Community Sustainability

Mark Marcoplos makes two important points on OrangePolitics. "The fundamental issue to me is that the community should have a realistic understanding of the truth about how sustainable we are as a community" and "We certainly should reward baby steps toward sustainability."

While I value the environmental leadership shown by Mark and others, sustainability is not about environmental issues alone. We've made great strides forward in environmental protections thanks to our many local activists, but we've done so at the cost of economic and social sustainability. Two excellent articles by the local press last weekend highlight my concerns about how, we as a community, are approaching sustainability: OWASA, Town Weigh Water Issues and Mark Peters on school budgets.

How much is OWASA service going up this year? Yes, I know--higher rates will reduce demand and promote conservation. And the inverted block pricing structure will make some attempt to accommodate low income households. But the capital improvement budget for expanding the wastewater treatment plant to meet unconstrained population growth should not be ignored. Smart growth is protecting open space, but by concentrating growth inside the OWASA service area it’s adding to the inflationary cost of living here.

I support the concept of the rural buffer, but I also believe that all theories should be monitored to assure that they are accomplishing the intended goal. In this case, we may be protecting our farmland and open space at the expense of the affordability of our urban spaces. What expense is acceptable and when do we need to rethink the approach, if not the theory? Where is the data needed for lawmakers and the public to assess the continued efficacy of the rural buffer?

As for the schools, the current growth rates in this community are simply outpacing the funding mechanisms. Passing infrastructure charges off on developers raises the cost of housing; we all know developers are not going to take the financial hit inherent in current land use policies--despite the honorable intent of those policies. If we were funding all infrastructure, such as schools and other government services, on the same cost of service principle used by OWASA, the tax rate would be enormous but at least it would be more visible than it has been over the past many years.

Looking at our community demographics and the cost of living, I believe our local economy is trapped in a positive feedback loop. "A positive feedback loop is self-reinforcing. The more it works, the more it gains power to work some more....Positive feedback loops drive growth, explosion, erosion, and collapse in systems. A system with an unchecked positive loop ultimately will destroy itself." The more we do to protect the environment, the more expensive it becomes to live in this community. Positive feedback loops are not sustainable, even when they are caused by environmentally sustainable policies. That's why true sustainability addresses the environment, the society, and the economy.

Although I value the contributions of local environmental activists, I think it's time to look at something other than environmental policies for determining our community sustainability quotient. Only then will we have a "realistic understanding of the truth about how sustainable we are as a community."

Our continued devotion to growth above all is, on balance, making our lives worse, both collectively and individually. Growth no longer makes most people wealthier, but instead generates inequality and insecurity. Growth is bumping up against physical limits so profound—like climate change and peak oil—that trying to keep expanding the economy may be not just impossible but also dangerous. And perhaps most surprisingly, growth no longer makes us happier.

--Bill McKibben, Reversal of Fortune

Sometimes Less is More....unfortunately

From Environmental Health News

Does 'the dose make the poison?'
Extensive results challenge a core assumption in toxicology

The "dose makes the poison" is a common adage in toxicology. It implies that larger doses have greater effects than smaller doses. That makes common sense and it is the core assumption underpinning all regulatory testing. When "the dose makes the poison," toxicologists can safely assume that high dose tests will reveal health problems that low dose exposures might cause. High dose tests are desirable because, the logic goes, they not only will reveal low dose effects, they will do so faster and with greater reliability. Greater reliability and speed also mean less cost.

The trouble is, some pollutants, drugs and natural substances don't adhere to this logic, as can be seen in the photograph above. Instead, they cause different effects at different levels, including impacts at low levels that do not occur at high doses. Sometimes the effects can even be precisely the opposite at high vs. low. Because all regulatory testing has been designed assuming that "the dose makes the poison," it is highly likely to have missed low dose effects, and led to health standards that are too weak. (read more)

Water treatment removes some toxins and some pharmaceutical residues, including hormones. But it doesn't get it all. Those 'small doses' are passed along through waterways impacting fish, frogs, and other wildlife, as well as the community downstream. Current water testing doesn't/can't measure the small doses......