What the heck is Sustainability? It seems very obscure to most people and even to experts. When I tell people that I study it, I have to follow the sentence with “you know, going green.” And they usually reply, “Oh yea, I started buying that ecofriendly laundry detergent.” It’s frustrating.
So I would like to clear up what Sustainability really is a little bit. The technical definition that most experts have adopted is ’satisfying the needs of today without compromising the needs of future generations.” Still, this definition is obscure. How do we know what the needs of future generations will be? We can assume they will need basic things like, water, energy, health, education, shelter etc. But can we predict how much they will consume? Well, we can guess that they will need to consume less than we (the US) are consuming now because our rate of consumption cannot sustain life if it was universal.
So really, isn’t Sustainability an issue about levels of consumption? I would say so. But there is another variable that is extremely imporant. Population. Now, I am not one of these ‘life boat’ critics who say that we should control population by harsh means. Those people just want to be able to consume more by lowering the world’s population–greedy elitist bastards. This planet can handle much more people than it has already, we just have to consider elements of consumption.
The third element is preserving ecosystems. This, perhaps, is the most important element of Sustainability. Without plant and animal life, at all levels (not just the cute and cuddly ones), we cannot sustain human life. We must protect them as we protect human life, because their survival provides the direct means of our survival.
To summarize, Sustainability is about consumption, population, and perserving wildlife and ecosystems. So, if you want to provide the future inhabitants a place to live you must radically change your mindset. It is not only an internal revolution, but within society itself. We must learn to do with much less, liberate sexuality and gender to reduce population, and create a positive relationship with nature (we are apart of nature).
Herbert Marcuse was a philosopher, social critic, and New Left activist of the 60’s and 70’s. His work was critical to that movement, even generating attention to himself from the governor of California, Ronald Regan. However, Marcuse faded into the deep recesses of the American historical subconscious. And as the New Left faded, so did Marcuse. His philosophies became integrated with other scholars and their works, hardly giving him credit for their existence. He was, quite literally, wiped clean from the philosophical discourse. Some attribute this to the dissolution of campus activism and the fading of the New Left, but others attribute Marcuse’s disappearance to the maliciousness of other philosophers and academics. Marcuse’s lucidity, readabiliy, can also be attributed this disappearance. Basically, if a philosopher doesn’t write in code, obscurity, or in language only recognizable to himself, then they must not be intelligent or worth investigating.
But who was Marcuse writing for? For other academics? Perhaps, he would have liked Adorno or Horkhiemer to appreciate his works, but considering Marcuse’s attention from the press, the President of UCSD, the Governor of California, the Vice President of the United States, and ultimately the student body of UCSD and other California universities and colleges, it would be safe to assume that he wanted his writings and speaches to be accessable.
As America stretched its legs and the New Left faded into our memory. Jim Crow laws because modernized and subversive, Nixon gave credence to environmental protection with the EPA and NEPA, and Marcuse’s arguments began to loose steam as the “system” gave a perfunctory effort towards these issues. But those who knew Marcuse would say that he would never be satisfied with the social and ecological achievements of the 60’s and 70’s. The cause stood still and that energy has been subdued by a consumer society. Many would say that Capitalism delivered on its promise, of not only meeting the basic needs of its citizens, but has given it more stuff to play with and buy. But there is one massive obligation to humanity that Capitalism as swept under the rug– the gorilla in the room. Capitalism, in an expanding economy, is destroying the environment. And after the crash, recently, in my lifetime, 2008, we have seen Capitalism renege on its promises with a broken economy and millions of victimized citizens.
It is this continuing revelation that sparks an interest in Marcuse for many, for one reason: we are now faced, for the first time since the Great Depression, a chance to retool our economy, society, and relationship with nature. Marcuse had some very compelling answers to this. Although Marcuse’s ecology is widely unexamined and faintly mentioned by the man himself, many of his ecological principals are obvious in all of his work. For him critical social theory and environmental theory are one and the same. And this is why all of his work is extremely important to his ecology. Many will seek, in the age of buzzwords like sustainability, a specific solution. Contemporary sustainability, in modern impatience, asks for very specific solutions, and quite often surmount to bandaids. Out of any philosopher, Marcuse, indirectly, poses the most comprehensive and viable proposal to sustainability.
Sustainability is intentionally abstract because its problems are vast and transient. But Marcuse poses a solution that solves that conundrum with a sweeping proposal. Marcuse is often criticized for posing a lofty Utopian solution in a time where the word ‘utopia’ has become a pejorative. But I am not ready to give up on Utopian proposals, especially to the likes of Marcuse. We can shoot for them, and if we are lucky, land somewhere close. The problem with contemporary sustainability is that it focuses too heavily on technological advances, while continuing other destructive behavior. For Marcuse (although he never talks about sustainability per se) sustainability is about changing the way we live, the way we interact with each other and nature that is not destructive to current and future generations.
Marcuse’s philosophy evolved as he interacted with students, other academics, and absorbed the concept of instinctual repression from Freud. One interesting aspect about Marcuse, is that his overarching philosophy hardly changed, but was able to incorporate new and important topics into it. Some of his students would bring him issues that he was investigating (ie feminism) and he would be able to philosophize adapt them very quickly. It is this aspect of Marcuse, his pluralist flare, that makes his philosophies so well rounded and remarkable.
If you are interested in learning more about Marcuse, I would suggest starting with his book One Dimensional Man. If you are a visual learner, there is a documentary about him called Herbert’s Hippopotamus, which I have posted below.
I have heard the argument: Carbon Offset are not the perfect solution but at least they get the ball rolling. It’s true that they do generate funds towards cleaner energy. But my main concerns are time and accountability. No one is regulating what these offsets companies do with the money they receive. From my research, SterlingPlanet.com seems to be the most reputable. I’ve had a few conversations with the SVP of Business Development and they seem to be pretty squared away. Other sites take your money and who knows where it goes. Seems like a cash cow if you’re interested in starting a shady business. You can set your own price for every pound of carbon. How much would you pay to offset a pound of carbon?
Maybe you have heard of Carbon Offsets…maybe not. Here’s a quick and dirty definition: paying money towards renewable energy to cancel out carbon you emit. It’s kind of like the Enron perps doing community service for ripping off people’s retirements — those people are still screwed even if Enron execs at the local soup kitchen.
I hope I am able to demonstrate how I feel about offsets with my half-assed analogy. If not managed properly offsets provide people an excuse to pollute.
This system of paying for crimes against our environment has been happening for a while. Many corporations actually calculate future EPA fines into their budget. The fines are worth avoiding costly and cleaner technology. Remember how Ford discovered that the Pinto would explode from a side impact to the gas tank? Yea, they found that out before it became available to consumers. But they figured their profit would outweigh the inevitable lawsuits.
I have heard the argument: Carbon Offset are not the perfect solution but at least they get the ball rolling. It’s true that they do generate funds towards cleaner energy. But my main concerns are time and accountability. No one is regulating what these offsets companies do with the money they receive. From my research, SterlingPlanet.com seems to be the most reputable. I’ve had a few conversations with the SVP of Business Development and they seem to be pretty squared away. Other sites take your money and who knows where it goes. Seems like a cash cow if you’re interested in starting a shady business. You can set your own price for every pound of carbon. How much would you pay to offset a pound of carbon?
If you are going to offset your carbon, go with Sterling Planet, at least they tell you where your money is going.
I was walking through ASU campus a few days ago and stumbled upon a table that read “Green Transportation.” It’s not uncommon for the main arteries of campus to be packed with tables from business that appeal to naive students. But this table was different. Below the sign were a few motorcycles and a scooter. Naturally, me being in the business of sustainability, I was drawn to the table expecting the motorcycles to be electric or at least modified in some fashion that reduces gas consumption and emissions.
I asked the man behind the table “What is this all about? How are these motorcycles green?” He replied, ”motorcycles use less gas and pollute less than cars.” Confused, I asked again “how are these motorcycles green?” We stared at each other at an intellectual impasse. I became angry and what was left of his brain went up in smoke. He went on to tell me that his business provides motorcycle lessons to new bike riders to reduce first year rider accidents. What does this have to do with being GREEN!
At this time I was working for the Global Institute of Sustainability on campus, so I felt like I should school this guy. “Nothing about your business is green.” I said. “What? How is it not?” he said. I told him that motorcycles pollute the atmosphere, and that he is misrepresenting the word “green” for profit, with little benefit to the environment. He is destroying the credibility of people and businesses that are putting forth a true effort. Greenwashing takes momentum and out of the Sustainability Revolution: businesses, non-profits, and people who work tirelessly to save us from destruction while everyone else eats a BigMac!
I hope everyone takes the time out of their day to scrutinize these bogus claims. Until the FCC gets it butt in gear, we are going to see a lot of greenwashing. My advice is to punch yourself and listen to common sense. A new apartment complex near my house advertises themselves as green because they are building up and reducing their eco-footprint. Bogus! If you want to reduce your footprint put some solar panels on your roof, reduce your energy and water consumption, build with recycled materials. These are general and basic ways to live green. Take the bus, ride your bike or walk to work. The best ways to save the environment are the most obvious. For more info on green building, visit the US Green Building Council’s website.
I received my B.S. in Justice Studies and Social Inquiry with a Minor in Psychology and M.A. in Interdisciplinary Studies (Environmental Social Science) from Arizona State University. I have also volunteered for the Americorps program with the Nevada Conservation Corps where I helped preserve riparian habitats. I lived in the wilderness for three months at Great Basin National Park, which lies on the border of Utah and Nevada. Living in the wilderness for three months with no running water or modern luxuries was the experience of my life. My education and various experiences solidified my interest in environmental work.
I write this blog as a hobby and as a guide to laypeople. I think it is important for people to build a better understanding of these pressing issues. I am open to any questions or debates about environmental issues and social theory.
Since GM killed its electric car endeavors, for now, several companies have stepped forward to pick up the slack. Most of them are based in Europe, but the U.S. has a funny way of catching up. I bet you’re asking: Electric car? First, who would even want to drive an electric car? How fast and how far could an electric car go? Second, no reputable car manufacturer even makes one. Lastly, in terms of sustainability electric cars still have to be charged off the grid, which is most likely powered by polluting sources.
People let me quell your fears. An electric car reduces carbon emissions by at least 95%! Sure, these cars would use energy from the grid, but that energy is created far more efficiently than a car engine. Think about it, if car engines were so great we would have whole power plants lined wall to wall with Escalade engines. Further, the environmental impacts can be regulated much easier by responsible local and state governments. I still think they are more effective at environmental issues than the broken EPA.
It’s true that the major car manufacturers have little interest in producing electric cars just yet. Eventually they will make this step, like the little baby step they made with hybrid engines, but gas is like crack to them. GM’s EV1 was an excellent example of an electric car. But they pulled the plug on it for reasons we all know (petrol crack). So, they have the technology readily available and have the resources to make it happen. They will even save money in production because an electric motor is far less complex than, lets say, a hybrid engine?
As far as asking who would drive an electric car? Me. They are actually pretty awesome. An electric motor can produce an astounding amount of torque, giving you amazing acceleration. When you really think about, all those motor-heads want is acceleration anyway. Does anyone really need a car that can top 120 mph? I did some research and have found some pretty sweet alternatives to the major motor companies. First, there are different types of electric vehicles that range all the way from a scooter to electric supercars like the Tesla. As far as cars go there are three catagories: Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEV’s), three wheel NEV’s (which operate under a motorcycle registration and title), and highway capable electric vehicles (HCEV’s). NEV’s in general are regulated at 25 mph and 35 mph in some states because they do not meet safety standards, and because they literally can’t go that fast. Which means NEV’s can only drive on roads with a posted speed limit of no more than 35 mph. It most big cities in the west that is very limiting. In addition, most NEV’s are limited to a range of about 35-40 miles. Which in reality isn’t bad since the average driver commutes an average of 16 miles a day.
My favorite is the Aptera. Its a little funky design-wise, and may not appeal to conservative car buyers, but this car blows away the competition. It is also nicely priced between 27k and 30k.
The APTERA TYPE-1
What sets this car apart from others is that according to Aptera.com, this car can reach speeds over 90 mph and has a range of over 120 miles on a single charge. Unfortunately it will be sold regulated at 85 mph.
One of its most amazing features is aside from its stock air conditioner, is its solar powered air conditioner that runs when the car is not in use. This keeps the car cool on hot days and warm on cold ones, which makes those first moments after getting into the car much more pleasant. In addition it only takes 2-4 hours to fully charge and it exceeds all of the federal safety standards.
Enought about the Aptera and more about its competition. Most of the other NEV’s and HCNEV’s seem to be three wheeled like the Aptera. ZAP! is also an innovator in NEV’s and HCNEV’s using the three-wheeled design, as well as four wheel designs in conjunction with Lotus Engineering such as the ZAP-X, priced at $60,000. It’s top speed is about 155 mph and a range of 350 miles.
ZAP-X
The ZAP Alias is the sport version of the more modestly priced ZAP Xebra.
