This a loose tie to sustainability planning but for the purpose of this article and a sustained climate is entity at hand, and my personal opposition to cap & trade programs made me pick this and apply to the context of the assignment as best as I could.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/science/earth/07pollute.html
The focus of this article New York’s intention to examine a possible increase in the free allowance for CO2 emissions that it affords its power plants to produce without cost under a 10 state regional “Carbon-Trading Pact” known as the “Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative” (RGHGI). Under the Pact each state issues its own tradable permits or allowance for CO2 pollution produced, which most of the states auction off. This decision by New York has been met with complicating opinion from stakeholders and environmentalist.
The RGHGI is an example of a regional planning initiative with the region being the 10 states that engaged in the pact. It appears that the spirit of the pact was to allow member states of this functional region to collectively control CO2 emission through a mandatory market mechanism, under the polluter pays principle. As wheeler points out (in principle), any regional planning effort is administered through a weak planning institution (Wheeler, Pg. 151). In the case of the RGHGI, or any other market based system, participation and compliance by member would be more effectively facilitated through a collective administrative body with the regulatory teeth to ensure conformance by its members.
In concept the RGHGI could be effectively administered at the regional level. If the 10 member states represented a common airshed, which is probably the case, then such an effort would allow for the equalizas tion of regional externalities to be control on a market scale and states to work toward achieving emission targets. The results of such efforts could be more efficient end use production of energy, reinvestment of funds secured by the states into communities, market incentives to explore more carbon friendly and renewable energy sources, and diversification of energy portfolios. All of these will result in a more sustainable energy plan for the region if administer in accordance with the spirit of the pact.
Wheeler points out that regional planning often do not have any governmental authority or police power to back-up or enforcement compliance. (Wheeler, Pg. 133) In the article, New York is intending to expand free allowance to its power plants. While most concede that New York’s action will have no impact to other members or the pact it outlines a fundamental weakness in addressing planning issues with public health or economic ramification at a level with little or no enforcement authority.
If such an initiative was enacted at the state level then an agency of the state could ensure compliance with the terms of the pact, and offer emission targets for those entities that had less of a capacity to compete in an open market. The article points out the New York power plants have already engaged in production agreements, which they have to meet thus forcing them to purchase more emission rights and absorb the cost burden. If the plants could no longer afford to absorb those cost a regional pact would offer little incentive to try however a state regulatory mandate would apply sanction for non-compliance.
Note: Cap & Trade is a complex mechanism, which this review has simplified for the purpose of attaching it a mechanism for energy sustainability planning.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Assignment 12 Richard Dalton
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=aOiCpp9Xi1pk&refer=environment
Article 1, “NYC Opens 1st Building-Mounted Wind Turbine at Brooklyn Yard”
By title it appears that this article would focus on a $25 million building, which is powered by wind turbines at Brooklyn Yard. However, the real focus is on a plan that Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City unveiled to create a model sustainable industrial complex, which could lead to the creation of 1700 permanent jobs including construction sector and green collar employment.
What is demonstrated in the article is the City’s buy-in to the sustainable planning process through cooperation and financial backing of the greening of buildings in the Brooklyn Yard Complex. The city is implementing a $250 initiative that will add more than 1.5 million square feet of space that will foster a multitude of diverse development. In addition, the city has earmarked $2 million dollars to convert and redesign a 30,000 square-foot building, which is slated to be awarded a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating of platinum.
LEED is a mechanism to incorporate sustainability into the planning process at the design stage by establishing technological benchmarks to gauge sustainable practice. As Wheeler points out, often times protocol, such as LEED, can be prohibitive (Wheeler, Pg. 94), but in this application it facilitates the project form that Bloomberg is trying to achieve, which is city commitment to the sustainability process and goal.
The article concludes by expanding the scope of the Mayor’s intent through announcing that the wind power concept will be expanded to the common area street lights, which will result in a cost savings and reduced carbon footprint through less electricity generation. The term carbon foot print was not stated in the article, but I contend that it was not an accident to conclude with the tone of money and energy. These subject hit home to, and the wallet of, everybody. The savings cited in both sectors may have been a subtitle way of public consensus building.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/worldbusiness/27iht-sustain.html?_r=1&sq=sustainability%20&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print
Article 2, “Luxury-Goods Makers Embrace Sustainability”
This article discusses the incorporation of sustainable practices and social responsibility into various markets of luxury goods. The article starts citing the implied oxy-moron of the term sustainable prefacing luxury. This distinction correctly illustrates that the presence of most luxury items are sustainable in design, and ultimately have led to global resource depletion. Since a number of luxury goods are often produced by resource and labor pools of developing countries for sale and consumption in the developed world, this can be classified as an issue of international planning.
Sustainability from the context of the developed and developing have two completely different connotation. Yet, as Wheeler cites, from a planning perspective there are common goals (compact urban form, control sprawl, employment, resource use etc...)(Wheeler, pg. 112)
This article implies and taps into the commonalities between the developed and developing world from the stand point of luxury goods. The ideas of fast and slow in a market context are applied to the fashion and food industries. The fast concept suggests quick, cheap, and perishable production of goods, which are designed to be consumed to completion quickly and then discarded only to be replaced by different goods. The slow concept suggests efficient production designed to last, which is cited to be based on the slow food idea that embraces slow cooking process, and the use of seasonally produced local resource stocks. The fast food concept is not sated, but certainly an implied metaphor.
Also referenced is the construction of water wells by the Ermenegildo Company to in Mongolia and Peru. The intent of the wells was to improve the wool harvest, but yielded a positive externality to local farmers in these traditionally water parched regions.
The conjoining interest of a market demand for socially responsible production can be attributed to education and outreach campaigns in the developed world to be sustainable and the well production and slow methods cited in this article give a conceptual viability to meeting this demand while recognizing that some of the affected countries are still addressing some of the basic challenges in the planning process.
Article 1, “NYC Opens 1st Building-Mounted Wind Turbine at Brooklyn Yard”
By title it appears that this article would focus on a $25 million building, which is powered by wind turbines at Brooklyn Yard. However, the real focus is on a plan that Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City unveiled to create a model sustainable industrial complex, which could lead to the creation of 1700 permanent jobs including construction sector and green collar employment.
What is demonstrated in the article is the City’s buy-in to the sustainable planning process through cooperation and financial backing of the greening of buildings in the Brooklyn Yard Complex. The city is implementing a $250 initiative that will add more than 1.5 million square feet of space that will foster a multitude of diverse development. In addition, the city has earmarked $2 million dollars to convert and redesign a 30,000 square-foot building, which is slated to be awarded a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating of platinum.
LEED is a mechanism to incorporate sustainability into the planning process at the design stage by establishing technological benchmarks to gauge sustainable practice. As Wheeler points out, often times protocol, such as LEED, can be prohibitive (Wheeler, Pg. 94), but in this application it facilitates the project form that Bloomberg is trying to achieve, which is city commitment to the sustainability process and goal.
The article concludes by expanding the scope of the Mayor’s intent through announcing that the wind power concept will be expanded to the common area street lights, which will result in a cost savings and reduced carbon footprint through less electricity generation. The term carbon foot print was not stated in the article, but I contend that it was not an accident to conclude with the tone of money and energy. These subject hit home to, and the wallet of, everybody. The savings cited in both sectors may have been a subtitle way of public consensus building.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/business/worldbusiness/27iht-sustain.html?_r=1&sq=sustainability%20&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print
Article 2, “Luxury-Goods Makers Embrace Sustainability”
This article discusses the incorporation of sustainable practices and social responsibility into various markets of luxury goods. The article starts citing the implied oxy-moron of the term sustainable prefacing luxury. This distinction correctly illustrates that the presence of most luxury items are sustainable in design, and ultimately have led to global resource depletion. Since a number of luxury goods are often produced by resource and labor pools of developing countries for sale and consumption in the developed world, this can be classified as an issue of international planning.
Sustainability from the context of the developed and developing have two completely different connotation. Yet, as Wheeler cites, from a planning perspective there are common goals (compact urban form, control sprawl, employment, resource use etc...)(Wheeler, pg. 112)
This article implies and taps into the commonalities between the developed and developing world from the stand point of luxury goods. The ideas of fast and slow in a market context are applied to the fashion and food industries. The fast concept suggests quick, cheap, and perishable production of goods, which are designed to be consumed to completion quickly and then discarded only to be replaced by different goods. The slow concept suggests efficient production designed to last, which is cited to be based on the slow food idea that embraces slow cooking process, and the use of seasonally produced local resource stocks. The fast food concept is not sated, but certainly an implied metaphor.
Also referenced is the construction of water wells by the Ermenegildo Company to in Mongolia and Peru. The intent of the wells was to improve the wool harvest, but yielded a positive externality to local farmers in these traditionally water parched regions.
The conjoining interest of a market demand for socially responsible production can be attributed to education and outreach campaigns in the developed world to be sustainable and the well production and slow methods cited in this article give a conceptual viability to meeting this demand while recognizing that some of the affected countries are still addressing some of the basic challenges in the planning process.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Week 11 Assignment
1. The definition formed by the Bruntland Commission, conceptualizes the notion of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This allows for the broad based application necessary to facilitate effective regulation.
Any policy direction that integrates social, environmental, or economic implications specifically into a sustainability frames work, as Goodman suggests, could be problematic, and thus shift spirit of the policy from its original intent.
2. Sustainability, as a policy directive or goal, can be difficult to implement into practice because of the different political, economic, and societal covenants that bound people.
Each section of society has a different set priorities based on its specific needs, which can change based on conditions at any moment in time. Policy has the tendency to be designed around a specific lobby or special interest, which is usually in conflict with another thus establishing winners and losers. This predisposition to win can conflict with societal sustainability.
A free market economy, which has its place in the policy making process, states follows some form of the capitalist principle of self interest, which history has proven can be in conflict with planet interest that a sustainability framework would support.
This is not to invalidate the need for social, environmental, or economic sustainability, but only to point that these paradigms often conflict with one another.
3. An effectively designed sustainability framework would have to follow the cliché principle of equal opportunity inclusion of stakeholders. Experts, such a engineers, planners, and other disciplines as deemed necessary for each application are necessary to the process. Sustainability operates from a technological stand point of efficiency whether the area economic, ecological, social, or environment. The experts have knowledge and training to most effectively achieve the benchmarks a policy framework would desire.
Citizen or the general public also has to buy in the process. Inclusion of the public into the process allows the experts to gain an understanding of a particular expertise that they do not posses, which that of everyday application of the process. Those who are expected to follow the process and live by policies should have input into the design process as they see the process and will partake in its evolution or sustainable evolution.
The cliché think local act global should have a principle purpose into the policy process and implement action at the local level and the global goals be achieved through a trickle up effect.
4. Long-term sustainability planning in a society based on short increment quick fix is an oxymoron in concept. The stability of the planet and societies within it is contingent on that oxymoron becoming a reality. While there are a multitude of publications that discuss principles of the three E’s, the implications climate change, over consumption, and pollution, as well as quantification tools such as the ecological foot print or life cycle analysis, most will only local at the issues facing them right now. This is the result of choice or circumstance.
Only through a paradigm shift that results in a true buy in to the practice of long-term sustainability and resource planning will any of the conceptualized scenarios of stabilization become a reality.
Any policy direction that integrates social, environmental, or economic implications specifically into a sustainability frames work, as Goodman suggests, could be problematic, and thus shift spirit of the policy from its original intent.
2. Sustainability, as a policy directive or goal, can be difficult to implement into practice because of the different political, economic, and societal covenants that bound people.
Each section of society has a different set priorities based on its specific needs, which can change based on conditions at any moment in time. Policy has the tendency to be designed around a specific lobby or special interest, which is usually in conflict with another thus establishing winners and losers. This predisposition to win can conflict with societal sustainability.
A free market economy, which has its place in the policy making process, states follows some form of the capitalist principle of self interest, which history has proven can be in conflict with planet interest that a sustainability framework would support.
This is not to invalidate the need for social, environmental, or economic sustainability, but only to point that these paradigms often conflict with one another.
3. An effectively designed sustainability framework would have to follow the cliché principle of equal opportunity inclusion of stakeholders. Experts, such a engineers, planners, and other disciplines as deemed necessary for each application are necessary to the process. Sustainability operates from a technological stand point of efficiency whether the area economic, ecological, social, or environment. The experts have knowledge and training to most effectively achieve the benchmarks a policy framework would desire.
Citizen or the general public also has to buy in the process. Inclusion of the public into the process allows the experts to gain an understanding of a particular expertise that they do not posses, which that of everyday application of the process. Those who are expected to follow the process and live by policies should have input into the design process as they see the process and will partake in its evolution or sustainable evolution.
The cliché think local act global should have a principle purpose into the policy process and implement action at the local level and the global goals be achieved through a trickle up effect.
4. Long-term sustainability planning in a society based on short increment quick fix is an oxymoron in concept. The stability of the planet and societies within it is contingent on that oxymoron becoming a reality. While there are a multitude of publications that discuss principles of the three E’s, the implications climate change, over consumption, and pollution, as well as quantification tools such as the ecological foot print or life cycle analysis, most will only local at the issues facing them right now. This is the result of choice or circumstance.
Only through a paradigm shift that results in a true buy in to the practice of long-term sustainability and resource planning will any of the conceptualized scenarios of stabilization become a reality.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
