Editor,

Northern Colorado is quickly becoming a hub for the new energy economy. If the recent opening of the new Vestas wind-turbine blade plant, Woodward Governor announcing 100 new jobs for their wind-turbine inverter business, AVA Solar Inc.’s plans to open a new manufacturing facility in Del Camino and the new Colorado State energy research “super cluster” are any indication, the future looks bright.

Just as we did for the oil companies in their heyday, we can help spur additional investment in the region with tax credits and other incentives. Unfortunately, our House representative, Marilyn Musgrave, recently voted against such a renewable energy stimulus package. In fact, over the last few years, she has consistently supported the oil companies and the “old” energy way.

It’s time to ensure that our interests are represented in the U.S. Congress. Unlike Musgrave, Betsy Markey has renewable energy high on her priority list: She wrote: “We have a unique opportunity at this time in our history to change the way we power this country. Colorado is poised to lead this effort. Our state’s wind, solar and agricultural energy supplies offer opportunities to create jobs, protect the environment and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.” I have no doubt that she would have voted to secure the long-term economic and energy security of the region by voting “aye” to the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008.

Sean Rees,
Fort Collins

So far, this letter has been published in The Coloradoan and The Journal Advocate.

But these 16 states, representing about half of potential car-buyers, want to do better. That’s a lot of market share to entice car manufacturers to improve emissions-limiting technology.

But the Bush administration, which dragged its feet on acknowledging climate change, inexplicably seems intent on doing whatever it can to thwart states’ efforts to take the lead. The EPA was having none of it, rejecting the only waiver among more than 40 applications in 30 years.

It seems interesting that the government is afraid to allow states authority to enforce their own standards; for instance, the state of California, for a long time now, has had some of the strictest standards nationwide.  This is partly because they realize their responsibility, but also partly because the voters in the state actually support the endeavor.  It is no coincidence that many other states tend to adopt California’s standards after they are made; it is primarily because those states recognize the wisdom of these standards.  Let us hope that the federal government can do the same.

The problem is, sustainability is really something focused towards the greater good.  While some people are certainly happy implementing sustainable ideals, this is not globally true.  Nor is it really our responsibility to make it so, since we value the idea of personal freedom.  So what happens when the necessity of preserving a way of life overrides our need for individual freedoms?  We can certainly promote sustainability as a cultural movement, which is entirely appropriate, since there are a large number of people who believe in it.  But to force sustainability upon people who don’t want it is to alienate them from the idea.  This would almost suggest that we should focus on the young, that we have to focus our efforts on people who are growing up around the idea of sustainability, encouraging them to make sustainable decisions.  But then we have the same problem that we had before — we are forcing sustainability on a population that has no choice in the matter.  Yes, we can educate the young to make sustainable decisions, but is that really allowing them their own freedom?

One of the ideas that we must struggle with, then, is that sustainability, while necessary, cannot simply be foisted upon others.  Much the same thing can be said about our energy independence, where alternative energy supporters practically presume that everybody else is wrong and we are right — that we must force upon people the ideas of solar power, wind power, and other alternative energy sources.  While many people are certainly receptive to this idea, one could argue it is a violation of freedom.  So where do we start?  How do we make this an effort that makes everybody happy?  Is this even possible?  Sustainability is yet another field where we deal with this contradiction.  The answer to all of these questions is both yes and no — it simply depends on our approach.

This is where value judgements enter quite strongly into play, and, much as we might like to ignore the fact, sustainability is in fact a value - more specifically, it’s a personal value rather than a cultural value, since the culture of the United States as a whole has yet to embrace the idea.  Economists would say that sustainability is also a part of a person’s utility, since doing things to assure sustainability increases a person’s well-being.  When that’s the case and sustainability is not prevalent enough on a cultural level, which way do you swing the pendulum?  Do you declare the species endangered to protect their habitat, or do you attempt to increase our energy independence by allowing drilling operations?  Doing both is certainly entirely possible, but one act makes the other inherently more complicated.

I’m not sure there is a right answer here, but there is certainly a more correct answer given the direction of the economy and the overall political environment: declare polar bears endangered and protect their habitat, but allow for drilling elsewhere if it is feasible and can be done in a reasonably low-impact manner.  I acknowledge the relative absurdity of the previous statement, since by definition, no drilling is low-impact, ever, and the likelihood of such drilling occurring anywhere within the lower 48 states is likely to be met with extreme resistance by concerned citizens.  The debate over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and drilling rights there notwithstanding, Alaska is, plain and simple, an easier state to drill in, since much of its population is concentrated.

One hopes that we can arrive at a sustainable solution for both the problem of habitat and energy independence; indeed, it’s the only thing we can reasonably attempt as a nation.

• Geologist
• Civil and Structural CAD Technicians
• Civil Engineers
• Architects/Architectural Designer
• Electrical Engineer
• Mechanical Engineer
• Regional Sales Manager - Retail

It’s fairly clear that at least some of these have some sort of ties to the environment - architecture and geology have clear ties (and to a lesser extent, so do the engineers).  But why the regional sales management position?

Keep in mind: this is a keyword search.  Thus, it simply matches the word "sustainability" in anything, and will match:

Supports marketing initiatives and ensures successful implementation and sustainability within the Region.

This is an indicator of two things, at least from my perspective as both an information management graduate student and as someone highly interested in sustainability:

1. It’s all about context. "Well, duh," I can hear you say, but it’s amazing how many people forget this.  Search engines are only as good as the amount of context it has about what you’re searching for.  What does this have to do with environmental sustainability?  Pretty much nothing, until you consider:
2. While "sustainability" may be synonymous with "environmental sustainability", the reality of the job market would seem to dictate otherwise.  Tying back to my previous post, this synonymy is not universal, though it would seem to be by glancing at the political atmosphere of  a good chunk of first world countries.  My job search might pull up a job that directly has to do with sustainability - my alma mater, The Evergreen State College, recently posted a job ad for a Director of Sustainability, for instance.  But it’s equally as likely to suggest regional sales positions precisely because the meaning of "sustainability" depends upon its context!

Why does this make a difference?  Consider the many different contexts of the word:

• Business sustainability, usually referring to whether a business or a business model can survive or not
• Information sustainability, referring to how information is kept alive
• Cultural sustainability, referring to whether a particular culture can survive
• Ecosystem sustainability, which is a subset of environmental sustainability referencing a particular type of environment

Environmental sustainability is huge - it interweaves itself in and through our culture, our values, our economic system, our way of life.  So what does it mean when simply saying the word "sustainability" is almost a given reference to the environment?  There are four reasons that pop to mind:

1. It is a recognition of the current "fad" that is getting governmental attention, though to call it a fad is to grossly understate the urgency of understanding our relationship with our surroundings.  This particular position is not one I agree with for exactly that reason, though it is held by various people.
2. It is an acceptance of the idea that we must change our way of thinking about our daily lives.
3. It is an encapsulation of many of the fears we have about the future and provides a focal point for our efforts to better understand and support the world around us.
4. It is a tacit recognition that we have ignored the environmental impact of a consumerist society.

The tricky part about the entire question of sustainability is that its many different spheres - environmental, cultural, and all the rest - are all so enmeshed that changing our way of thinking about one type of sustainability can drastically weaken or strengthen the rest.  For example, the state of Washington (and every other state in the Union, for that matter) has strict policies on how long particular records must be kept by public organizations for audit purposes.  If you change those rules, you immediately impact three types of sustainability:

• environmental, because you’ve changed how the information must be stored and how the media must be preserved (which could require special material treatments, additional infrastructure, etc.);
• cultural, because you’ve changed the rules on how long records must be retained and thus have required the people responsible for those records to adjust their practices (note that this is a smaller example of cultural sustainability than what I was referencing above); and
• information sustainability, because you’ve changed the length of time that that information must exist.

What happens, then, when we begin to think sustainably about our environment?  Our way of being changes.  This is not only essential; it’s required.  That’s why the word "sustainability" must be linked in people’s minds to the environment: to not do so is to put us all in grave danger of forgetting that we have to change.

We want to thank you for taking the time to write us here at Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.

We are sorry you heard of the inaccurate assertion that we are actively lobbying against increased fuel economy standards, and we want you to be aware of our company’s position supporting increased fuel economy.

There are various bills before Congress that would mandate a new target of 35 mpg by 2020 and require both cars and trucks to meet that standard. Our engineers tell us the requirements specified by these proposed measures are beyond what is possible. Toyota spends $23 million every day on research and development but, at this point, the technology to meet such stringent standards by 2020 does not exist.

Toyota has long supported an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards. Moreover, Toyota has always exceeded federal fuel economy requirements. We are continuously striving to improve our fuel economy, regardless of federal mandates.

Toyota currently supports a proposal known as the Hill-Terry bill, HR 2927, that would set a new standard of up to 35 mpg by 2022 (up to a 40% increase) and maintain separate categories for cars and light trucks. Although this won’t be easy, we believe it is achievable.

To learn more, please visit our blog "A Call to Action-Let’s Move Forward on Fuel Economy" at: http://blog.toyota.com.

You may also want to review the testimony given on March 14th, before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Energy and Commerce Committee by Jim Press, President of Toyota Motor North America, regarding Toyota’s plans and goals regarding increased fuel efficiency and lower vehicle emissions.

Toyota remains committed to the environment and the goal of sustainable mobility and we appreciate you taking the time to contact us.

Toyota Customer Experience

So where does Friedman get his information? There is no disclosure of sources in the article. Further, responding directly to this e-mail, how do Toyota engineers deem that "the requirements specified by these proposed measures are beyond what is possible" when they have cars and technologies that do this already, with vast improvements rumored for the next generation of their Hybrid Synergy Drive technology? I’ve been told by Toyota salespeople personally — not that I ever trust salespeople farther than I can throw them — that Toyota intended to hybridize its fleet by 2010. If the technology exists, despite that this assertion is an all-out lie, why not?

Why is Toyota so reluctant to step up to the plate? They disprove themselves when they state that it’s impossible. If what they mean is that the demand for vehicles with hybrid drives outstrips the supply of parts to manufacture those drives, why not say that rather than sidestepping the issue?

I decided to reply to the message Toyota sent in an effort to perhaps get some clarification:

I find your argument that the technology doesn’t exist to be highly vexing, and, quite frankly, misleading. I drive a Toyota car - the Prius - that proves that technology does exist to support higher vehicle mileage. The Hybrid Synergy Drive system was built for the purpose of increasing mileage on vehicles, and is in active use on several Toyota models. Does Toyota mean to say that the demand for hybrid drives outstrips Toyota’s ability to manufacture such drives in large enough quantities to support the market? If that’s the case, then come out and say it. Hiding behind such blatantly wrong statements to the effect of “the technology doesn’t exist” doesn’t make sense. Of course it exists - Toyota invented it!

President, Toyota North America Shigeru Hayakawa

Dear Mr. Hayakawa,

I am writing to express my deep concern that your company has decided to actively oppose the Senate-passed increase to U.S. fuel economy standards. Toyota already complies with Japanese fuel economy standards aimed at reaching approximately 46 miles per gallon (U.S.) by 2010. Why are you denying American consumers the access to fuel efficient choices that both hybrid and conventional technologies can deliver in all vehicle classes?

As a current Prius owner, I am deeply disturbed by Toyota’s reluctance to set the standard. While I laud Toyota’s work on establishing one of the highest MPG automotive fleets anywhere, I am distressed that Toyota feels the need to continue the status quo, which, as you should well know by now, only damages the very environment Toyota claims to care about. Put your mouth where your money is, sir, and push for higher fuel economy standards in the United States.

I ask that you reverse your current course of action and declare publicly that Toyota can and will comply with the Senate fuel economy standards of 35 miles per gallon. You have the power to help Americans meet their varied driving needs while reducing oil dependence and global warming pollution.

I look forward to your reply.

Update (4:48PM): The Union of Concerned Scientists campaign is available here.

Businesses are responding by trying to make it far easier for employees to get to work by offering telecommute or shared commute options, even promoting use of transit via our local transit agencies (Metro, Sound, and Pierce Transit, specifically). Metro, rather glaringly, doesn’t have any extra capacity to add in case it gets slammed, while other agencies seem to have some surplus. But this is truly strange in that, despite exhortations from the Department of Transportation to avoid commuting through that particular stretch of I-5, nobody seems to see this as a prime opportunity to rethink the way that Seattle itself is organized.

We have a number of major traffic arterials that are slowly aging and will be in desperate need of replacement within the next 20 years. One of the biggest is the Alaskan Way Viaduct, which is way over capacity; another is the Highway 520 floating bridge, and Interstate 5 ranks high in that list. Political fisticuffs have been flying around the subject of replacing both the Viaduct and the floating bridge, with people arguing quite vocally about construction methods and timeline. These are vital infrastructure - or so we think. I can’t argue that the floating bridge doesn’t provide a major west/east corridor - of course it does. But what if we sat down and re-visioned the idea of Seattle and the communities surrounding it? What if we decided that, instead of expending our mental energy and our physical resources on reconstructing these resources, we increase population density in Seattle’s downtown core, massively improve transit presence throughout Seattle, and offer disincentives to drive downtown (imitating London and cities in Germany)?

The problem is, we sit around debating. Some of the most drastic rethinking of what it means to be in a city comes from politicians that take immediate action without allowing time for debate. Yes, Interstate 5 is being repaired, and it will undoubtedly be a mess. So why are we ignoring the chance to rethink what it means to live here rather than simply saying “things will get worse, deal with it”? Why do we push this off until the Viaduct closes and we are faced with much the same problem?

Not that I’m not guilty of buying bottled items - I do occasionally indulge in a Nantucket Nectar or two, which are sold in glass, not plastic, bottles. I’ve also been known to make a hapless coffee cup go on a nice, long journey to the landfill. But there’s something about bottled water that just seems somewhat redundant. The fact that it puts tons of plastic into the waste stream is a very large drawback, but the fact that major brands may simply be purifying municipal water sources and shipping it elsewhere has its own set of problems - the energy used in bottling and transportation alone greatly outweigh just drinking from the tap in the first place. You can always get a water purification system, though these systems are problems in and of themselves.

Update (August 1, 2007): The New York Times makes a slightly stronger case on this issue than I do.