How sustainable?

Time for a bit of self-doubt.

Although I do believe that we can make a reasonable estimate of sustainable levels of resource use and waste production is not only reasonably estimable, and can be made more accurately with time, I sometimes wonder what level of sustainability we’re aiming for.

While sustainability is simple in principle, everything has an almost indefinite impact. At least, anything that hasn’t evolved as part of a self-contained ecosystem. And that doesn’t include us.

The example I gave in my first blog was of a wood being forested. Trees will grow to maturity in a predictable period of time, so you can take a number of trees every year, re-seeding to keep the canopy close to full at all times. But that barely begins to explain a sustainable wood.

Mature trees (even sycamores) play host to a variety of animals, birds, insects and other plant species. Removing mature trees destroys habitat and a portion of the ecosystem. Some species take longer to recover or can withstand less perturbation than others. So, while the trees will manage a replacement rate of, say, one tree per year per hundred, a particular species of moss might only manage to re-grow at 0.1% or 0.01% per year.

Where does that leave our calculations? If we forest this wood with the health of the moss—in other words, its sustainability—in mind, we can only take one tree in every hundred, every ten or one hundred years. I’m serious.

A couple of answers spring to mind.

The deep green response is that we need to follow this process to its natural conclusion: that the human population and the way it exists have to be pared back to a level where no species will be pushed to extinction anywhere in the world by human action.

Is that absurd? Yes and no. It should be possible, with almost the present human population, to live without destroying any more species. It would mean avoiding the most sensitive parts of the globe, in large part. Setting aside the most delicate ecosystems as no-go areas. But we already survive without them.

Which brings me to another solution to the sustainability riddle. We decide on “acceptable” levels of sustainability. As we progress towards total sustainability, we do not simply reduce our impact everywhere and in every way. For one thing, that would be impractical. For another, it would be too crude.

Shutting down coal-fired power stations is all-well-and-good but is unlikely to be matched with a reduction in energy use. The gap between generation and use could be bridged by new renewable sources, but those have an impact too.

The solution has to be a managed transition, sacrificing some ecosystems and risking the loss of some species, relying on the durability of the global ecosystem to withstand a little more pain. What we get in the end is an ecosystem of ecosystems that is going to endure.

Are we happy with that? It could be argued that we should then progress towards ecosystems more like those we had before the rise of humanity. And that would be deepest green.

The non-linearity of money

Everybody knows about economies of scale. Even without sharp practices such as selling basic commodities at unprofitable prices, large corporations have the advantage over small ones.

As a company grows, it can afford more of the trappings of the high-street giants: market-focussed and sophisticated image, consistency of product and services across all outlets, standard operational procedures developed to be easy to learn and be highly time efficient. Uniformity. Reproducibility. Expenditure on advertising is borne by the whole outfit and benefits every element; better brand recognition means more people through the door or finding (and trusting) you online.

But brand strength is only one benefit of being bigger.

Being bigger also means more buying power. Even when you get your supplies in the supermarket, buying a pack of twenty-four toilet rolls is going to be cheaper than six packs of four. Then there’s wholesale. Then there’s contract supply. Then there’s contracts with overseas suppliers and self-shipping. Then there’s ownership of the supply chain. Along the way, profits that were being generated by stores, wholesalers, distributors, and suppliers are absorbed by the parent company.

And the drivers, stock-keepers, farmers and manufacturers have become employees of a much larger company too. Where the people who did unnecessary packaging, shelving and selling have gone is open to speculation.

But buying power isn’t the end of the story. More revenue and profit means a greater ability to manage the cash and assets. Not an magical way with money, simply the purchasing power to get better accountants, investment bankers, and fund managers.

This is where capital is truly non-linear. Like toilet rolls, money is cheaper in larger quantities. It pays to be rich.

Is that right? Since Thatcher brought the highest rate of income tax down to 40% in the Eighties, political consensus in the UK has kept it down, while also keeping the threshold down. In other words, where only 750,000 people were eligible to pay the top rate of tax in 1974, 3.25 million were paying it in 2007. When, as the Times put it, lecturers and nurses are paying the top rate, there is going to be little sympathy for raising the rate.

So whether it’s right or wrong, our current political system is unlikely to provide any compensation.

The situation is so iniquitous that it far outweighs the disconnect and inefficiency of large human organizations. All those operating procedures, folders of standard processes, and networking lunches are an attempt to compensate for poor communications up, down and across a company. Small isn’t just beautiful, it works better.

Can't get there from here

In the autumn edition of the Green Party of England and Wales’ magazine, Green World, there was a decent article about how Stroud had become a Transition Town (http://www.greenworld.org.uk/page55/page72/page59/page59.html). The Transition Town movement is helping local communities to focus on methods of reducing their carbon footprint (http://transitiontowns.org/Main/HomePage). Where there’s a will, the Transition Network will help find a way.

The objectives are almost as imprecise as those of sustainable development, but this is still a large chunk of what I want in a sustainable community. I will do what I can to make Shepherd’s Bush a Transition Town. Ask me what I’ve achieved by Spring 2009.

However, in the next edition of Green World, Councillor Rupert Read is keen to point out that “the Transition Towns movement alone cannot save us” because, he says, if some people reduce their use of fossil fuels, the price will not rise as much and others will not be incentivised to change. How depressing.

Now, I’m not saying that I’ve suddenly decided that Transition Towns are the answer to all our problems, but what does Rupert say we need to balance the equation? Legislation. And how do we get legislation to limit the use of fossil fuels? Through the electoral mechanism.

In getting elected to Norwich City Council, Rupert has been far more successful than me in getting green policies implemented, but the pinnacle of Green electoral success, so far in this world, has been as minority partners in a few national governments. The most high profile of those being in Germany. National, and therefore international, democratic politics swings tightly around a conventional centre. Radicalism is never more than a spice that adds a little flavour to an otherwise bland stew.

In other words, legislative change to implement carbon rationing or something similar will always be too little too late. The first World Climate Conference, established in recognition of the phenomenon of global warming, was held in 1979. Even Margaret Thatcher was convinced of the need for radical action after the second conference in 1990. Yet it is 2008 and we are failing to meet the commitment made in Kyoto in 1997.

Communities have to lead by example. Transition Towns can make a difference.

Some unpleasant side-effects

While we’re waiting for the world to stop digging this capitalist hole and find a way out, there are a few secondary effects of the system we might think about mitigating. Top of my list at the moment are London’s house and rental prices.

“Supply and demand,” they say, as if it explains, excuses and dismisses unacceptable situations such as unaffordable housing. “Supply and demand” is the dynamic relationship between actors in the market: what it encompasses is always complex but is also highly dependant on the circumstances. Arch-capitalists will assert that self-balancing and mutually rewarding circumstances form the majority of real situations, but we all suffer from badly distorted markets. And accommodation is one of the worst.

According to the Office of National Statistics, family expenditure on housing has gone from 9% of income in 1957 to 19% in 2006 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7213462.stm). Of course, this is the national average and people spend much more in property hotspots, and the younger and poorer spend much more too. Which is the situation a large chunk of London’s population is in. Like me.

The truism I prefer is “the price is what the market can stand”. Everybody wants to live in a pleasant neighbourhood, with plenty space, good schools and amenities, and only a short trip to work. When a city population is in the millions, it’s clear that not everyone can get what they want. In fact, very few can get most of those things, and those few are almost exclusively rich.

Hence, there is never the supply to meet the demand. Instead, house prices and rents are simply set as high as people can justify to themselves. How high, exactly? Well, here are some common situations for Londoners: mortgages that leave no room for frivolous or emergency spending; couples, and even families, in “studio” flats, which means only one living/bedroom; little terraced houses built for little terraced families split into two or even three flats. Or more specifically, a tiny triangular patch of land with planning permission for seven “luxury flats” (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=w4&ie=UTF8&ll=51.493425,-0.267078&spn=0.00079,0.002511&t=h&z=19&om=0).

In the absence of a more radical overhaul, this town needs some form of rent and price control. A radical overhaul would mean changing to a system that has stewardship embedded. But that’s a different story.