Sustainability Planning

http://reason.com/news/show/129855.html

Article #1, The Food Miles Mistake focuses on both Sustainability Indicators as well as International Planning Issues. Food miles have become an increasingly common indicator to measure the carbon footprint of our food. The general gist is that the closer a food was grown/raised to you the better that food is for the environment. For a society that has increasingly lost touch with their food chain and it’s repercussions on the environment this is a valuable concept. But as this article points out the issues is more complicated than it first seems.

As Wheeler said, “Indicators potentially have great power to demonstrate problems, motivate action, educate the public, and show the positive effect of sustainability policies”. This is applicable to the indicator of food miles. The assumption is that if a consumer knew how far their food had traveled they may make a different, more environmentally sound choice. But Wheeler warns with good reason that, “indicator efforts must be approached with caution”. It is with this tone of caution that The Food Miles Mistake was written. Ronald Bailey delves deeper into the subject referring to research which brings to light major problems with using food miles as a sustainability indicator. It has been found that food transportation sometimes accounted for only a fraction of the greenhouse gas emitted in food production. For example, according to Bailey, “the 2005 DEFRA study found that British tomato growers emit 2.4 metric tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of tomatoes grown compared to 0.6 tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of Spanish tomatoes. The difference is British tomatoes are produced in heated greenhouses”. So a Brit might believe they are doing their part for the environment by buying the locally grown tomato when in reality there is a better option available. This shows food miles should be taken with a grain of salt and are only a small part of a larger picture.

There are also sustainability issues in industrialized vs. less developed countries presented in this article. Bailey points out that subsidies provided to farmers in rich countries may be wreaking more havoc on the environment than food transportation. Farming subsidies are prevalent in the industrialized world with the United States as a major participant. As farm subsidies are distributed to farmers in these richer countries they are able to sell their food at a lower price, pushing poor farmers out of competition. It is argued that if subsidies were discontinued a great number of farmers worldwide would be able to compete in the global food market and they would be pulled out of poverty. And as we have been learning about recently, over population is a major environmental issue that opens its own Pandora’s box of problems.

There are multiple stakeholders involved in this global food production issue. All consumers of food are involved, but in 2 ways. First it is important that we be aware of why food miles began to be used as a sustainability indicator. As desert dwellers we might want to think twice about our banana purchase that had to be transported a long distance to get here, or about eating tomatoes in the winter that came from Florida. But secondly, we should not be caught up in the idea of food miles for food miles. Tomatoes that were grown locally in the winter still were grown in a greenhouse that might have been heated. If anything this concept should make us think seriously about eating seasonally, a notion that has now become foreign as we can get most vegetables any time of the year at our local supermarket. This issue also affects farmers, both in industrialized and developing countries. If the subsidy practice were halted it would be a major change in lifestyle for farmers in industrialized nations who are used to growing vast monocultures of subsidized vegetables and not having to worry too much about their income. Conversely if farmers from developing countries were allowed into the market we might see faster development of these poor countries. This ironically might lead to food traveling more miles to get from farm to table.

http://www.sacbee.com/378/story/1278949.html

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed into law Senate Bill 375, a bill designed to combat urban sprawl. Both Planning Processes and Institutions and Policy Mechanisms are involved in this issue. In Chapter 5 Wheeler quoted Jane Jacobs in The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jacobs described communities that are, “walkable, human scale, diverse, and oriented around a fine-grained and vibrant mix of housing, shops and public facilities”. Unfortunately, as in a lot of the country, California has been plagued with sprawl, a situation opposite of Jacobs ideal. Although the lack of diversity and vibrancy are troublesome to our human experience perhaps most troublesome to the environment is the lack of walkability in these sprawling communities. Commutes are increasing and this article states, “38% of California’s greenhouse gas emissions are stemming from transportation”. The purpose of SB 375 is to reduce this sprawl.

This bill was the effort of conscious planning processes. In 2006 California adopted goals to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 25% by 2020. SB 375 is the first step in implementing that goal. Wheeler states, “Far too often excellent plans are prepared but sit for years without being implemented or acknowledged within decision-making processes”. This was almost the case as it took 3 years for California to create policy that would implement measures to achieve this goal. But the hope is that this law is better late than never. According to Wheeler if planning policy “includes specific budgeting or legally binding changes in city zoning code or law stands a much better chance of being successful in the long run”.

This is an excellent example of Institutions and Policy Mechanisms. At work making this bill happen was the California legislature, Governor and crucial to the actual implementation of the bill is the California Air Resources Board, who are required to set regional targets by September 2010 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As is crucial for success the passage of this bill exemplifies consistent planning on the part of California. California made greenhouse gas emission reduction a priority in 2006 and SB 375 carries on this priority consistently. This bill should encourage infill and discourage sprawl through a combination of incentives and mandates although one major criticism of the bill is that it is too focused at the state level. Some believe that regions should have a greater say in their local development.

SB 375 should affect all Californians. Characteristically many developers are upset about the bill because they worry it will affect their economic situation. The hope is that it will significantly improve the lives of many Californians. If it is a success there will be more communities closer to Jane Jacobs vision, where people can walk, will live near transit and will be able to enjoy diverse communities with unique housing, rather than the cookie cutter houses on the outskirts of town that make up many current communities. Most importantly this bill should help provide cleaner air to Californians as they meet their greenhouse gas reduction goals.