[Mpls] ...Long before we heard of "E85", over a decade

[Peter Vevang]

Loki Anderson wrote:
"Finally, we are in the midst of a dramatic population bloom fueled by a 
comfortable way of mis-using fossil fuel resources without regard for the 
consequences. Perhaps this was excusable when we were naive about the 
nature of our relationship to the environment, but such naiveté is no longer 
possible."

Peter Vevang writes:
I think Loki hits it here.  The real cause of unsustainable environments is the way we choose to live.  I differ a bit with the tone of his post.  People follow that pattern because the government created the conditions  and supports the infrastructure that allows that kind of growth to continue.  It is not a question of political will, it is that way because we have directed our institutions to support this system, it is a process issue.  It takes time to change that, and we need a sustained political effort to make it work.  As long as we are unable to provide a better alterantive, and back that alternative up with votes, I don't think it is reasonable to expect people to want to change.

I support ethanol because it helps farmers, it is an economic opportunity based on sustainable principles. I think the success of ethanol shows that there is money to be made by following practices that protect the environment.  It is possible to earn a living from this industry.  I think it also shows that you need to create a constituency, and gain political support if you want to sustain any effort.

That idea translates to the city, there is money to be made.  People can make a living by supporting sustainable practices.  Sustainable practices are not an economic disadvantage, they are an advantage, it is an untapped industry.  If you divide up the percentage of energy usage, 50% of the energy we use goes toward construction, maintanance and operation of buildings.  Only 20% goes towards transportation, cars, including air travel, ships, trucking and so on.  We could completely eliminate all SUV's and replace them with E-85 hybrids and it would only slightly dent our energy usage.  The single best way to cut back on wasting energy in the building industry is to renovate, repair, re-use what we have, to renovate and rebuild our existing infrastructure in a more energy efficient way and to repair and maintain our buildings in an energy efficient way.  That is something we can do here in the city.  It would provide jobs, and it would save money for the people owning the buildings, giving them more resources for other projects.

Farmers needed government subsidies and help inventing the technology for ethanol, they had a development model.  What we do not have in the city is an effective re-development model, we don't have systematic subsidies, regulatory support or support with the technology and building process that follow a sustainable model.  Our building codes, ordinances and approval process aren't geared toward supporting sustainable development.  Our current regulatory process was invented in the 1940's and implemented in the 50's.  We haven't changed the fundamental principles we use for 50+ years.

I think the trick to making sustainability work is to make it economically beneficial and to have the proper support and regulatory system in place.  If you can do that, people will come to you.  You won't be in a position of forcing people to do something they don't want to do.  We will not succeed by making others fail or punishing them.  We succeed together.

Peter Vevang
Audubon