Dear Colleagues,
This thread captures some of the deep ideas and challenging problems of the entire
sustainability debate. While there is some merit to Terry's argument in economic and
physical terms, there is a problem to it as well, and the culture that Terry's question
advocates as possibly more sustainable is exactly the culture that got us to where
we are now.
With great interest, I saw and read the New York Times article Bob posted when it
appeared. The next day, I read an article by James Hansen titled "Game Over for
the Climate."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-climate.html
A profound book by David Owen titled The Conundrum explains "how scientific
innovation, increased efficiency, and good intentions can make our energy and
climate problems worse." It's published by Riverhead Books in the US, Short Books
in the UK, and Scribe in Australia.
Owen offers a powerful, systemic analysis that accounts for complex systems
and feedback loops. In essence, he addresses the issues that Bob, Terry, and
Mark raise. As a journalist, Owen speaks with scientists, economists, technologists,
and engineers to show what makes a difference, what doesn't, and why it is so
hard for people to make the choices that will alleviate the problems we have
created for ourselves.
I'll tell a little, sad story that came up yesterday here at Swinburne. Some years
back, we decided to embed sustainability throughout our entire curriculum. We saw
that most design schools address sustainability by adding a unit or two, teaching these
units for a few years, and dropping them when a new idea comes along that can
interest students and attract enrollment. We took another path: we joined The
Designers' Accord on sustainability, pledging to work toward sustainability principles
within our core curriculum and across our full range of activities. We hired a professor
of sustainability to work with us to drive the change, Prof. Frank Fisher. Our
Associate Dean for Teaching & Learning, Prof. Dori Tunstall, began to work with
all our staff to embed these issues in the full program. And we launched several
initiatives to bring this across from curriculum into the daily life of the Faculty,
including a new discard management system. I won't tell the full story of our
successes and failures except to say that we're three years on and still struggling.
We struggle because anything that takes hold in a culture takes time, and this
means you have many moments when things don't work, when they work but
work badly, and when they look shabby compared to concept sketches and
power-points -- and certainly shabby compared with the world-saving future
projects that design schools show when they show the green future of 2050
rather than the reality of failure and partial success that hits you every day
when you really dig into to make a difference based on culture change.
Frank Fisher spent an hour with us yesterday going over the current challenges
we face in making our now-functioning discard management system work as it
should. The sad story hit me when Frank made two comments. One was the
response of a student to him when asked about the envrionment. "The
environment?" said the student, "I'm so over the environment."
As Frank began to ask around, we came to understand that all of our students
know that Swinburne Design is committed to sustainability, that we've built into
everything we do -- and this now means to many of them that sustainability
is one of those fuddy-duddy concerns that can only old folks, placing these
concerns beyond the realm of anything that ought to interests the designers
who will shape the future world.
I do not have a good answer to that. At least nothing that Sophocles or
Ecclesiastes have not already said.
Read The Conundrum. It sheds much light -- it is not a heated, passionate book,
but a reflective book, and if these issues interest you, it is worth reading.
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
Mark Ransom wrote:
--snip--
I agree that it is often unclear as to which behavioural or design options are more
sustainable than others. If we consider wider system impact then it could well be
that avoiding the energy, transportation, heating and in-direct resource usage of
re-cycling suggests buying new as a preferable course of action. Attempts to judge
best environmental practice still too often fail to embrace the wider knock on effects
of actions.
--snip--
The focus of my research is the application of the understanding of Complex
Systems upon Sustainable Design and the loud message is that everything is
connected to everything else and no decision can be made in isolation
without a full understanding of the wide (and usually global) impact of our
actions.
--snip--
Bob Logan wrote:
--snip--
I cannot possibly imagine how you could suggest that
perhaps "the sustainability winner might be with throw away and buy newer
goods." Perhaps you would care to suggest why you suspect the throw away
solution is more sustainable. I just do not see it.
Terry Love wrote:
--snip--
Wondering which is more sustainable this Dutch initiative or conventional
throwing away and replacing with newer goods?
The answer doesn't seem that obvious to me, and I suspect the sustainability
winner might be with throw away and buy newer goods.
--snip--
Bob Logan posted this article to the list:
An Effort to Bury a Throwaway Culture One Repair at a Time
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/world/europe/amsterdam-tries-to-change-culture-with-repair-cafes.html
|
