|
Post by CRCP on Nov 6, 2006 12:16:05 GMT -5
Member posts on this topic follow:
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 6, 2006 12:37:54 GMT -5
There have been several articles written recently on the subject of the attempt by some in our society to use the growing public interest in sustainability to promote their economic agenda under the guise of environmentally responsible action. This is being done by developers and business interests which are furthering their familiar self-interest under the new banners of "sustainable development" and "smart growth" practices. Kent Portney in Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously uses the example of Portland, Oregon which to many is a showcase for "smart growth". There Portney states "there is concern that Portland's sustainability initiative may have been motivated by the city's growth machine's pursuit of economic development."
But one doesn't have to look to Portland as this is happening right here in our own city where there are people for whom the term "sustainable development" means sustainable profit growth. However, they are cleverly packaging their agenda in order to gain community acceptance. There is a lot of deception going on but astute observers of the political scene should be able to see through it. As former UN High Commissioner S.A. Khan wrote in a 2002 article "Beyond the limits of sustainable growth: Earth on the market," "Sustainable development has been diverted by business, which has equated it with sustainable growth -- an oxymoron that reflects the conflict between the mercantile vision of the world and an environmental, social and cultural vision."
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 16, 2006 21:45:44 GMT -5
Differences between pro-development, "smart growth", and "sustainable development":
The pro-development perspective:
Blah, blah, blah; growth is inevitable.
The "smart growth" perspective:
Blah, blah, blah; growth is inevitable. Blah, blah, blah; grow up, not out!
The "sustainable development" perspective:
Blah, blah, blah; growth is inevitable. Blah, blah, blah; grow up, not out. Blah, blah, blah; let's put a "green" roof on it with a couple of solar panels!
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 19, 2006 12:40:47 GMT -5
Any meaningful community action towards achieving sustainability must address the root causes of unsustainability at both the local and global level which are overpopulation and overconsumption. The business agenda which is disguised as "smart growth" and "sustainable development" does not address these root causes of unsustainability and are merely band-aid solutions to a much more fundamental problem. "Smart growth" and "sustainable development" are being touted as solutions because they attract the least opposition due to their catchy sounding slogans. After all, who can argue with anything that is being presented as "smart" or "sustainable". But when people realize that these solutions are neither smart nor sustainable, they will have no alternative but to address the root causes of the problem, overpopulation and overconsumption.
|
|
dmgr
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by dmgr on Nov 19, 2006 23:19:29 GMT -5
John, you have a very good point, overconsumption is a major problem in North America, but solutions, other than stopping the popuation growth can, and should be considered. There are some ways consumption can be reduced, and those policies should be put into place. Policies like using solar engergy, gray water, natural landscaping, water meters, low flow toilets, capturing rain water, tougher regulations on companies that pollute, green roofs, limiting sprawl, and the list goes on. None of these things will have an amazing outcome on their own, but the combination of them will be significant.......we already know that the recycling program here has reduced the amount of garbage going to our landfill, and gas being created by the landfill is being used to for a small power plant........ How do we stop population growth? There is no place on Earth where the modern lifestyl does not have a negative impact on the environment. Most countries in the world would be thrilled if they had the amount of space and resources that we have here, so I doubt that we have reached the point of having an unsustainable population here in the valley. Let's consider cities like HongKong, LA, and Soeul; They all have populations in the multi millions and are all in regions that are arguably worse candidates to sustain those populations than Kelowna is. They may each have their problems as cities, and I don't believe I'd want kelowna to be like any of them, but even if we had no limits on growth we would never reach the populations those cities have. Do they have problems in those cities, absolutely Yes, but was it those cities that ran out of water this summer???No, it was the small town of Tofino. My point is, whether large or small, every city has to build the infrastructure and adopt policies that will accommodate the population of that city, whether it be large or small. How do you stop population growth?? It may be possible to do it at the local level, but not much beyond that. Would it not be ethical for Canada, a country with more land and resources than most, to allow people from other places to move here, so that, even at the micro level, some pressure it taken off of their local environments??? Or would you like to see state governments to aopt zero growth policies for their populations if they are a densely populated state? Should we stop immigration, force other countries o adopt controls on their birthrates??? Where does the zero growth policy stop? Unfortunately, there will be and are negative impacts on growth, but the same could be said for rural living, as well. Access to educational facilities and health facilities tend to be better in larger centers, the same goes for cultural events, better libraries, better recycliing programs, better water system, and tougher restrictions on building codes. The negatives are heavier traffic, increased crime, increased temperatures in city center, and greater pressure on the natural resources........the trick to find a balance. Accepting one extreme policy over the other will likely result in an extreme consequence. Developments must be carefullyconsidered, appropriate for the area, and the infrastructure must be in place to accommodate it.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 20, 2006 10:47:15 GMT -5
You make some good points and raise some good questions here which Rick or I will get to as soon as we can. I have a pretty full plate at the moment as I'm preparing for a three day conference on sustainability to be held this week. But when I can find some time I will address your concerns.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Nov 20, 2006 11:05:14 GMT -5
I'd like to see some documentation that demonstrates that population control is an extreme position, especially when compared with the alternatives. There are many, and the number seems to be growing daily, who view it as the only position, and numerous references have already been given at this forum to support that idea, and to reputable people and organizations which support the idea.
So, let's see some evidence to the contrary. Along the way, how about addressing the issue of the maximum possible population in the Okanagan Valley (or on the planet), what we do when we reach that maximum, and whether reaching that maximum is actually desirable?
I do find the following comment self-contradictory, given that no other context was provided:
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Nov 20, 2006 12:14:29 GMT -5
I recently attended a workshop on culture where those sitting at my table discussed some aspects of growth. One fellow said in one sentence that "growth is inevitable" and that we can't stop growth, and then in a later sentence that growth will stop by itself. I told him that his position was contradictory and to please tell me how growth will stop on its own, but all I got from him was an icy stare. I'm wondering how many people in our community think the same way he does that we can't stop growth but that the population explosion will all magically correct itself without some terrible calamity such as an extreme water shortage occurring first. But then I also know of some people who don't watch the news because they find it too depressing. Well, the surest way to guarantee our rendezvous with disaster is to continue with a blase attitude that the situation will take care of itself.
|
|
dmgr
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by dmgr on Nov 20, 2006 12:31:02 GMT -5
I am not going to provide evidence that "no growth'' policies are extreme....I think it is pretty self-evident that they are, extreme being at the far end of the spectrum......(if growth policies could be looked at as a spectrum, zero growth would be at one end, and uncontrolled at the other, anything else would fall in between, so by definition, "no growth, or zero growth is extreme". On global scale, how does "no growth" work? It is only in developled countries that the birthrate is slowing down, but in developing countries, the birthrate is alarming.......so, if "no growth'' was adopted on a global scale, it would be extreme in that governments would have to slow the birthrate...........So, where does one draw the line with "no growth" policies???
|
|
dmgr
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by dmgr on Nov 20, 2006 12:35:40 GMT -5
I honestly did not think that I would have to explain this statement "but even if we had no limits on growth we would never reach the populations those cities have." because there is absolutely no chance Kelowna will ever reach the level of population that LA, Tokyo, Soeul, or HongKong in the near future or even in our lifetime. It took Kelowna over 100years to hit 100,000 so do I really need to explain why I don't believe we'd hit 10 million or more???
I do agree that there should be consideration as to the maximum population that can be carried, however, until a comprehensive study is done for the region as a whole, any number that you or find acceptable is just an arbitrary figure with no facts to back it up. I would find it rather unlikely that we have reached that limit yet, as there are many mega cities around the world that are in regions that are even more hostile than ours for growth.
Is it possible that te position that has been taken on this site is largely based on personal preferences?? I understand many people find cities unattractive, others find rural living just as unattractive, and both groups are likely to find studies and reports that support their position.......social policies are not a science, so they alway produce multiple and contradictory conclusions............the only thing that is for sure, is that we abuse our natural resources, and the environment suffers the consequences, how we deal with that is the question that there are competing answers to. I might be wrong that we are still able to grow, you might be wrong that we cannot. I would say that a real question on the growth issue is "what are your values?" for each person it is different. John is probably approaching his retirement years, so his values are different from mine, as I am looking for career opportunities, as a result, we approach the same topic from a different position...........that doesn't mean either of us is wrong, but it does mean that, as members of the community, we need to find a balance and compromise.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Nov 20, 2006 13:22:58 GMT -5
I honestly did not think that I would have to explain this statement "but even if we had no limits on growth we would never reach the populations those cities have." because there is absolutely no chance Kelowna will ever reach the level of population that LA, Tokyo, Soeul, or HongKong in the near future or even in our lifetime. But you are leaving the door open for Kelowna's population to reach those levels at some time in the future? If not, why not? Some of us take a longer term perspective than others, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Nov 20, 2006 13:25:50 GMT -5
Is it possible that te position that has been taken on this site is largely based on personal preferences?? Actually, it's a very reasoned and informed position, supported by literature, credible sources, and the like, and that literature and those sources have already been cited many times in this forum. So, what is the basis for other positions? Personal preference, greed, apathy, or something else? I'd sure like to see some references and sources for what you say, otherwise, it's simply a statement of personal opinion and preference.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Nov 20, 2006 13:27:55 GMT -5
(if growth policies could be looked at as a spectrum, zero growth would be at one end, and uncontrolled at the other, anything else would fall in between, so by definition, "no growth, or zero growth is extreme". Actually, many negative population growth groups exist on this planet, so others view that as the extreme instead. So, by definition, no growth is the middle ground between negative and positive.
|
|
dmgr
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by dmgr on Nov 20, 2006 14:44:58 GMT -5
Why does greed always come into play as a to promote growth? At what point does one become greedy?? The vast majority of people that benefit from developments are the middle and lower classes, those that are employed in the construction, advertising, decorating, sales, etc of whatever development is being built......finallly, it is the person hired on full time at the end of construction to work at that place that benefits I(some minumum wage earners, and some professionals). I am not saying that the information that supports your position is false, but I am saying that there is competing information out there, and that should be acknowledged. If it was so evident that the zero growth position was the only truth out there, why is it such a hard sell?? It is a hard sell because of the competing information that exists. Have you Rick or John read any competing information out there with an open mind, or do you dismiss it before getting into it? I will not disapgree with you that bigger cities have more traffic, more noise, more congestion, but people still choose to live and move to them, which is an indication that many millions of people do not find those issues to be the most important factors when evaluating their quality of life. I don't know how long you have lived here, Rick, but I do know approximately how long John has been here. I have lived here my whole life, and I have seen some of the benefits that growth has brought. The educational facilities are better ( a college and a highly recognized university), the hospital performs a wider variety of procedures (spend one night with a broken arm with no cast because the hospital was too small for a 24hr cast room and you will be greatfull that the hospital is now bigger), we now have a cancer clinic, we have a ballet company and more live theater, a city wide recycling program, and an unemployment rate that is finally well below 10%.........are any of these things bad?......They must be, because they are the result of growth.........
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Nov 20, 2006 15:45:00 GMT -5
Why does greed always come into play as a to promote growth? I only mentioned it as one of the options, and I asked for others. Why do people get so defensive when the word "greed" is used? At what point does one become greedy?? In some definitions, it's when our actions have negative consequences for others. I tend to follow that definition, and there are many, many examples of how our current lifestyle in Canada is detrimental to the rest of the world. So, yes, I am included in that definition to a certain extent, although I try to minimize my impact and advocate loudly for change. The vast majority of people that benefit from developments are the middle and lower classes You seem to be repeating the typical economist's perspective. The reality is very different. WHO, the World Bank, and various other groups point out repeatedly that the pattern is that the very rich get richer, while the rest get poorer. I guess that you didn't see what was in another thread, so here it is again for your benefit: If it was so evident that the zero growth position was the only truth out there, why is it such a hard sell?? It is a hard sell because of the competing information that exists. In my opinion, it is a hard sell because of all the vested interest in maintaining the status quo, because of all the propaganda and groupthink surrounding the issue of growth, because people don't in general seem to be very good at looking at long term consequences (such as that of exponential growth of population), because traditional economists see people as simply little consumers rather than human beings affected by pollution, environmental degradation, and so on (you know, "externalities"), and for a host of other reasons. How does that go again? Something like "Any new idea is radical until it becomes mainstream." Have you Rick or John read any competing information out there with an open mind, Absolutely. How about you? So, again, I would certainly like to see some citations and documentary evidence that will support your point of view that the rather moderate position of a population cap is untenable. I've asked for that time and time again, and you keep avoiding the issue. Show us what you can do. Show us that that expensive education you are getting is useful. Thanks.
|
|