What the hell is "sustainable"? Can anyone define it?

Thanks
JK

How appropriate as it starts to rain, and the city will likely be dumping a bunch of sewage into the river...

Jim: In your case, I think it's something along the lines of "objection sustained."

What the hell is "sustainable"? Can anyone define it?

Well, here's the opening paragraph in the report linked in this posting. Seems like a reasonable place to start for defining "sustainable".

"The SustainLane 2006 US city rankings of the 50 largest cities is the nation’s most complete report card on urban sustainability. The rankings explain how people’s quality of life and city economic and management preparedness are likely to fare in the face of an uncertain future. These indicators gauge, for instance, which cities’ public transit, renewable energy, local food, and development approaches are more likely to either limit or intensify the negative economic and environmental impacts of fossil fuel dependence."

Also, please note that there is an active subdiscipline within professional geography that focuses on some of these issues as well, such as trying to assess a community's "resilience" in the face of natural disaster. It tries to bring together perspectives and tools from physical science, social science, and economics.

Maybe you don't like the definitions here, but treating them as a joke or as just more fodder for your superior sneering is pretty off-putting.

fodder for your superior sneering

This kind of comment is not allowed here.

Just one example of how professional geographers try to address sustainability. It's a completely legitimate field of study--applied science, really. It's too bad that a word like "sustainable" gets some folks' noses out of joint.

"Sustainable" is a substitute word.
Around here it's the subsitiute for "chaos", which is what our so-called planning spawns.
It's all quite simple really.
Here in Oregon, and more so in the Metro region, we have a disproportionate share of people in policy making positions who dislike progress and growth. So much so that they see the the chaos they promote as preferable.
Under the pretense of "planning growth"
words like "sustainable" provide cover for the planners who are busy planning plans which have no plan to accommodate the needs of growth at all.
Not for traffic, freight mobility, affordable housing, commercial and industrial development, jobs, government basic services funding, failing infrastructure, on and on and on.

Another substitute word the anti-growthers like to use is "alternative".
"Alternative" is a substitute for "obstruction".
Every time a road, bypass, connector, freeway, corridor expressway or bridge need comes up planners get busy obstructing the process while hiding behind the word "alternative".
But as with other word substituting there's nothing "alternative" about what they are doing. "Alternative" suggests a measure of sameness. As if the same outcome is achieved. Of course that is nonsense in this planner's world of word substituting. In reality the "alternatives" (mostly "modes" of transportation or development) provide no outcome remotely resembling that which they are an "alternative" to.
So every time you hear "sustainable" substitute "chaos" and for "alternative" substitute "obstruction".
That's all for now.
Class dismissed.

Chaos??

If you want true chaos go take a look at a couple places with little or no planning such as Houston or LA. Is the sprawl of those regions the opposite of chaos?

Around here, "sustainable" is like "progressive" -- terms that cause many voters to suspend all critical thinking and blindly accept whatever is being offered next.

I agree. And, I blogged in this one a few weeks ago:

www.ecohuman.com/?p=7

There's also a lot of good info over at the Global Footprint Network - they do economic and scientific analysis on sustainability.

I agree with Jack that it's a silly word that makes many otherwise-rational people week in the knees... but the concept is, in general, a very positive thing.

It just gets overused, misused, and abused.

Here in Oregon, and more so in the Metro region, we have a disproportionate share of people in policy making positions who dislike progress and growth. So much so that they see the the chaos they promote as preferable. Under the pretense of "planning growth" words like "sustainable" provide cover for the planners who are busy planning plans which have no plan to accommodate the needs of growth at all.

This may well contain some valid criticism, but it ignores the fact that some people seriously investigate "sustainability", or "resilience", or whatever you want to call it. Let's try to get past the idea that the simple use of a word implies anything about policy recommendations.

As far as I know, the OFFICIAL city slogan is still "The City that Works." I believe "It's not easy being green" was adopted a few years ago by the Portland Oregon Visitors Association as a marketing slogan . . . A quick glance at their website reveals a logo with a sketchy tree and the slogan below.

Kind of like the official motto of Oregon being "She flies with her own wings," while the marketing slogan is "We like dreamers." (Did they stick with that one?)

No time for a detailed reply, but the word appears to be a cover for crazy schemes to rebuild society to maximize Homer's profits and Trimet's readership without regard to people's preferences.

The answer to all of society's problems (in Portland) always seem to come down to:

1. Shove high density into every neighborhood.
2. Get rid of cars
3. Build tax subsidized condo towers and light rail.

But if we really want to be TOTALLY SUSTAINABLE, shouldn't we all live on
a lot large enough to grow our food and produce energy with a windmill and solar panels?

Thanks
JK

Lesson II
It's all crap.

"It's not easy being green"

No it's not. When the Portland Office of Sustainable development got together with Metro and others to create the bogus emissions report it took a lot of work.
The report claimed that Portland, through policies such as light rail, smart growth and tree planting had successfully reduced CO2 emissions while also having no adverse effect on the local economy.

It was ALL concocted propaganda to legitimize the status quo.
Emissions were never measured, they had no real idea what the outcome of the policies were and the economic effect was nothing but self serving presumptions.

The perfect storm of propaganda which the O and NY Times picked up.

"It's not easy being green"?

Sure it is. All they need to do is to sustain the alternative to the truth.

Wait -- true or false:

In 1993, it was the first city to reduce greenhouse gas emissions...

Qiao said -

"The rankings explain how people’s quality of life and city economic and management preparedness are likely to fare in the face of an uncertain future."

Okay, if the future is uncertain (about the only thing that IS certain is that the future is uncertain) - then how the heck are we suppose to know how we are going to fare???

The above quote is known as nonsense - you do the best you can but all one can do is prepare for a short term temporary situation, a span of less than a year. To pretend that we can predict/forecast the future is ... well, can you say Madame Cleo?

http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?&a=9164&c=cheid

“...it ignores the fact that some people seriously investigate “sustainability”, or “resilience”

I always love it when people investigate, SERIOUSLY. It always makes me trust their investigating methodology when they are SERIOUS.

I sure loved the CoP's SERIOUS investigation on the cost of PHART and SoWa. I was enraptured with their SERIOUS investigation and appaisal of the Portland Police Headquarters block. They were REALLY SERIOUS at a value of negative $1.9 million. But, they were REALLY, REALLY SERIOUS at a value of positive $1.12 million.

Seriously... if they get any more serious...

lin said,
"Let's try to get past the idea that the simple use of a word implies anything about policy recommendations."

Huh? Who's "Let's"

Anyone have that idea and they need help getting past it?

To me the 90 percent of Oregon outside the limits of Metro is a heck of lot more sustainable than the high population density Metro area. How would Portland make it without Federal grants and support from the rest of the state?

Composting.

lin,

the word "sustainability" has serious policy implications. for example, the Office of Sustainable Development was created and funded, without anyboby really knowing what "sustainability" is. there's a Sustainable Development Commission, which isn't even worth critiquing here.

and so on. is green building "sustainable"? how so? is being able to build as many buildings as we want (as long as they have ecoroofs) "sustainable"?

it's not about getting hung up on the word, because the word has so many meanings as to be meaning-less. the goals of "sustainability" are at best a warm, green coat, and at worst an outright lie we tell ourselves and the rest of society to stave off the gnawing fear that we really have (and are) screwing ourselves and the ecology.

Composting.

Posted by Jack Bog | February 11, 2007 9:29 PM

ROTFLMAO

What the hell is "sustainable"? Can anyone define it?

I just finished reading the book "The Big Oyster" (Mark Kurlansky)

Sustainability would have been New York City STILL producing and selling millions of oysters every year, once so common -and cheap-- that oyster stands stood as ubiquitously as hot dog stands do today.

Instead they're gone. Oysters beds shut down and gone, the industries --and jobs--around them gone. No more exports to Europe, or California...gone.

Killed off my pollution and overfishing. But mostly pollution.

NOT sustainable. Get it, Jim?

That's all well and good for Oysters Frank. It makes the sustainability crowd seem so reasonable.
But why doesn't the "sustainability" club consider sustainable logging OK? They are always out front standing in the way of any and all logging. Even when it's burned out forest salvaging.

Same goes for many other sustainable considerations with the enviros who worship the word so much forever clogging up reasonable policy making on their road to chaos making.

There is nothing sustainable about the Portland region, period. With all of the forced density, infill and obliterating of 1000s of pieces of once treed, brush, and green large lots, empty lots and spaces deemed not worth saving the region of 20 years ago was not sustained. The region of today is not being sustained.
As you are discovering in your own neighborhood with the infill of a TOD the chaos rolls along. Ushered along by those hiding behind cover words and planner's
theories.
The same thinking and same ones who schemed along SoWa, the Tram and now the CC hotel.

Composting

Absolutely! No more cemetaries! That land is valuable condo space!

As for "sprawl"...lets be honest. Is it really that much of a problem here in Oregon? I mean think about it...if in 50 years we double the land we live on here, it will still be less than ten percent of the land in the state. Where's the problem?

And the whole farm land argument is BS...you cant sell that to me when the same people bitching about "farm land" are the ones taking the water away from the farmers!

From wikipedia:

Sustainable - The ability to continue a defined behavior indefinitely.

Based on the laws of physics -- without a doubt impossible, but much like the laws of economics -- rewritten by environmentalists.

Sustainable is nothing more then a feel good word created to put spin on a set of policies. Sustainable consumes some resources (like the environment) at a slower pace but at the expense of another resource (money).

Jon: And the whole farm land argument is BS...you cant sell that to me when the same people bitching about "farm land" are the ones taking the water away from the farmers!
JK: My guess is that it has several factions:

The keep the city riff-raff (like us) out of the Goldschmidt wine country crowd. They don’t want us in their exclusive neighborhood.

Then there is the out of state environmental money that was the second biggest contributor against M37. Right after the winery owner. Probably to preserve their “Oregon experiment” with us as the guinea pigs.

Better to keep us concentrated in cities. (Oregon has concentration cities!)

Thanks
JK

The growth rate of city government is not sustainable.

I hope.

JK: But if we really want to be TOTALLY SUSTAINABLE, shouldn't we all live on
a lot large enough to grow our food and produce energy with a windmill and solar panels?

No one said "totally". I don't personally want to do any of what you suggest, but I do want options for procurring locally-sourced products where possible - Hood River pears rather than those airfreighted from Argentina or Chile, for example. Sustainability means, among other things, that I consider my cost of the product as well as the cost to society for producing and delivering the product.

Hood River pears rather than those airfreighted from Argentina or Chile, for example.

There's that pesky thing called the seasons of the year, isn't there? With global warming, maybe not...

Sustainability is a beloved buzzword amongst our politicians. A couple years ago I wrote about the city's "sustainable" business awards. Companies got awards for handling their stormwater, etc. Six out of the seven weren't private businesses, they were hospitals or government agencies.

If we agree on the definition of sustainability as being the ability to continue a defined behavior indefinitely, then a sustainable business is one that makes a profit. Without profit, a business is unsustainable.

Diverting your downspout will not ensure your business is sustainable.

Check out Costco and probably other retailers as well - they're offered year-round even when the local products are available. And nitrogen storage warehouses such as what Washington apple growers collectively invested in, can greatly prolong the retail season.

A couple of years back, a Hood River grower's co-operative successfully prevailed upon local Safeways to stock their products, rather than buy from Chile. That's what sustainability is about.

If we don't like M37 and its impacts to farmland such as Hood River valley, we'd all better start thinking about the total cost.

'But why doesn't the "sustainability" club consider sustainable logging OK? They are always out front standing in the way of any and all logging. Even when it's burned out forest salvaging.'

That's outright false. Ask the Nature Conservancy, which has succesful sustainable logging agreements with many companies. The definition of "sustainable" is made by professional biologists and usually involves features such as
* no clear cutting
* leaving sufficient brush behind
* controlled burns
* cycling through different areas to cut
* leaving certain patches unlogged

"Burned out forest salvaging" is NOT sustainable. It turns out that a large number of the North American forest ecosystems depend on intermittent fires to function properly; for instance, a lot of the undergrowth plants have seeds which only germinate after fires. It also turns out that the presence of fallen trees, brush, ash, and other residue from the fire is necessary for a lot of the forest to regrow properly. Ask any actual forest ecologist or manager.

Clearing out a burned forest is usually a way to kill the forest and prevent it from regrowing properly.

Don't mock what you don't understand.

Nathanael,
Thank you for making my point.

Salvaging doesn't have to mean "clearing out" and "killing the forest".

That's what you want it to mean in order to stop all salvaging.

Sustainable logging is where the logging is performed at a pace lesser than the pace of re-growth and replacement of the forest as it was before logging.

That doesn't mean adopting ALL your little dictates meant to stop all logging.

And,,, I like mocking,, so say hi to Tre Arrow for me. I think he is in a Federal Prison. Have you even been a guest?

Is adding an estimated one million people (by official estimates) to the Portland area by 2050 sustainable?

Nobody knows.

In the year 2050, I wonder what sustainability will mean.

In 2100, a mere 93 years away, less than two lifetimes--I wonder how a Portland metro area of several million people will be "sustainable"?

One thing's for sure--there won't be enough "sustainably logged" trees to go around.

Clearing out a burned forest is usually a way to kill the forest and prevent it from regrowing properly.

If you need an example, just look at the Tillamook Burn area. It just hasn't regrown properly.

properly is code for "exactly like it was before". Which is a convenient rap on the results of almost all human activities. Therefore we, as humans, are just not "sustainable".

"One thing's for sure--there won't be enough "sustainably logged" trees to go around."

What makes you think that? We're not running out of trees. Only the freedom to sustainably log them.
You must not have any grasp of how much potential sustainable logging exists.

And that fits your feelings on the matter.

Howard,

i'm not very good at judging other people's actual feelings or the extent of their knowledge. my comment wasn't directed at anybody in particular, either.

i think we are "running out of trees". we import more timber every year. stocks are declining. old growth is nearly gone, never to return with our current practices.

it makes me profoundly sad to see the old growth largely disappear, and clearcuts striping the land.

beyond that, i won't debate how much of Oregon's forests should (or shouldn't) be logged, or what level is "sustainable".

The(y) keep the city riff-raff (like us) out of the Goldschmidt wine country crowd. They don’t want us in their exclusive neighborhood.

Anne and I spent Saturday in wine country. Domaine Drouhin, with its incredible views. Willakenzie. Elk Cove. Anne Amie. Wrapped up the evening at Hip Chicks Do Wine, the lesian owned and run inner city winery off SE Holgate.

Didn't see Goldschmidt anywhere. (He's sold his vineyard, by the way.) Lots of people though, including riff-raff like Anne and I. Nothing exclusive about any of it (well, except for Willakenzie which was open only for club members who regularly buy their wine. But anyone can...)

In large measure "sustainability" and "green" are sale gimmicks. I am not saying we shouldn't try to employ some of the elements in each that fit a program, and have proven benefits.

In the 60's and 70's when some of us were employing solar technology, solar passive design, common-sense in building related to nature. and more; they all encompassed elements that were employed on an individual basis without the big hype. Now we package it as "green" and "sustainable" with a sales gimmick attached. The consumers are not being given the complete facts that their "bamboo floors" really didn't save 20% less energy.

There are several recent reports, studies, and research that demonstrates the hype concerning "sustainability" and it's benefits to mankind is overally exaggerated.

Sustainable, green and organic all mean the same, that's "hang on to your wallet".

Ecohuman: Please wake up. We are importing more timber because we aren't cutting any thanks to people like you. Every timber sale is challenged in the courts. Trees that would have been cut are growing. That means there's more wood on the stump which means stocks are not declining. You are also wrong in that old growth trees will never return. Since existing trees aren't being cut, all that stands in the way of old growth is time. A large majority of the land that has been clear cut is replanted.

What we now have because of people like you is Gordon Smith filibustering the Senate for federal money to bailout our bankrupt counties because they no longer have O&C money coming from timber harvests.

Perhaps I'm naive, but is there no middle ground on these issues anymore?

* I want us to log the forests at a rate that is slightly below replacement, so that in 100 years there is more forest land in Oregon than there is today.

* I want people to buy local whenever possible in order to sustain local farmers and industry, but I don't want to be yelled at when I crave a pear salad in May and buy a South American pear.

* I want our government to plan for growth through zoning, the UGB, and higher density, while still allowing reasonable (and inevitable) development.

* I want everyone to recycle everything they can, and I want people to be educated about how much waste we produce so that they will voluntarily choose products with less packaging.

* I want people (including greens) to accept that economic growth is important and essential, and I want businesses to recognize and mitigate their own negative externalities.

AAA: Qiao said -

"The rankings explain how people’s quality of life and city economic and management preparedness are likely to fare in the face of an uncertain future."

No, actually I was just excerpting the first paragraph of the article that was being lampooned in this posting.

Carol: I always love it when people investigate, SERIOUSLY. It always makes me trust their investigating methodology when they are SERIOUS.

I sure loved the CoP's SERIOUS investigation on the cost of PHART and SoWa. I was enraptured with their SERIOUS investigation and appaisal of the Portland Police Headquarters block. They were REALLY SERIOUS at a value of negative $1.9 million. But, they were REALLY, REALLY SERIOUS at a value of positive $1.12 million.

Um, if you had actually read what I wrote, you would see it was about the idea of "sustainable development" being something that professional geographers study. I provided a link to one such academic program at USC. The point of such programs is, of course, application to societal issues. Trying to tar the entire concept of "sustainable development" with the brush of the Tram fiasco and the South Waterfront development is a cute distraction.

If you don't like serious intellectual inquiry, then I heartily suggest you consider the opposite.

Ecohuman: the word "sustainability" has serious policy implications. for example, the Office of Sustainable Development was created and funded, without anybody really knowing what "sustainability" is. there's a Sustainable Development Commission, which isn't even worth critiquing here.

and so on. is green building "sustainable"? how so? is being able to build as many buildings as we want (as long as they have ecoroofs) "sustainable"?

Wow. A word now has "serious policy implications"? (I guess I could refer you to Carol so she can let loose both barrels on your word "serious", but another time.)

There are a couple of distinct issues at hand. One is whether the concept of "sustainability" is meaningful and useful. Another is how this concept may affect public policy.

"* I want us to log the forests at a rate that is slightly below replacement"

Logging companies would be happy logging at 25% of replacement growth.

But that's not good enough for the anti logging enviro-sustainers.

And they never seem to know how many acres of existing old growth are permanently protected.
Why? Because they want people to falsly believe the "last remaining old growth" is threatened.
It's always sustainable lies.

ouch.

lin qiao, Howard--have you considered starting a blog yourself if you don't have one? of course if you ridicule people, they might not visit.

on second thought, maybe it's easier to post here.

now, back to Jack.

"If you don't like serious intellectual inquiry, then I heartily suggest you consider the opposite."

Ouch... Unfortunately, CoP, PDC, and Metro power brokers don't care for discussion, seriously. Too many examples of the hubris exhibited by them to review here.

Don't forget, the people who live with the results of social experimentation, densification, UGB, Phart, Convention Centers hotels, etc should have a say in these issues much more than any USC Professional Geography Academic Program. The "professional geographers" talk about societal issues, but I've got to live with, and pay for the stupid stuff being done in Portland. So, quite honestly, don't think you can lecture the readers and writers in this blog who are also critical thinkers. We may be raising our kids, and changing diapers, but our brain is engaged and active.

But back to the issue, try to define sustainability, then listen to my input on the issue, and I might take it seriously.