[Wafflepudding]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_economics
http://www.greeneconomics.net/

Just a couple of links to get some background info for those unfamiliar with the subject (such as myself). You can find a lot more with google.

I, much like everyone else in the modern, western world, have been raised on a positivist society, where material resources and space are not only taken for granted, but assumed to be limitless. Perpetual growth is not a theory, it is dogma, in fact, the dogma upon the religion of consumerism relies upon. As such, it's very hard for me to start thinking outside said positivist box. However images such as the work of Edward Burtynsky (http://www.edwardburtynsky.com/) Summitville mine (http://www.sprol.com/?p=268) and the Exxon-Valdez and Bhopal disasters (those are widely known. Nobody should have trouble googling them) remind me of a single fact: The way we're doing things now is not working. And we can't continue to act as if all of this isn't going to catch up to us eventually.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

WP, thank you! I think those links you posted lead to a wonderfully green progressive understanding of the bredth of where we Green Party people are headed in the main.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

I am an award winning Project Coordinator at the CA Department of Transportation, and I'm close to retirement now. I spent some time looking at the "greeneconomics.com link above. The capitalistic approach toward the greening of our world that is being taken there does not resonate well with me.

As a Project Coordinator, I serve as a member of a Project Development Team (PDT) for each project I am assigned. My work is delivering improvements that create the least impact on land and that, in addition to roadway improvements, provide natural environmental enhancements such as drainage for the mitigation of earth scouring and flooding, re-vegitation for the sustainability of niche eco-systems, visual enhancements for the motoring public, etc.

Simply, I would define a project as a cooperative, visionary, temporary endevour for the purpose of creating some unique improvement in a time efficient manner.

By means of PDT meetings, experts who I identify and call to meetings from each discipline forseeably needed for each project, ie., Design, Structures Design, Geology, Hydrology, Biology, Anthopology, Landscape Architecture, Right of Way, Legal, etc., come together to discuss what is to be done, where WE are, what is needed for the project to go forward and when whatever there is that's needed will be completed, efficiently - quality, scope and schedule (I'm responsible for cost too, but, for this discussion, I am intentionally leaving monetary (money) cost out of the discussion).

Experts are people who possess higher level specialized knowledge, skills and abilities gained through study, training and experience.

Project Teams are multi-disciplinary inasmuch as they consist of a wide variety of experts who meet together for the accomplishment of agreed upon, visionary goals.

I see those elements as basic to the re-making of our world, and, from years of experience, I know it is able to be done and applied to any endevour.

[Wafflepudding]

By means of PDT meetings, experts who I identify and call to meetings from each discipline forseeably needed for each project, ie., Design, Structures Design, Geology, Hydrology, Biology, Anthopology, Landscape Architecture, Right of Way, Legal, etc., come together to discuss what is to be done, where WE are, what is needed for the project to go forward and when whatever there is that's needed will be completed, efficiently - quality, scope and schedule (I'm responsible for cost too, but, for this discussion, I am intentionally leaving monetary (money) cost out of the discussion).


Ok, I think I understand what you do. You mentioned in another thread that money is just an abstract concept. You're right, it is, but it's the abstract concept our society uses to symbolize labor, from a socialist perspective, which I think is the most accurate way of looking at it in this discussion because (if I understand correctly) right now we're talking about infrastructure development, not market policy.

What's my point? Money, as an abstract concept is worthless, and for all practical purposes infinite (you can print or coin as much as materials and labor limit you). HOWEVER, the labor force, materials and tools purchasing power it represents are NOT infinite. "There's not enough money" isn't a limitation of the capitalist system, it's the capitalist way of saying "We don't have enough manpower/resources/tech available at this time".

What I'm trying to say here is money IS important and will likely be important in any society where beings specialize on their own trade and exchange goods and/or services. The environment is vital for our survival but so is establishing an adequate economy, both are important in this discussion. And perhaps I am being naive, but I believe we can have decent to high standards of living, a healthy national (or even global) economy AND a pristine environment, but we have to look at both environmental and financial costs.

Just my two cents.

[Jennifer_SFBA]

The much better answer is spirituality NOT materialism. Aliens do NOT use money. Aliens DO barter though when they are not outright taking what it is they want of the material world. In my experience, they have more than compensated by what was gained in spirituality. Aliens, generally, have a sense of the overall good, or the good of/for all.

[Wafflepudding]

Either way the discussion about aliens was not the point. I'm talking about what we could do with currently widespread technology.

I agree with you though, that as long as we keep focusing only on the material aspect of our lifestyle we will only dig deeper holes and worsen the impending environmental catastrophe looming over the horizon. The sad and unavoidable truth is that to protect the environment sacrifices in our way of life are necessary.

[Wafflepudding]

A little interesting nugget of info I found out while looking up info on the mining problem. About a third of the superfund sites listed on wikipedia are or have been connected to government activity, specifically armed forces (Army, Navy, Airforce) facilities. It seems that the most environmentally unfriendly organization in America might not be GE or Exxon, but the federal government.

That's excluding Dow Chemical of course.

[Jane of Arc]

Very interesting WaffleEars. (Retiring Puddin' for the time being.) Good research.

Green economics is the only way to go. I see huge profit. And sustainable living? I'm there. :sunny:

[Wafflepudding]

Recommended links:

http://www.sustainablesettings.org/wholesystems/greendevelopment.html <--- Interesting information.

http://www.polystyrene.org/environment/econ.html <--- A great example of DOW chemical's propaganda tactics. Fortunately this also provides a clear message: When asked paper or plastic, despite what might seem obvious, CHOOSE PAPER.

Edit: By the way, wouldn't using more lumber-derived products be good for the ecology? It seems counterintuitive, but if you think about it, the more lumber and paper we use, the more carbon is fixed off the atmosphere and less oil-derived products are used. Of course, as long as we replant the trees we use, and do this in a carefully planned and monitored fashion.

[Wafflepudding]

http://www.sustainable.org/ <--- All things sustainable.

http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0008003 <--- Tidal power. A promising technology, but materials technology must progress to make it economically worthwhile.

Achieving a sustainable economy will likely be one of the greatest challenges mankind will face as we move away from the realm of "one-size-fits-all" solutions like hydrocarbon fuels and landfills, and start applying combined solutions that require careful planning and extensive integration of technology (such as extensive recycling, fuel cell technology, materials science, methane recovery, bioreactors, sewage treatment plants, and waste to energy incinerators) as well as social changes like the death of senseless consumerism for example.

And most importantly, the dissapearance of what I like to call the "Live on credit" syndrome: Buy more than you can use today, pay through the nose tomorrow. It's ironic that the same paradigm is ruining both our economy at the personal level (plenty of Americans are barely keeping their heads above water with credit card debt and mortgages) and also ruining our environment.