A sustainable planet for a sustainable house

Henry David Thoreau once wrote "What is the use of a house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?"

I think he is right on. The issues of sustainable development and economic enterprise have come to the fore in the past few years. I am not sure if this is a case of desperation for a good story by the media or real concern manifest in the hearts and minds of the people of the world. I unfortunately think that the former is likely the case. The media likes to run with "themes". In my observations these themes typically run 2-3 years. Take terrorism as an example. For one year after 9/11 the coverage was justified, however 2-3, even 4 years after the event the papers were filled with articles and analysis of the middle east situation. Eventually the public's appetite for a topic wanes. The papers then look for a new topic to dissect and catastrophize. Currently this topic appears to be global warming. No doubt this is a real issue. However, we've known it was a real issue for decades. The fact that the topic now appears hot with the public is causing politicians to take notice and they are now spouting the required rhetoric to satisfy the public. Do we really believe that politicians can solve this problem? Sadly I think not. The most significant changes made by politicians in Canada in the past 50 years involve (in my mind):
1) Creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
2) Verbiage in various documents on the status of Quebec within Canada
3) Elimination of the defecit by sound book keeping (a good economy didn't hurt)

Most of the other policy stuff is just that, stuff. The kind of changes that need to take place to curb environmental decay require the participation of engineers, environmental scientists AND policy makers. Engineers and policy makers speak entirely different languages IMO. Somehow this gap must be bridged. I believe it would be very difficult for a policy maker to go back and learn the requisite math require to obtain engineering insight, therefore I propose that we need articulate engineers to work within the polictical system to help bring about a shift to more environmentally sound policies. Firstly, it is not easy to obtain and engineering degree. A person must have a fair amount of persistence just to get through the degree. It is a grind. One must also be able to prioritize if one is to have a life outside of school as well as a degree. Definitely there are those who obtain the degree and do nothing more. I posit that these are not the people who would be able to function in a political arena. Off to the computer terminals with these folks. We do however need people with insight into the technologies that are available and who possess the political savvy to convey these options to others who might not appreciate the importance of the technology.

Why have I become so interested in this topic? Call it a rediscovery of things that I knew before the age of 10, maybe even before the age of 5. I remember as a child noticing how absolutely beautiful nature is. She is violent too, but again in beautiful way. One needs only to stand in awe at the spectical of a summer thunderstorm to understand this. (Hopefully in a safe location, not high on an exposed rock outcropping). I remember being very angry as a young child. I couldn't understand why we were hurting the earth so much. It seemed to me that our way of life, the way of life that I observed around me every day was completely incompatible with the way the earth wanted to be. As I've grown older I've noted that it is our very need to survive in the economic climate that we've created that has forced the separation between man and nature. We see ourselves as somehow isolated from nature. We confine it to parks and give those parks cute names such as "Sleeping Giant". This is quaint, but makes it easy for us to think we have dealt with the nature problem in some respectable way. Surely it is a start. However until we understand and value that we are intricately linked to the systems and resources of the earth we will not have a sustainable society. We are not separate. We cannot built up fortresses that will protect us from our own overuse of the resources of the planet. We will be like Romans barricading themselves against the barbarians. This is not the way. I think I understand better now that many of our treatments of others and indeed our very planet stem from a hatred of ourselves. Unable to accept ourselves and bond completely with others we are not freed to move to higher levels of love for the planet and care for our children. I am not sure what the solution is. Part of what has frustrated me for the past decade is that my schooling has narrowly taken me down a path of technical knowledge that is mostly applicable to creating new techie devices and communication methods. This seems somewhat pointless to me. There are others that can do this and appear very keen to do so for whatever sum of money. The things I actually love and care about: nature, sport, the outdoors, even writing play little role in my day to day existence. I've been looking for a way to transition out of my area into something new, but feel my skills in other areas have horribly eroded. This is an incredibly disempowering feeling.

I bring up this topic today because a friend of mine from university days has finished his first year of MBA studies. He's working the sustainability angle. He's very keen. I wish him well. He will spend some time trying to figure out how to build a wild life refuge on a island off the coast of Belize. This is brilliant stuff. This is work that might actually make some kind of difference, however small, in a corner of the earth. Now imagine if we start doing this on a global scale. Small projects can make a difference. Then add some kind of political will to make the economic system changes that will be required to account for the lifecylce costs of products and we might start to have solutions.

Finally, I do not know what the solution is to what I call the bell curve problem. Everyone has heard of the bell curve. More formally this is what is known as a normal distribution. It is very nice at modeling the distribution of data. What is most important to know is that 95% of the data lie within two standard deviations of the mean. When we look at intelligence, height, propensity to read etc we find normal distributions. This is shockingly important when tackling something like saving the planet. The blunt fact is that 95% of the population probably cannot understand or even fathom the scope of the problem or the impact that their day-to-day decisions are having on future generations. Therefore it will be imperative that policies are put in place that promote economic activity that is positive. This is the only way you're going to get most people pointed in the correct direction.

This is enough for now. As I re-read this I realize that this is at best a rambling venting of thoughts, but at least I have set it down.

Oh, in other happy news I ran a PB in the half marathon on the week-end. And it was fun.

I believe the coffee shop girl tried to flirt with me today. How fantastic.