If I were to identify a single issue that I consider to be critical for environmental sustainability, it would be that there is rarely one clear solution to any particular challenge: there are almost always shades of green.
There is no single correct choice, no state-of-the-art solution to be pulled off the shelf, no world best practice to be taken from one country and applied in another. To be sure, there are benchmarks against which we can judge potential responses to individual challenges, but as knowledge grows and technologies evolve, so do the benchmarks.
This means that in order to find the best solution to a given challenge (however we define "best"), we need to assess our options, engage in debate and - dare I say it - reach compromise positions that are most appropriate for the circumstances. Tomorrow's answer may be different from today's, and yours may be different from mine. What is important is that we recognise this, and move forward.
What I find myself mentioning time and again in meetings about sustainability is that because there are shades of green, there must be an integrated approach to planning and design so that the best overall solution can be found. On big projects involving a range of consultants and professional disciplines, this requires strong interaction and healthy give-and-take to break out of outdated lines of thought. We need passion, but too much fervour and self-righteous conviction does the environment a disservice. Nobody has a monopoly on Truth.
A useful example that is subject to considerable debate is the concept of planning urban areas for higher density.
Increased densities are often suggested as part of smart growth strategies, to reduce environmental impact from urban sprawl and the consequences of increased reliance on car-based travel. Now, very high densities could be good for encouraging travel by public transport, but are not so good for generating electricity using roof-mounted solar panels, because there is not enough roof space for the amount of electricity needed.
Conversely, low-density suburbs use up valuable land and have other negative impacts, but they have the advantage that available rooftops could accommodate photovoltaic panels.
Conventional planning and urban design won't allow either scenario to reach its full potential in mitigating environmental impacts. High density living won't reduce trips by car if parking is freely available and public transport services are inaccessible or don't serve travel needs. Low density suburbs can't be used to generate electricity if the road layouts and building design and orientation aren't suitable for rooftop panels. There are other considerations, but my point is that there are tradeoffs that inevitably have to be made.
On a smaller scale I also need to think outside the box in deciding whether to throw out my old fridge (which is working fine) and replace it with a more energy-efficient model. The new fridge is "greener", but resources were consumed and carbon emitted in its manufacture - and someone else is going to carry on using my old one anyway. So it might be better to keep the old one and find ways of reducing its energy consumption. Is it sitting close to the stove or other heat source? Are the fins at the back properly vented so that cool air reaches them?
There are plenty of other examples and questions that need to be asked at different levels of planning: household, neighbourhood, city, region and country. Even globally there are debates underway, and others that need to begin, to find practical solutions to environmental concerns within the constraints and opportunities - and uncertainties - presented by political, social, economic, physical and other realities.
Environmental sustainability requires navigating an ocean of conflicting interests. Policy responses and planning strategies can be swayed first by one argument and then another. As each lobby group or government agency or new study report gains the upper hand, there are pressures to change course. But circumstances will always be changing, and I believe that if we allow for a range of responses to each issue, and if we look together for the right shades of green, it will be easier to weather the storm. There's a bright green day just over the horizon.
Yes!! I agree with you on the need for more discussion. There still seems to me to be a common perception that anyone who calls themselves green has a certain set of ideas on how societies, economies, energy, building and transport infrastructure must change. Yet as you say, there are innumerable different possible visions for a lower carbon, sustainable future. To what extent is relocalisation of produciton the answer? How far do people want the state to intervene in their lives in order to make them 'greener:' carbon rationing?
As more and more people come to realise that the whole arena of politics is being painted green, hopefully the intensity of these debates will heat up. Before a collective vision can be created, disagreements over the answers to these questions need to be aired and debated.
Posted by: Rosie | 16 October 2007 at 10:41 PM