Underscore the 'Us' in Sustainability

Like this year's delayed spring, Oregon's growing embrace of sustainability offers both great hope and frustration.

(SILVERTON, Ore.) - In 1962, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring exposed the environmental damage caused by the pesticide DDT and inspired many to seek new modes of living in harmony with nature. From its early countercultural roots, sustainability has spread far and achieved much, from Portland's strong bicycle culture, to the emerging local foods movement, to the creation of the Oregon Sustainability Board.

But with its entry into the mainstream, sustainability risks being hijacked down a greenwashed road to nowhere. Judging from the pages of glossy magazines, one might think that sustainability is all about buying organic linens, eco-friendly kitty litter and more of the latest green gadgets -- all at a hefty price. As an article in Advertising Age summed up the recent marketing onslaught leading up to Earth Day, "Time to consume more to save the planet."

It's not just the rise of eco-consumerism that might derail the sustainability movement. Recent history has witnessed not only the melting of the polar caps but also the return of economic inequality to a level unseen since just before the Great Depression. The great economic divide stands in the way of a sustainable future.

Take for instance efforts like the Western Climate Initiative, which Oregon has joined. That regional initiative has taken on the vital goal of reducing carbon emissions to halt global warming. But reducing carbon emissions necessarily entails higher energy costs, which for many in our society will be too large to bear unless there is a mechanism for offsetting the costs for vulnerable groups -- ideally at the polluters' expense.

Compared to higher income groups, poorer families spend a bigger part of their paychecks on energy costs and lack savings to invest in reducing their energy consumption, by weatherizing their homes or buying a hybrid automobile, for example. And higher energy costs are only one place where climate change policies will impact pocketbooks. Food and other goods and services will also become more expensive.

By one estimate, reducing carbon emissions by 15 percent would cost the poorest one-fifth of American households $750 to $950 per year on average. These families already struggle to make ends meet on average incomes of about $13,000. Carbon emission policies that don't redress the disproportionate financial hardship threaten to squeeze these families even further.

As a result, low-income populations may become receptive to the siren song of polluting industries and global warming skeptics and oppose carbon emission controls. That would be unfortunate, to say the least.

Climate change policies that fail to offset the impact on low- and middle-income groups seem hamstrung from the start. How can climate control succeed when a significant segment of the population has stagnant or declining wages and is unable to afford the clean energy technologies that are supposed to be our salvation?

Fortunately, many in the sustainability movement already recognize that a society of great economic inequality is unsustainable. Organizations such as the Portland metro area's Coalition for a Livable Future explicitly cite social equity as a basic tenet of sustainability and push for policies in accord with that principle. And recently, a number of environmental groups have joined organized labor in calling for well-paying "green-collar jobs" that will both fight poverty and assist in the transition to a clean energy world.

These voices within the movement must become louder and more constant, lest "sustainability" degenerate into an endeavor of the well-heeled consumer or an excuse for allowing economic inequality to widen further. The "us" in sustainability must always be underscored, to stress that only policies that take into account everyone's needs and promote shared prosperity will succeed in achieving a truly sustainable future.

Juan Carlos Ordóñez is the communications director of the Oregon Center for Public Policy. You may reach him at jcordonez@ocpp.org.

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Tomas May 7, 2008 9:41 am (Pacific time)

Say Henry Ruark I have noticed you have not replied to the alternative opinon of yours by the thousands of scientists who do not share your view (below posts). I would be interested as to your viewpoint of these scientists, and if you can see that those who have an opposing opinion do so not out of a need to argue for the sake of arguing, but that they feel the public should have a richer sample of opinions, in this case scientific opinions? Many scientists warned that when the ethanol program was first introduced that it would adversely impact our food supply, which it has. They warned people that the Global Warming people were simply doing this to generate fear, and that higher taxes and fees would happen, which it has. As far as the current price of oil (not controlled by any government) but is a global market price, would start to go down immediately if congress greenlights more refineries and new energy drilling (while also pursuing alternative energy sources), this would have a dramatic positve impact on our economy. My feeling is that certain people are dragging their legislative feet because it's an election year. When people start getting ration coupons, or something similar, and when you see rolling brown and blackouts, it will be too late. Reasonable people know who has put our nation in this dangerous situation. With 300 million people, this is not the time to deal in fantasy energy development, we need more energy now. The government can provide subsidies and provide a reward system for new energy developments, but we need action now. They can also fast track new refinery and drilling to bypass the onerous regulations that were sponsored by extremists who have no understanding of what they have done, or maybe they do? This will be real bad, real soon, unless congress starts to act for the people rather than for selfish political ends, or it will be the end for our way of life.

Tomas May 4, 2008 9:44 am (Pacific time)

I saw this statement earlier and believe it adds to the below discussion: "The earth is over 70% ocean. The surface of the earth covers approximately 197,000,000 square miles. There are approximately 500 cities on the earth with a population of 1,000,000 or more. The top 16 biggest cities on the earth cover approx. 350,000 square miles with the 16th smallest city being about 4,000 square miles. If you allow the almost 500 cities with over 1,000,000 people, 4000 square miles, which would probably be more than enough to cover all the other smaller cities on the earth, that would cover 200,000 square miles. Oh, what the heck… We’ll throw in an EXTRA 200,000 square miles to MAKE SURE we cover the small cities on the earth. So you’ve got 750,000 square miles of earth covered by cities… That’s the TOTAL area of populated space including; factories, airports, houses, businesses, etc., which means you STILL have PLENTY of open space included within that square mileage. The earth’s land-mass is over 57,000,000 square miles. You know what that means? The TOTAL populated square mileage of the land-mass surface of the earth is JUST OVER ONE PERCENT!! That’s JUST the land-mass!! The earth is OVER 70% water, or almost 140,000,000 square miles. This means that we are actually occupying LESS THAN 4 TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT of the earth’s surface!! Now take into consideration the atmosphere between the earth’s surface and outer space extends over 50 miles above the earth. So NOW… Tell me how a tiny, miniscule dot (LESS THAN 4/10th of 1 percent) on the face the earth is going to affect a 50-PLUS mile band of air around the earth to the point where we will actually affect the earth’s weather?! GUESS WHAT? It can’t be done and if you believe it can… Go back to your global warming, climate-changing cultists and sit around wringing your hands and worrying about things that will never happen!"

Judith Ames May 3, 2008 11:29 am (Pacific time)

Attention Henry Ruark: Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error. Lately many of my fellow teaching professionals have been providing our students with an alternative to the global warming theories that are out there. At first many of the parents were not pleased but as we provided them with written documented climate history going back thousands of years they literally have all changed their minds. It's amazing what facts will do for helping people to think more rationally. If you would like more historically documented information I would be happy to provide it for you. If you do not respond, I will certainly understand, for the real facts sure blow the global warming caused by man theories out of the water. Respectfully, Judith Ames

Henry Ruark May 1, 2008 7:35 pm (Pacific time)

Mark et al: You comparing scientific findings on both sides of what is no longer a "controversy", but basic accepted-fact by most capable of making that call. What qualifies you to still question large majority of major scientists, piles of documentation from decades of records, and finally "see with own eyes" action-images of ice breaking away from solid-flow situations frozen for decades and longer ? Don't wish to be disagreeing but seems to me you need to state qualifications if your "informed opinion" is to be qualified as just that. IF "warming" now reduced to cycle you suggest, editors of many major journals have sure as h... wasted tons of paper reporting highly unlikely big mistakes by really big-names. IF new Ice Age coming, can you cite further source for that surely action-demander ? SO on just what insights and skills do you base comment ? Can you cite solid and fully acceptable sources NOT on the "No,No - Wrong !"/side ? Encourage you to lay it out right here, if indeed you do got it. Thanks for your tenacity, always good; but "where's your evidence, sir ?" Cite it with links and we'll "go see with own eyes".

Mark April 30, 2008 6:07 pm (Pacific time)

The global warming controversy, and it is a controversy, will in some time in the future be real, imagined, or agenda driven. I have read the viewpoints of scientists on both sides of the issue, including those that are still sifting through the data. The bottom line is that we need to provide more energy, we have it available and it's time to go get it. One can go find pictures and climatic data to support whatever position they take on this matter. I still am not convinced that it is happening, and if so, what is the real downside, say compared to an ice age, which seems more likely to me to be more plausible. Time will tell, but yes we need to press ahead with all speed to enhance our technology to become more energy efficient.

Henry Ruark April 30, 2008 4:23 pm (Pacific time)

Sebastian, Mark et al: Thanks, S,; I checked out yr links and "saw with own eyes" per previous similar checks. Do-same with any/all info sources and you will find vast majority of scientist agreeing to easily-observable longtime visually-verified realities. Huge, powerful, lavish-funds interests heavily impacted by reality, using every means to delay, deny, defeat what our reliable scientists tell us is the truth: Depleted planet is no longer easy-pie for all to abuse-at-will for profit uber alles...

Sebastian April 30, 2008 3:42 pm (Pacific time)

The melting ice caps. . . http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17846 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQohXg7UyZQ

Henry Ruark April 30, 2008 2:31 pm (Pacific time)

Mark et al: Agree with most of your cogent points, but no question any longer possible about reality of global warming and cause-by-humans --unless you can defuse and defy huge majority of major scientists. Far too many lavishly-funded corporate-controlled noise and spin makers at work to offset that, as today's rebuke to Big Oil by Rockefeller family now surely documents. For more, ID-with-emailer to Editor Tim and I'll share in depth from trove and pile of profound-impact materials. Enjoy your comments, keep 'em coming !

Mark April 30, 2008 11:37 am (Pacific time)

I have not seen any convincing evidence that global warming is happening, and if it is, that us humans caused it and that we can stop it. When the writer said both our polar caps are melting, then he needs to look at the data. The North Pole froze up in record time last fall and the South Pole is still packing ice with record low temperatures. I am 100% behind any program that can cut pollution, but some of these programs, like ethanol production is hurting everyone, regardless of their income level. But all in all I enjoyed reading the article, I always like to hear and read different opinions. Though during this period of high energy costs, the only realistic way to deal with it is not through new taxes but more energy production. I heard the Montana governor the other day discussing his states ability to synthesize liquid fuel from their states coal deposits and that it would be enough to last us at our current consumption rate for over 200 years. Also that carbon would in effect be totally negated during the refining process. This sounds very promising and hopefully our government starts doing something right away. This political posturing between parties is hurting everyone and will only get worse as each day goes by that we do nothing.

Henry Ruark April 29, 2008 8:28 pm (Pacific time)

Mark et al: If you seek "empirical data" re the plundering of our planet you will find tons of it easily on the Internet, summarizing an overwhelming store of evidence by the also overwhelming majority of scientists at work for decades all over the world. If you wish "methodology for hypotheses", that reduces to observation and informed, reasoning opinion, stated as conclusions from that process of skilled longtime and always many-factored observation by those specially trained to do just that. The OCPP story contains much clearly substantiating how JCO got to the points he makes. You might wish to explore further via contact with him diectly, or if you have some specific questions, lay them out here and we can tap into the wisdom of the whole crowd. which is one principle for this open, honest, and very democratic channel.

Mark April 29, 2008 5:46 pm (Pacific time)

Very interesting perspective. Would be interested in seeing more empirical data and the methodology used to reach some of these hypothses.

Henry Clay Ruark April 29, 2008 5:21 pm (Pacific time)

To all: As always, OCPP's statement is highly insightful and one can count on its accuracy and authority. Here JCO illuminates and emphasizes an essential point missed by far too many on this demanding (and threatening) issue of sustainability for efforts to remediate our mass assault (and abuse) on our only Earth. The absolutely essential actions we must now take must also make strong adaptation to the special needs of the lower income groups, who are hit the hardest by forced higher costs while already squeezed by the lowering impacts of an injured economy. His points demand careful attention especially in our reform efforts for tax-share, since many of those who will in some ways profit from this demanded remedial effort are involved in corporate action called forth by the crisis we now face. We in Oregon are surely most fortunate to find OCPP located here, and we should pay close attention to the fine and firm detailed examinations they offer.

[Return to Top]

Underscore the 'Us' in Sustainability

Quick Links

DINING

MUST SEE SALEM

AUCTIONS - APPRAISALS

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

ONLINE SHOPPING

Advertise with Salem-News