Thoughtful sustainability curriculum

[Author's note: this has been cross-posted from my blog, http://www.edwardjensen.net/.]

As preface/context, I am pursuing dual undergraduate degrees at Arizona State University: Urban & Metropolitan Studies (UMS) through the School of Public Affairs and Sustainability through the School of Sustainability. Being in the fourth semester of my UMS studies and only in my first for Sustainability studies, I am taking the introductory classes to the latter. And while the curriculum for Sustainability is what I thought it would be and that I understand the importance of such a program, there are just a couple of concerns I have.

Something that we are taught in these introductory classes on sustainability is that true sustainability is the intersection of environmental protection, social equity, and economic justice. If I may borrow from ASU's Global Institute of Sustainability (GIOS, the parent organization of the School of Sustainability), a sustainable society

considers the interconnectedness of environmental, economic, and social systems; reconciles the planet's environmental needs with development needs over the long term; and avoids irreversible commitments that constrain future generations. (from here)

Being a UMS major, I have taken a lot of classes rooted in policy analysis. From those classes (and also from being a student of history), long-term policy changes are best achieved through incremental policy shifts. In other words, it is not wise to disregard previous policy and enact a new set of policies. This sets any institution up for serious failure. While troubling times do call for widespread measures, the rule of thumb is to change present policy in an incremental fashion. This might be the result of society's teaching that we should look upon extreme movements with a cautious eye and critical analysis. The simple cultural clues that we get in our early years - don't go too far from mommy and daddy, ignore the person on the street yelling that "the end is near", and so on - teach us to ignore (and quite possibly tune out) extreme points of view.

I am prepared to argue that this is why programs such as Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) might be looked upon with widespread cultural disdain. These programs have adopted a wildly different policy agenda for (in their words) saving the planet. For instance, PETA advocates for everyone to go vegan: one step above and beyond simple vegetarianism. To live a vegan lifestyle means to eliminate everything produced by animals. Generally, these products are more expensive than their non-vegan counterparts, and so those who find that basic food for survival is too expensive could not adopt this lifestyle. While it might protect the environment, it is not economically just.

It seems like sustainability is the current buzz word. But I fear that people automatically associate sustainability with liberal tree-hugging hippies. I believe that the reality of sustainability and the genuine need for sustainability education is far from this perception. As a disclaimer to both my introductory courses in Sustainability this semester, the instructors conceded that there is not a wide literature on the field. With that justification, I fear that I am getting a perception that my instructors teaching this curriculum are adopting that mantra (sustainability=save solely the environment). Using their School's (GIOS's) definition of sustainability (see above), there is a definite disconnect.

The first real acceptance of the importance of sustainability was back in 1987 when the Brundtland Commission (formally World Commission on Environment and Development) of the United Nations released their report, Our Common Future, and said (about sustainable development):

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: the concept of 'needs', in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs.

I bring this up to show that the idea of sustainability is relatively new. The textbooks for both my introductory classes to the concept are from the disparate areas of sustainability: environment, economy, and society. But the emphasis seems to be on the first of those areas. The PETA agenda example I listed above just targets one of those disparate areas (environment).

Let me be clear that I am not dismissing that we need to change our current habits of consumption. I am arguing that the best way to do this is in an incremental manner. Take the customary New Year's Resolutions that people make. Most resolutions proposed are on a large scale: stop smoking, lose 30 pounds, or do some other behavioral change. Most of those resolutions do not make it through the end of January. I bring this up because this is an argument that we are creatures of habit. We do things with the best of intentions but we fade back into our prior habits. I fear that true sustainability, if its associated polices are not adopted in an incremental fashion, will be looked upon as a fleeting fancy and nothing will happen.

As I was discussing with one of my colleagues, there are a lot of incremental changes that individuals can make to affect the course of this planet and adopt sustainable living. If everyone switched out one incandescent light bulb and replaced it with one compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL). The micro change that this would bring would be massive on the macro scale. All being equal, however, it is still an incremental change.

I hope I have shed some light on this. I was working on a book review assignment and I thought of this issue.

-Edward Jensen

Presidents Crow, Shelton, and Haeger on KAET's Horizon

On a recent edition of KAET's Horizon program, the three presidents of Arizona's three state universities (ASU, the University of Arizona, and Northern Arizona University) sat down and talked with Ted Simons on the challenges that would face their universities if the Arizona Legislature's proposed budget was approved and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer:



This is no delicate matter. I hope that everyone can come to a reasonable compromise.

An open letter to METRO's persistent naysayers

Every time I read an article on METRO Light Rail, I am shocked at all the negative (and naive) comments that readers post. I offer this open letter to everyone who is still vehemently opposed to METRO.

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but METRO Light Rail is here and it's slated to open up in 13 days. I know that many of you are opposed to METRO and think that through your persistent complaints on it that it's going to go away and the investment will suddenly make Arizona's budget crisis disappear. I know that $1.6billion is a lot of money, but it was spent when the economy was in fine shape.

First, some history. METRO was originally going to be a project just within the City of Phoenix. When the Transit 2000 bond in Phoenix passed on 14 March 2000, the original route was just over 13 miles long would have been METRO's alignment from Christown (19th Ave/Montebello) to the Airport (44th St/Washington). Through many iterations, the process became a regional effort and METRO Light Rail (as we know it today) was born. The Transit 2000 bond called for a 20-year, 0.4% sales tax (or $0.04 in tax on a $10 purchase) with a federal match of $600million to METRO and $200million to the bus system. That bond passed and we are here today. In 2004, Maricopa County voters approved Proposition 400, allowing for a regional sales tax of 0.5% ($0.05 in tax on a $10 purchase).

Second, the art. Phoenix city ordinance requires that 1% of the capital construction costs of all publicly-financed buildings/projects go to art. For METRO, the artwork goes to the stations. In addition to the architecture of the station, each station has its own identity that individual artists have put into that station. The Heard Museum (Central/Encanto) station, for instance, has artwork inspired by the cultures represented inside the Heard Museum. The Downtown Phoenix/City Hall (1st Ave/Jefferson southbound) has a mosaic of Arizona's own Sandra Day O'Connor because it is near the seat of Phoenix government. You say that the artwork will be defaced. There have been reputable studies by many institutions that artwork at a public gathering point decreases crime because it increases microregional (the area nearby) pride.

Third, the future. I know that the economy isn't all that great now, but nobody projected this back in 2000 when METRO started. For every $1 put into capital improvements like light rail, the return is $3-$4. As a result of METRO, investment in the 20-mile corridor has been significant. When the economy rebounds soon, you watch what will happen along the route. When the price of gasoline goes back to record levels, won't you want to be where you can live, shop, work, and play along the line? Or now: is sitting in traffic congestion to commute from the far exurbs of Phoenix to downtown Phoenix fun? I look at traffic congestion maps of the Valley during rush hours and I see more red than yellow or green. If your commute is 60-90 minutes each day one way, that's 2-3 hours per day stuck in traffic doing nothing and breathing toxic fumes. If you lived and worked along the METRO line, that is an extra 2-3 hours per day with the people you love.

A quick note on crime: you say that light rail and public transportation will bring crime into your neighborhoods. Evaluate that statement. If I was a criminal, I probably wouldn't take public transportation as my getaway vehicle! First, they're not all that fast; second, you would be in close quarters with other people watching what you're doing. This argument makes little sense.

I leave you with this: You say that public transportation is subsidized by taxpayer dollars. This is true; no system is completely self-sufficient. But aren't your roads also subsidized by taxpayer dollars? What return do we get from those? Aren't your schools subsidized by taxpayer dollars? What financial return do we get from those? What about your police and fire departments? Do we get a financial return from those?

I probably cannot speak for you, but I can speak for myself and all of my fellow residents who choose to live the urban lifestyle: we cannot wait for METRO to open up in 13 days.

METRO is reality and it is coming on 27 December 2008.

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

Some more words of the wise

In a recent blog entry, my good friend and colleague Kirsten Martin continued on her trend of sharing some words of the wise with us and so I simply have to share them with you. In the spirit of Christmastide, I hope that her words resonate with you:

I truly believe that each of us are all worthy to have our needs met, and not one of us should go hungry. If you have the resources then give. It is not our job to judge, and we can never see into the hearts of others and know how they are feeling or where they really are in life. I hope that as we embark on this Christmas season we can all give gifts of second chances, gifts of service, and gifts of kindness to all those around us whether or not they are deemed 'worthy or unworthy'. [excerpt from "worthy vs. unworthy" by Kirsten Martin]

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

Reactions on the Elections

As a student of urban policy and of infrastructure, these elections were very interesting to watch.

1. President: Obama won. I was impressed early on with his urban policy and his dedication to improve the infrastructure of America.
   
2. Arizona's Proposition 105 (majority rule): Fortunately, it's been defeated. Democracy still has a chance here in Arizona.
   
3. Arizona's Proposition 200 (payday loan system/usury 'reform'): Despite the record amount of money spent in Arizona by the payday loan industry, the voters saw that this wasn't the promised reform and it's been defeated.
   
4. California's Proposition 1a (high-speed rail in California): California will get a decent high-speed rail system. It will be interesting to see how that goes. Perhaps Arizona will get with it as part of a regional rail system between California and Arizona...
   

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

Downstairs at the University Center cafe

In the past, I have refrained from making this a blog of commentary and opinion. A recent experience at the ground-level cafe of University Center has led me to divert from this history.

My office here at ASU is on the 6th floor of University Center. While I usually pack my lunch and bring it down, there are times when my sweet tooth gets the better of me and so I go and get a cookie from the cafe. During the summer, a large (read: 8-inch diameter) cookie was $1.89 and served with a smile. During the summer, the cafe was staffed by adults who were nice and knew what they were doing.

Today, that same cookie was $2.19, smaller, and there was not even as much of a "thank you, come again" after my purchase. The workers there? I would surmise that they were three student workers.

Nor do they know how to make my favorite espresso beverage, an iced caffè americano. Simple: four shots of espresso into a glass filled to the brim with ice. (Not the other way around.) Top it off with cold water. (Not hot water.)

Now, I have nothing against student workers. But I think that everyone should say "thank you" after any purchase even if they don't necessarily mean it. Otherwise, it sends a signal that you're not welcome and don't come back.

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

Some words of the wise

My friend and colleague Kirsten Martin wrote a blog entry recently that I think is worth sharing with you. Regardless of her perspective as a Social Work student, it has a truly valuable lesson that we all can share:

We are torn and wrinkled by the experiences in life. Some experience more of this than others, but yet our value remains a constant. So many times it is easy to look at ourselves or at others and see the wrinkles and tears and feel like the value is not there or has decreased. It is essential to remember that this is not the case. ... We still retain our dignity and self worth and in turn our value as a human being (excerpt from "The Value of People" by Kirsten Martin)

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

Sustainability ad naseum

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. -the United Nations, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future

Another popular definition further breaks down sustainability into three different components: environmentally, economically, and socially. It is more than the latest buzz word

Something that irritates me are some of the 'sustainable design' elements of the new Taylor Place residence halls at the ASU Downtown Phoenix campus. The complex is proud of the fact that they're using television monitors as video message boards instead of paper. First, is using a television, using the definitions above, sustainable? I think that it would fall more under the phrase, 'environmentally friendly'. In the long run, however, which truly is more environmentally friendly? Is a piece of paper - or a ream of paper, for that matter - more environmentally friendly than a television? Which creates more greenhouse gases in its production and use: paper or a television?

Paper requires minimal greenhouse gases to produce when from recycled sources, and a television requires a lot in manufacturing, use, and even disposal. Little of a television can be recycled. The entire piece of paper can be recycled and reused.

Is this truly environmentally friendly? Or, in the words of ASU, sustainable?

If an institution is going to be sustainable in all three uses of the definition, then it should just be sustainable and not talk about it. It should not talk up how 'environmentally friendly' it is but use the term 'sustainable' to talk about it. If we were going to promote environmentally friendly practices, sometimes the way it's been done is the best way to do it.

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

Where's the METRO safety campaign?

Like a lot of people, I commute to and from the ASU Downtown Phoenix campus on the bus system. I live about a mile north of ASU so this is easy. But something I always see on my incredibly short journey is people jay-walking across Central Avenue - and the new METRO light rail tracks - in front of the Burton Barr Phoenix Central Library. First, this is illegal. Second, this is unsafe.

Something that I believe METRO has not done enough - and even in cooperation with the cities - is to focus on and even enforce safety around light rail. Phoenix and the entire metropolitan area is not used to driving around train tracks. Unlike most major cities, Phoenix doesn't have that much for railroad tracks. It is my fear that - given Phoenix's automobile safety record and how we like to run red traffic lights - there will inevitably be an accident involving someone who thought that they could beat a train through an intersection. Or a pedestrian who walked out on the tracks and didn't see or hear the train coming.

So my question to the METRO people is this: Why haven't you started an aggressive safety campaign in cooperation with the cities? Why aren't we fining people who walk -illegally - across the tracks in all the cities in which METRO operates? Why aren't all the traffic signals at all METRO intersections - namely the left-turn signals - working? If we want a culture of safety around train tracks - which I think we all want - why haven't we started that from the inceptions of this project years ago?

Regardless of your opinions on METRO, it is a reality. It is here. The first trains are out on our streets and it opens up Safety issues are not a reason to oppose light rail.

If you want information on METRO safety, you can go to METRO's website for more: http://www.valleymetro.org/metro_light_rail/light_rail_safety/.

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

Follow-up to the last light rail post

Our good friend Nick Bastian, who runs the RailLife.com blog, offered a good perspective on the ASU State Press article in a follow up to what I wrote yesterday.

Go check out "More on the Light Rail Debate" and let us know what you think.

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

Aren't we past arguing light rail?

The ASU student-run newspaper, The State Press, posted in its Monday 30 June 2008 edition an opinion piece on the new light rail. The piece was rather critical of the whole project, using hearsay as basis for its argument.

Okay, okay, we know what the arguments against light rail are. They were brought up when the system was under planning back a few years ago. And the same arguments were brought up at the 2004 election when the new Regional Transportation Plan was voted on and approved. Rather than restate fact - I mean opinion - let's get on and dismiss this article as hearsay (because that's what it is) piece by piece.

If the piece gets one thing right, it is how the Phoenix metropolitan area has grown. It is true that Phoenix sprawled out in the days of cheap energy, incorporating Wickenburg, Apache Junction, Casa Grande, and Buckeye to the endless sea that is Phoenix. Now, as $4/gallon gas is a reality and with no end in sight, those days are coming to a close. Couple that in with the hellish commutes from these places due to a freeway system that desperately needs expansion, and you have a nightmare. For those who can, more and more people are taking public transit as gas prices increase.

But, as I do with all articles that seemingly condemn METRO or any light rail system, I dismiss it because their ‘facts’ are based on hearsay and also on the basis that light rail will force them to change their unsustainable lifestyle in the suburbs – kicking and screaming, mind you – and live in dense development. Plus, it doesn’t make sense considering the days of cheap energy are gone and with the price of gas that knows no ends.

So are we good? If you don't like the system, please voice your opinions (as dissent, disagreement, and discourse are the cornerstones of democracy), but please get your facts straight. It does such a tremendous disservice to those who are looking forward to having an alternate to unsustainable living.

Cheers-
Edward Jensen

Willo board leadership naïveté

So finally, the Willo Neighborhood Association posted their proposed changes to their organization's by-laws. The issue at hand is the disenfranchisement of about 300 people who bought into Willo.

In reviewing the bylaws, the following items stuck out. First, the definition of the boundaries (Article I section 5) of Willo goes from the description of McDowell Road to Thomas Road north-to-south and Central Avenue to Seventh Avenue east-to-west to, "Boundaries are as set forth in the Plan." What plan? I assume it's the Willo Conservation Plan. But is it? And what revision, dated when? What version? The City of Phoenix Neighborhood Services Department has prepared the following map of Willo's boundaries. It still goes as far north to Thomas Road - so as to include (and quite possibly influence the development of) the Metropolitan Lofts at 531 W. Thomas Road and as far south as McDowell Road - so as to include (and quite possibly to influence the development of) the northwest corner of Seventh Avenue and McDowell Road. I have a feeling that once these developments are finished, then Willo will want nothing to do with them.

The second item in the bylaws that is rather interesting is membership (article II section 1). What's being proposed makes it sound like membership to the Willo Neighborhood Association is opt-in. The text goes from "Any person of voting age owning property or residing within the Plan boundaries shall be a member of the Association" to "Any person of voting age residing within the Plan boundaries may opt to be a member of the association [sic]" [in both instances, emphasis mine]. Does that mean that (if the bylaws are approved) there are no members of the Association and therefore no board? How to people opt-in to the Association? All the proposed by-laws say is, "The Process for optional membership in the Association will be set forth by rules and procedures established by the Board. Opt-In membership must be renewed annually." Goodness, with optional membership, it sounds like the powers-that-be within Willo have the power to deny membership. I'll leave it there, but just think about it. Detractors of the Willo board will be ousted from Willo so that their opinions are opinions and not votes.

Finally, the question is simple. Why were the bylaws - with the boundaries set forth as Central to 7th Avenue, McDowell to Thomas - approved by the Board and Residents three times (5 February 1992, 10 March 2005, and 15 March 2007) even with this supposed 'mistake'? If it was an oversight, then Willo should be reaching out to Tapestry through conciliation that the Willo board leadership have rejected.

It is not a mistake. It is intentional.

-Edward Jensen

[Author's note: for all the latest in the Willo saga, point your feed reader to 'Willo Watch' at http://feeds.feedburner.com/WilloWatch and thanks!]

Arizona SB1192 - don't kill public arts!

Arizona's public arts program is under fire.

[Source: Brenda Sperduti, Arizona Citizens for the Arts] – The sponsors of Senate Bill 1330 have attached the language dissolving the Arts Trust fund to an unrelated bill Senate Bill 1192. The procedure, called a “strike everything” amendment allows the original bill which stalled in the Senate, to gain new life and will be heard in the House Appropriations Committee Wednesday at 1:30 p.m.

The new bill, SB 1192, would cause a permanent reduction to the Arizona Commission on the Arts (ACA) grants budget of 40% (approx. $1.6 million annually). SB 1192 proposes the transfer of Arts Trust Fund receipts that ACA has received since 1989 to the Department of Mines for safety issues surrounding abandoned mines.

NOW it is time to let every member in the House of Representatives know how strongly you feel about this attempt to decimate arts funding in Arizona. The programs funded by the ACA are crucial to every community in our state and there is no justification for sweeping money from the arts as an answer to the public safety issue of abandoned mines.

Contact your Representative and tell them to vote NO on SB 1192. Use the automated e-mail message AzCA has prepared by clicking here or, better yet, send your own message or make a phone call today! Phone numbers and other contact information can be found by clicking here.

Please share this ACTION ALERT with other art advocates you know.

On the Coach America ban of KTAR

(see ASU State Press news story)

When I started off with this blog, it has been my intention to withhold from commentary but this instance requires it. As one who has been a passenger on the shuttle for as long as I have been a student at ASU, I am familiar with the ins and outs of operating such an enterprise. I have aided drivers in finding alternate routes because the primary routes were blocked by accidents. I am a familiar face to some of the shuttle drivers.

I am familiar with one of the three ASU intercampus shuttles: that which runs between the Tempe and Downtown Phoenix campuses. In the beginning of this service, the buses were old transit buses that could barely withstand the 100°-heat of the Phoenix summer. It was a rare treat where we would ride on a motorcoach.

It was at the beginning of the Spring 2007 semester when they decided to venture with the radio. The first stations that were played were music stations. Most of the time, it was Phoenix smooth-jazz KYOT-FM 95.5; at other times, classic rock KSLX-FM 100.7. It was only at the start of this semester, the Spring 2008 semester, where the shuttle drivers started playing KTAR. Now, I'm not sure what the directive was: if I were to fathom a guess, I would say that it was a Coach America decision. (ASU charters the intercampus shuttle buses through Coach America, an independent company.)

KTAR-FM 92.3 is now a talk radio station. For many years, this was my main source for news, because it was an all-news station. Any commentary was kept to a minimum because it was the station's goal to present an objective look into the news. Since its move to the FM side of the radio spectrum, it has shifted to a talk format. By 'talk' I mean more commentary and opinion than news. For some, this is okay, and I am all for people listening to commentary and opinion. For me, however, I prefer objective news over commentary and opinion. I'll explore on this more in a moment.

In the interest of fairness to all sides, I believe that this problem would have been averted had Coach America not chosen to venture into playing KTAR. But now that ASU has gotten itself stuck in between that proverbial 'rock' and 'hard place', I'm not sure what can be done. The only thing of which I can think is to resume KTAR being played. If the bus company does not resume playing KTAR, then there are cries of violations of First Amendment rights and so on and so forth.

When I am on the shuttle, Glenn Beck is on KTAR. I fundamentally disagree with his positions, but rather than complain to the bus driver demanding a different station be played over the bus's PA system, I simply bring my own music player and listen to my own music. Other times, I listen my personal radio that only I can hear. I think this is something that all shuttle riders can do. Radios are becoming more and more inexpensive and I think all shuttle riders can afford one.

For Coach America and ASU, this is truly the intersection of Rock Street and Hard Place Lane.

-Edward Jensen

Op-Ed on Social Equity and Public Policy

For my URB220 class on public administration, we had to write an op-ed (opposite editorial) on a particular topic. I elected to write about Social Equity and Public Policy.

Download a PDF file of my policy analysis here.
copyright (c) 2008 Edward Jensen. All rights reserved.

Edward Jensen