cars are also a source of passion for a lot of people such as car collectors and mechanics. It is also true that you can tell a lot about a person by what kind of car they drive, so eliminating this factor would also eliminate a reliable way of understanding someone.

https://goflatoutph.com/2018/06/01/find-out-what-your-favorite-car-color-says-about-you/

"Greater density can support public transportation, with less driving, more walkable neighborhoods, and more affordable infrastructure services; it also supports greater numbers of neighborhood stores and markets. The denser a city, the less its inhabitants drive and the more they walk and use bicycles and public transit; efficiencies are built in."

This is another statement that, while it does have some truth to it, I can't agree with completely. For many people, really dense cities and mixing housing with business can be a tremendous source of stress. There is a part in every human that needs the open air and vast expanses of land to enjoy. There are also many people working jobs they'd rather not be doing and feel the need to live as far as possible from their place of work. The fast-paced energy and unforgiving nature of a dense city just isn't for everyone. If people live in cities that discourages vehicle ownership, it also makes it harder for people to enjoy trips to the great outdoors as they have to go out of their way to secure a method to get there. Stress is such a problem in big cities due to bright lights, never ending noise, and a feeling of disconnection and unimportance that it regularly leads to depression and even suicide.

https://acidcow.com/pics/5243-suicide-attempt-in-subway-saint-petersburg-russia.html

"Many of the approaches taken by cities to develop compact, mixed-use neighborhoods, reduce vehicle miles traveled, promote high-performance buildings, increase the use of locally produced materials and products, increase renewable energy, restore functioning ecosystems, protect water resources, and provide food from urban agriculture are strategies that are relevant to adapting to climate change."

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I really don't think mixing business and where people live is a good idea. People not liking their jobs isn't even the only reason people don't want to live close to their place of work. One thing common in families is the desire to separate their work life from their family life because they don't want the stress from work to come in to their home with them and affect their relationship with their family. This would be difficult to accomplish if you only lived a couple blocks away because you don't have enough time to make that mental shift that you have arrived at your home. However, I fully agree with the other methods proposed in the quote and would love to see those put into practice.

Sources:

1. Robertson, Margaret. Sustainability Principles and Practice. Routledge, 2017.

Sustainable Food

Sustainable Food

"Since the green revolution, food production in developing countries has increased, doubling or tripling in many places. However, because population has also nearly doubled, the amount of food produced per person has remained nearly unchanged in most parts of the world. At the same time, the green revolution has resulted in damage to soils, waters, and ecosystems, the final costs of which are not yet known."

Before reading this quote, I didn't fully understand the dilemma between increased food production and the increasing human population. The problem with world hunger is such that if we try to increase food production to resolve it, the world population increases because times are good, and it is easier to raise children with the surplus of food. Of course, then the increasing population begins to outpace food production and we are back to where we started. If we are going to solve world hunger, it is obviously going to take a more creative solution than just making more food. It is also a bad solution because our new and more effective methods of growing food are actually hurting the Earth and are not viable in the long run. We need new scientific breakthroughs in agriculture that avoid negatively impacting the environment.

https://www.wfp.org/publications/2018-hunger-map

"Farmed fish are selectively bred for growth qualities and often genetically modified. When they escape from ponds and coastal pens into wild ecosystems, they grow larger and faster than native fish, whom they outcompete, while at the same time spreading disease and affecting the genetic pool by interbreeding."
I've been to a fish farm before in Minnesota that dealt mainly with salmon and the experience was both revealing and surprising. The tour they gave me of the facility didn't really give me the impression that it was too small for the fish, but then again, I wouldn't know how much space salmon really need. I was with my family and they gave us one of their salmon filets to take home. It was delicious, and as an experiment we went out and bought a wild-caught salmon to compare. It was amazing how different the taste was between the two, and it made me realize that we are getting accustomed to these genetic modifications in our food. The wild-caught salmon had much tougher flesh, less fat, and was also a darker color. This observation really made me think about what the future holds and whether this will be a positive or negative thing for both humans and the environment.

https://www.nanaimobulletin.com/news/john-horgan-wades-back-into-salmon-farms/

"About 70 percent of water use world-wide goes to the production of food (Sachs 2009, 36). Large-scale irrigation depletes underground aquifers such as the ancient Ogallala, while heavy use of irrigation water to grow crops on land that would not normally support them overtaxes some surface waters, such as the Colorado River in the US."

This statistic shocked me because it reminded me about how it takes 3,000 gallons of water just to make a pair of jeans. It really puts into perspective just how much water is used to make the things we use and eat every day. I've also never seen an aquifer before, and this quote makes me imagine a huge space underneath the Earth that spans across multiple states and would make a deep sea diver shake in his fins in order for it to be big enough to be able to supply us with that much water. We also need to figure out what we are going to do when these resources are finally depleted, and it should be sooner rather than later.

Sources:

1. Robertson, Margaret. Sustainability Principles and Practice. Routledge, 2017.

Pollution

Pollution

"Many substances are toxic at certain quantities but have negligible effects below certain concentrations. Nitrogen, for example, is necessary to plant growth, but added in excess amounts as fertilizer can result in nitrate contamination of drinking water and causes dead zones along coastlines. Carbon dioxide is essentially for keeping Earth’s temperature warm enough for life, but when it builds up faster than the earth system can accommodate, climate regulation is disrupted."

I think this quote is very representative of the attitude most people today have towards pollution. Most don't understand just how much pollution there actually is in the world, so they believe that we are still at a level where it has negligible effects. A campaign to raise awareness of just how much pollution there is in the world today is something I believe will help people to understand our situation and take it a little more seriously. This quote also reminds me of a news story a few years ago when a woman on a competitive TV show had to drink the most water of all the contestants in order to win an Xbox for her son. Unfortunately, she proved this quote by drinking water until it became toxic and killed her. This sad story can be taken as a gruesome metaphor for the plight the Earth is currently struggling with.

https://www.bionity.com/en/infographics/201/lethal-doses-of-water-caffeine-and-alcohol.html

"The toxins that bioaccumulated in the tissues of the prey animals get concentrated in the tissues of the predators who eat them. One of the earliest examples of biomagnification was the accumulation of DDT in bald eagles, top predators in their particular food webs."

As a proud American, this quote hurts my soul because I've only ever seen the bald eagle as a magnificent creature that didn't deserve to be hurt in this way. Talking about biomagnification as well as bioaccumulation in class gave me a deeper appreciation for the delicate nature of our home and I hope we as a people become more careful with what we dispose of so that it doesn't hurt surrounding ecosystems. I've seen a bald eagle only twice before in person, and both times I stood in awe as it glided majestically over 100 feet above me. The problem of biomagnification saddens me and makes me wonder if there'd be more bald eagles roaming the sky today if we had been more careful. This problem can happen to any ecosystem as well as any food chain within it, putting the predators at the top of every food chain at risk.

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/10/02/how-the-bald-eagle-soared-again

"The acids form through chemical reactions in the air when sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides released by power plants and vehicle exhaust mix with oxygen, water, and other atmospheric components. Acid rain damages historic buildings and sculptures, damages forest trees, and upsets ecosystems of lakes and streams through acidification."

Acid rain was definitely something I was unaware of until now, and it's crazy to just think about it. The fact that we create enough pollution to make rain water acidic enough to melt buildings is simply terrifying. I wonder if there have been people walking through rain before and realized that their clothing or umbrella was starting to melt. It is of the utmost importance that we take steps to prevent this phenomenon from continuing to occur in order to preserve the precious beautiful ecosystems being slowly destroyed by this acid rain. Alternative forms of clean energy are imperative to making this effort a success, so electric cars and similar endeavors should be supported and encouraged.

Sources:

1. Robertson, Margaret. Sustainability Principles and Practice. Routledge, 2017.

Ecosystems

Ecosystems

"...in the 1960s DDT caused populations of brown pelicans to go extinct in California, Louisiana, and several other regions of the US. After DDT was banned in the 1970s, individuals from surviving populations within the metapopulation began to recolonize the affected regions. Today the brown pelican is no longer listed as endangered."

I've always been a fan of pelicans since I grew up watching them on the beaches of South Florida. I really admire the way they glide just inches above the water when looking for fish, and the pouches in their bills are quite fascinating. I'm really glad DDT was banned in time for them to make a recovery, as beaches really just wouldn't be the same without them. I also never recognized that a species can become locally extinct, which makes sense since it's rare for every member of a species to be gathered in one area. I guess polar species are the only examples I could think of as examples. The word 'metapopulation' was also in bold as a vocabulary word, and it refers to a collection of local populations all working together so that they can't be wiped out in one fell swoop.

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Brown_Pelican/id

"Invasives are more efficient than the natives at exploiting nutrients and other resources, and without natural controls they can take over a habitat, driving some of the natives to extinction."

Over time I think I've started to equate invasive species to exotic ones in that they're just not from around the area, so reading this reminded me about the difference between them. The first animal I think of when I hear invasive is the lionfish given all the media attention it's been given in my area growing up. I never knew what exactly it was they were doing that was wrong so I looked it up. Apparently, they have very few natural predators in the Atlantic Ocean, and since they're carnivores, they've been devastating the important snapper and grouper populations ("Why are lionfish a threat to Atlantic Ocean fish?" 2019). I also never thought about how a marine invasive species is much harder to deal with than one on land, but it makes sense since we can't breathe underwater. Experts are currently at a loss for how to deal with lionfish so it seems humans will be filling in the predator role in the meantime.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/lionfish.html

"However, “no net loss” is an improvement over earlier practices that failed to address ecosystem loss (Perlman and Milder 2004, 207). Mitigation does create a financial incentive to developers for restoring or enhancing wetlands, and the practice of mitigation banking does consolidate many small projects into larger, potentially more ecologically valuable sites."

I felt like this quote applied to me and what I want as a career in the future. While I don't plan on becoming a contractor and creating new developments, I will be getting into real estate investing which I believe will provide me with many chances to contribute to conservation efforts to offset development. I love wildlife of all kinds so I can say without a doubt that I will be navigating my future job with species conservation as a high priority. While the system in the quote isn't perfect, it's many times better than not trying to mitigate losses at all, which is what we used to do.

Sources:

1. US Department of Commerce, & National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (2013, June 1). Why are lionfish a threat to Atlantic Ocean fish? Retrieved from https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/lionfish.html.
2. Robertson, M. (2017). Sustainability Principles and Practice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Water

Water

Every object we use required water for its manufacture. For example, the virtual water content of a new pair of jeans is about 3,000 gallons and the virtual water content of a new car is about 39,000 gallons.

I honestly can't say that I've ever stopped to think about how much water of all things it took to create a product. I guess I only ever considered the components that stayed in the final product. It'd be rather strange to be walking around in jeans with 3,000 gallons of water attached to them after all. Even when I'm just cooking dinner, it feels like I'm constantly having to turn on the sink for some reason or other. It helps to put the water problem into perspective in this way because it makes it relatable, which makes it easier for people to understand the problem and want to do something about it to help.

A common type of cooling system is called a cooling tower, used in most large buildings. Water flows through a building space or piece of equipment, picks up heat, and flows through the cooling tower, where evaporation lowers the temperature of the water. The water is then recirculated.
When I was working for my dad as an assistant building inspector, I saw these kinds of cooling towers all the time on the roofs of large industrial buildings. The sheer size of the things really made me think about how much technology has advanced since the Industrial Revolution. Even just imagining life without a refrigerator makes me uncomfortable. I remember visiting Spain when I was younger, where we stayed in a small, relatively undeveloped village in which A/C was a luxury. All they could do was put small fans everywhere, and it really made me appreciate what I have back here in the United States. I also have some experience with purifying water while camping on the trail. Water really tastes the best when you simply take it from a stream or lake, boil it, and then let it cool.

https://www.vacationsmadeeasy.com/TheBLT/21AwesomeMinnesotaLakesthatAllFishermenShouldKnowAbout.html

Strategies for treating and infiltrating stormwater all use permeable surfaces and include rain garden depressions and vegetated swales that replace concrete channels or pipes, porous paving that lets water infiltrate the soil instead of running off, and green roofs that soak up water instead of shunting it away.

This quote really got me interested in having a house that maximizes the potential of rainwater. I'd love to have a house in the future with a cistern from which I can draw fresh rainwater instead of having a fridge with a water dispenser on it. Not only would it be a good topic for conversation, but I'd also be helping out the environment at the same time. I'd love it if I was able to convince my friends to to do the same with their homes when the time comes. I like to think I've always been a real outdoors type, all things natural just taste a whole lot better to me. I've lived my whole life in Florida, so I'm no stranger to rain. All the strategies in the quote seem like great ideas to me and I'm looking forward to putting them into practice in my own home in the future.

Sources:

1. Robertson, M. (2017). Sustainability principles and practice. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

A Land Ethic

A Land Ethic

This first quote resonated deeply within me and made me consider how I'd been raised and the thoughts and feelings I now have in my head.

When learners are confronted only by the dangers of Earth’s dire situation, the result can be feelings of despair and hopelessness, leading to the very opposite of the response that is needed. Students need facts, but then they need to know that they can make a difference.

Looking back on life, it feels like the only sustainable habit I developed was putting recyclables into the recycling bin. I grew a bean sprout in a little clay pot at school once, but there really wasn't much of a focus on sustainability or the environment at all there. It wasn't any better at home either since my dad was working long days in construction at the time and my mother was working a nine to five only to come home and start cooking, cleaning, and making sure my brothers and I were doing our homework. I was also a straight A student growing up which meant I was sitting at the table most of the day to make sure I would keep getting those grades. Really the only time I enjoyed thoroughly interacting with nature was when I'd go out with my friends and go adventuring through our neighborhood. Joining the Boy Scouts really helped me to reconnect with my love for nature, and I've loved hiking through forests and mountains ever since. I just wish I could've started on it earlier than I did.

I found the following quote to be quite interesting when I compared it to the playgrounds I remember growing up with.

Sørensen provided an enclosed space originally known as a “junk playground,” supplied with scrap materials and simple hand tools where children could work with earth, water, even fire, interact with farmyard animals, and build their own communities, overseen by skilled playworkers who provided materials and managed risk.

I still remember my old playground in Pre-K and how it was nothing like the kind of playground described in the quote. Mine was fenced in, consisted of concrete and mulch, had the typical steel castle centerpiece, some individual seesaws, and a couple of old swing sets. On the concrete, there was a structure resembling a basketball hoop except it had four tunnels facing opposite directions through which the ball would be fed back to us. Back then I couldn't throw the ball hard enough to reach the basket at the top, which eventually led to my peers taking the ball from me in favor of someone that could actually reach. I also remember how I got quickly bored of the rest of the playground and eventually started spending most of my time on a swing. It really makes me wonder if I'd have more of an appreciation for the environment or less of a negative outlook on it if my playground environment had been a bit more diverse.

This last quote just amused me a bit, but I must admit it does make sense.

Kuan-Tzu, a collection of Chinese philosophical writings from the third century BCE, said: “If you are thinking a year ahead, sow seed. If you are thinking ten years ahead, plant a tree. If you are thinking a hundred years ahead, educate the people.”

I've always enjoyed the simple approach of Oriental philosophic writing. It seems like they're always taking a simple situation, expanding it a little, and then connecting it to a much larger idea. I feel like it is a very effective method of teaching and should be utilized more in in the West.

http://suprememastertv.com/cs1/v/63086370366.html

Sources:

1. Robertson, M. (2017). Sustainability principles and practice. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

What is Sustainability?

What is Sustainability?

The following two quotes gave me a hard time because I noticed a slight difference in one of the terms used to express essentially the same idea.

"The three dimensions of ecological sustainability, economic stability, and social inclusion are captured in the phrase sustainable development."
"It (sustainable development) was made popular in the 1987 report Our Common Future... which explicitly points at the connection between environment, economics, and equity."

       What I had a problem with was the usage of the terms 'social inclusion' and 'equity' to convey the same idea even though I believe they have little to do with each other. The other two sets of terms actually make sense when compared side by side, so why is it that the authors decided on the two aforementioned terms to describe the social aspect of ecological sustainability? For all of recorded history, nothing in society has ever been equal, and I believe it never will be because there are too many factors that we just can't control. For this reason, social inclusion makes more sense in this context because inclusion on its own doesn't necessarily imply equity. 
       Talking about equity from the standpoint of sustainable development, I honestly don't see any way to achieve it. All people may be included in the efforts to sustain our environment, but it is impossible for all of us to have equal roles in those efforts. For example, it'd be easy to plant more trees in areas such as Canada or other areas with rich soil, but it'd be much more difficult to do that in places like Sub Saharan Africa. As a result, they may end up with different tasks in order to contribute that may be harder or easier than planting trees, guaranteeing that the roles of different groups of people to sustain our environment wouldn't be equal. 

This next quote took me a while to grasp, and after pondering its meaning for a while, I realized that it was actually a good insight that made me appreciate the danger of outpacing the replacement of renewable resources.

"The power of population is so superior to the power of the Earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race."

If there is one thing wars have been waged over in early history, it would be resources. Before the Industrial Revolution, small communities had to create everything for themselves, so it was convenient for the powerful clans to just raid others so they wouldn't have to go through the process of making what they needed themselves. Today we have huge factories that make everything we need for us, so we don't really think about what goes into creating those items. However, that leads us into a state in which we have no idea how quickly we are using the Earth's resources. Eventually, some country will run out of resources and be forced to wage war on another country for their resources, leading the premature deaths discussed in the quote.

https://earthjustice.org/slideshow/images-of-mountaintop-removal-mining

This final quote seemed a bit nonsensical to me, probably due to the fact that I personally don't believe plants or landscapes have intrinsic value either. 

"In the academic world the ethics of animal rights... was sometimes criticized by other scholars because it was utilitarian, an approach that typically ascribes intrinsic value only to sentient beings but not plants or landscapes, and because it was individualistic, that is, ascribing intrinsic value to individuals only but not to ecological wholes such as ecosystems."


After reading this quote, the first thing I thought of was what a world with only non-sentient life on it would be like. What would be the point of such a world? Sure, it would probably be a beautiful landscape with magnificent plants and oceans, but nothing would be there to enjoy it. This quote almost made it seem like those in the 'academic world' wanted to give rights to these plants and landscapes, which seems somewhat ridiculous on its own. Would we be giving trees the right to not be cut down and used to build houses and make paper? While that is an exaggeration, I still don't understand how non-sentient life can have intrinsic value.

Sources:

1. Robertson, M. (2017). Sustainability principles and practice. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.