My Topics in Sustainable Development class at UT recently read three papers on the topic of–sustainable development. We were asked to write a summary and critical analysis that totaled no more than 2 pages. Click the link below to read my summary. The papers were:
“Sustainable Policy? A Public Debate about Nature Development in the Netherlands” by Wiebe E. Bijeker. 
Chapters 1 & 2 of “Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature” by Douglas Farr. Hoboken, NJ.: Wiley, c2008
“Ecology and Land Development: Past Approaches and New Directions in the Practice of Sustainable Development” edited by D.R. Porter. Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute.
Wiebe E. Bijker (Topic: Sustainable Politics & the Constructionist view of Technology)
Summary
In the past, technology and science threatened democracy in an obvious way: WWII, nuclear. Today their threat to democracy is occurring, but it’s less obvious—it’s more insidious. People assume that science is a neutral process and therefore new products and how they are used are inevitable. But that’s not true:
How technology develops is a conscious decision—not the inevitable result of a neutral scientific process. Inasmuch as we guide the direction scientific development, the decision regarding the direction should be made democratically. Sustainable politics in a technological society is about remembering that it is the people who determine what we want to do, not just scientists telling other people what we can do. Goals first, Tools second—whether the tools be scientific developments or free markets.
My responses
This is true. For example, Nuclear Energy is still an enormous threat to democracy, yet it is still used and promoted throughout Europe and the U.S because it is consistently viewed only as a sound scientific development rather than as a way of producing energy that feeds concentrations of powers and counters the freedom of the individual in many ways.
The Platform Science and Ethics sounds like a good idea—It makes relevant not just available scientific methods (i.e., A-Bomb, genetically modify food), but also what various people prefer (i.e., numerous native American groups in the U.S. and Canada that have protested nuclear power plants—simply the fact that they are against them matters).
Scholarly articles should be in written in plain language and placed on the Internet. An article shouldn’t be so mysterious as to hinder quick expansion on the ideas. I hope our paper for the Alley Flat project is more readable.
Douglas Farr (Topic: Redefining “sustainability” and “urbanism”)
Summary
If you act like a pig, you’ll find yourself living in a pigsty. The American standard of living—what is considered a desirable way to live—is the major factor lying at the root of nationwide physical and mental health and environmental problems. A change in mindset—a sustainable way of being—will positively affect all aspects of life in the U.S.:
Cities do not have to be the dark, problematic places known in our collective subconscious. Using the principles of smart growth, they can be bright sources of our primary solution to current living conditions.
My responses
One thing the chapters touch on that is so true but hardly anyone says is that sustainability demands recognition of the interconnectivity of all the environmental movements. I see that notion as applying not just between environmental groups, but between environmentalism and other areas, like policy, law, and politics. It’s all one thing—as a goal, there’s little point to isolating a clean environment from an improved educational system and the right to information.
These chapters are particularly relevant to Austin today. A lot of homes are being built that are “green” in only one sense—but “green” McMansions are not the answer. Last week, someone in class asked who the teacher and guests envisioned living in Alley Flats and I wanted to say: us, me, you—because essential to any green building movement in Austin is a campaign to redefine: “The kind of house I live in”, “The kind of neighborhood I live in”, “The way I get around”.
The Buckminster Fuller quote is like Gandhi’s quote: “Be the change you want to see in the world”. I think this is the only avenue to a better planet.
Douglas R. Porter (Topic: Urban designs that preserve environmental and cultural integrity)
Summary
Through efforts on the federal, state and local levels, many American cities have been planned with regard to open spaces and containing sprawl.
My Responses
On page 12, the authors state that, “prospects for using land use controls to achieve open-space preservation are uncertain. . .the 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council intimidated public officials from advocating noncompensatory land use regulations . . .” I think that as momentum for sustainability builds, states (which is a collective way to refer to the people in an area) will be more likely to offer better compensation to property owners in order to put in place sustainable land use regulations, and also that courts might be more inclined to find that a state has a justifiable interest in taking by regulating land use for sustainability reasons. Where takings have been most problematic is when the power is essentially used to kick poor people off land that has become valuable just to build a money-making machine, like a stadium.
Tags: D.R. Porter, Design with nature, Douglas Farr, green building, sustainable development, sustainable urbanism, Urban Land Institute, Wiebe Bijeker
