Levels of Planning

http://www.azdailysun.com/articles/2008/01/26/news/20080126_front%20page_3.txt

This article dated January 26, 2008 discusses a movement in Flagstaff towards sustainably produced power. A varied mix of organizations including Coconino Community College, Flagstaff Medical Center, the Museum of Northern Arizona, the City of Flagstaff, Xanterra Resorts, Nestle Purina Pet Care Co. and Northern Arizona University have come together and agreed to purchase approximately 5% of their power needs from renewable sources sometime in 2009 -2010. Obviously this mix of participants includes the private sector as well, but essentially this is planning for sustainability at the local government level.

The endgame of this coalition of actors is to generate enough demand for renewable sourced energy that an entity will invest in the local infrastructure to supply it. Based on the figures in the article this seems like a reasonable assumption if this consortium is willing to agree to a contract to ensure stabilized and continued purchasing volumes that will offset the costly investment of building the necessary infrastructure. As Wheeler notes some scales of planning are better suited for different types of planning and that some are “particularly salient” at the local level. While this consortium may generate enough demand to warrant investment locally, I am not convinced this is the most effective level for planning and certainly not salient.

While the City of Flagstaff is well suited to participate in aspects of local planning that can facilitate this movement towards locally produced energy from renewable sources, it may not be the ‘best’ level of planning. For example, the City can rezone areas as needed to locate an energy facility to maximize wind power or ease the permitting process. However, energy generation and distribution are extremely complex. As the article notes “In actuality, buying green power doesn't necessarily mean getting juice directly from a wind turbine or solar array, thanks to the complexity of the power grid. Customers who buy renewable energy usually receive whatever power is generated nearest them, but their utility company must purchase and bring into the grid whatever amount of electricity they purchase.”

Given this complexity of power transmission it seems likely that planning at the regional level may be more appropriate or effective. This is because at a regional level, say something including the Phoenix metro area, a larger scale will be achieved. This will facilitate better planning for future power needs as a larger view of growth planning can become considered in the design of the power facility. This could potentially create a facility that provides much more power for many more people. In fact given the complexity of power needs in the southwest a much larger region still could be used to develop more comprehensive programs. Though there would be some drawbacks to these larger levels as more actors are involved and the process would likely becomes increasingly bureaucratic and time consuming. The implementation could be years out and reaching consensus among the members could be highly political and difficult.

Ultimately though I think it may be more environmentally sound if a regional plan was considered and executed. Flagstaff may well court the development of a local investor, but what happens when the needs quickly outweigh the production? Will forest lands be consumed to make way for more power production? Perhaps it would be more environmentally sound to utilize large barren and untenable acreage in the dessert to produce energy from renewable sources. Solar power generated in the vast open dessert of Yuma perhaps?

Sustainability Planning Tools

Tracking the ‘Water Footprint’

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/24/tracking-the-water-footprint/?scp=2&sq=water%20footprint&st=cse

In March over 100 countries convened for the 5^th annual World Water Forum. The Forum meets to discuss water issues and to develop means of planning for future demands. One concept floated around the conference is the idea of water neutrality. Essentially this concept is akin to measuring a carbon footprint so everyone from individual companies to cities and even countries can create an estimation of their water consumption.

The “Tracking the Water Footprint” article obviously fits within the realms of ecological footprint analysis and international planning. I selected this topic because I agree with Wheeler that “one of the most intriguing methods to quantify the environmental impact of human communities is the ecological footprint model.” I also find the topic interesting as living in the desert, I am keenly aware of the importance of water to the longevity of human existence. Further, this topic affects all of us, as in every last human on Earth, because water is a fixed resource in limited supply and completely irreplaceable.

However intriguing this concept is, Wheeler’s musing is apt, “the usefulness of such statistics is questionable.” Obviously the only way for humans to have zero impact on environments is to cease to exist. Further, understanding water needs only provides limited insight into future planning decisions. What ‘should’ reasonable water consumption be? Ultimately comparisons between entities of roughly equivalent size will be used. I am not sure how relevant even this would be. Calculating a sustainable and acceptable level of consumption will prove to be much more difficult.

Thus as Wheeler synthesizes, these descriptive analytical tools are much better suited for their public education efforts than policy making. Within this realm, there are merits for utilizing water footprints as an international education tool. Wheeler notes “as international institutions, trust, traditions of cooperation, and understanding become better developed, more can be done to plan for solutions to global issues.” Evident by the fact that over 100 countries attended the forum there is traction on the international institution level and hopefully a building of trust and a spirit of cooperation. Perhaps water footprints can serve as enough of an educating factor to push the integral nature of water planning to the forefront of future international planning efforts.

Science Adviser Lays Out Climate and Energy Plans

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/science-adviser-lists-goals-on-climate-energy/?scp=5&sq=sustainability%20planning&st=cse

President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, has been discussing various aspects of national sustainability issues. This article most centrally highlights the controversial concept of geo-engineering, a means to hedge climate change should decreases in greenhouse gas emissions not be realized. Holdren contents that even though geo-engineering is less than ideal, contingencies need to be developed to secure the future sustainability of the planet.

This and the other concepts of sustainability discussed in the article are matters of both national and international planning. As Wheeler notes “executive branch agencies implement and enforce policy, and carry out substantial planning activities in their own right.” Acting within the realm of the executive administrative level, Holdren is exploring the merits of various contingencies that can potentially become national policy.

It is both logical and necessary that Obama’s administration tackle these issues due to their magnitude. Wheeler points out that ‘National sustainability planning issues of great urgency tend to be those in which lower levels of government do not have the perspective, resources, jurisdiction, or political will to effectively bring about change. Certainly no single state posses the resources or reach to tackle national greenhouse gas emissions.

This is best highlighted in Holdren’s comments regarding the need to bring America back to an innovative state. Obama’s stimulus package lays the foundation for this by funneling monies back into energy research and development. Only once we tackle this realm and develop a meaningful alternative to current energy units can we begin a larger conversation of sustainability planning. Once new energies are meaningfully adopted into the greater scale can we begin to tackle national planning issues like new transportation infrastructures. Obviously the issue of climate change related to greenhouse gas emissions affects us all, but the research initiatives of Holdren impact Americans most directly. One can only hope that the research dollars allocated by Obama’s stimulus package deliver a meaningful alternative and geo-engineering will not be implemented.

Sustainable Policy Considerations

Defining Sustainability for Policy Making

Creating an all encompassing succinct definition of sustainability has been no easy task, as is evident in the Wheeler text. The readings explored a litany of definitions that have been created over time by various individuals and organizations. Each of these varied definitions takes a slightly difference focus whether it be ecosystem capacity, protecting environments, or opposing growth. For the purposes of public administration creating a definition of sustainability for a policy making focus has sweeping application for the various levels of government attempting to incorporate some concept of suitability into decision making. However, creating a policy making definition no more easily lends itself to an all encompassing succinct phrasing than any of those who have previously attempted to reign in this intuitive yet illusive concept.

Certainly a kitchen sink model has appeal for providing policy makers a stable foundation in venturing into sustainability. As with anything though, sometimes less is more. I believe a straightforward and limited phrasing forces a better consideration of suitability in policy making and reduces the opportunity for needles quibbling of concepts like “needs” or “carrying capacity.” Therefore, I believe for policy making we should use the following definition: “Sustainability is creating communities of any scale that can indefinitely sustain healthy human and ecological existence, without compromising the same in any other community or environment in the world.”

I believe this definition is viable for policy making as it requires the balancing of the three E’s (environment, economics, and equity) for the members of their society and all other societies on the planet. As the world has become a global economy in which resources are transported vast distances, the interrelated nature of all human life and environmental ecosystems must be considered at even the smallest local level government policy decision.

Difficulties of Making Sustainability a Policy Goal

There are a myriad of reasons that making sustainability a policy goal can be difficult. For starters, as discussed above there isn’t any one concept of what suitability is. This makes achieving any concept of suitability difficult as policy development generally requires buy-in from numerous people working towards a common goal. Wheeler also points out that policy makers generally operate on relatively short term time horizons. This raises obvious complications for sustainability, which by virtue requires long-term perspectives and understanding. Policy makers are generally elected for short terms and are after quick results to ensure future election. Wheeler also points out that this bleeds into the planning of societies. Typically planning documents only move out 5 years into the future with limited conceptualization of 20 years into the future. This is clearly highly problematic for comprehending planning on a scale of 200 years into the future as may be pertinent with a comprehensive sustainability planning policy.

Another difficulty for making sustainability a policy goal is the realm of equity. Wheeler discusses the difficulties of ensuring that underrepresented points of view are considered. Specific and additional effort is necessary to reach lower-income communities, future generations, people in foreign lands as well as considering other species or natural ecosystems. Making sustainability a policy goal will require additional effort on the part of planners and develops to reach these groups and understand their needs in all future planning initiatives.

Finally and perhaps most significantly is our infatuation, and polarizing affair, with economics. Virtually all decisions, even in the public realm, become consumed by some concept of economics. Wheeler points out that of the three E’s, economy has dominated the other two and “profoundly shaped the institutions and value structure of the culture.” This has marred advancement towards sustainability and continues to hamper the acceptance of sustainability as a policy goal.

Designing a Practical Framework

For the reasons cited in the discussion above there is no easy way to incorporate sustainability into public policy goals or decision making. To ensure that the diverse array of considerations necessary to achieve ecological, economic and social sustainability are incorporated at a state agency level, a comprehensive framework must be implemented. This framework should include a diverse group of community members, experts and outside perspectives to ensure each of the three areas are holistically addressed.

For balancing the social component I recommend a 15 member community member commission be created for consultation and review of proposed policy. This commission must include members of the underrepresented voices of the lower-income and young and make provisions to include members from outside the state as well. This commission can then act to approve or deny the policy recommendations developed by the groups assembled for satisfying the other two components of the framework, ecological and economic. Both of these components of the framework should include 3 -5 member advisory teams, one each for economic and environment. These advisory teams should include agency employees with specific credentials in their area as well as two outside experts, one from the community and one external. Long term decisions can be vetted by going through the process of advisory team consideration and then commission approval. This will then result in a recommendation for state agency policy makers. Such a framework attempts to balance the competing nature of the three E’s while ensuring solid scientific foundations and equity based considerations.

Short-term Results vs. Long-term Planning

Our current political landscape makes long term sustainable planning difficult. Two major reasons for this are citizens’ desire for instant gratification and elected officials’ desire to deliver quick results in the interest of re-election. One way to immediately change this is to increase the term length of elected officials. However, this has deep and strong implications in a democratic society sensitive to consolidating power in the hands of a few. The second and much more difficult move towards a long term view requires a paradigm shift in the public’s thinking. The only way this will occur is via education. Public officials must understand this and begin the arduous task of educating the public on the value and incremental nature of long-term sustainable planning. In this way a culture shift may eventually occur and citizens can begin to accept fewer “immediate” deliverables in exchange for more meaningful and holistic long-term sustainable practices. This should in turn reduce the pressure of non-elective staff to produce “deliverables” and afford more time to develop sustainable products using long time horizons.