Local Sustainability Planning: The Cleveland Carbon Fund

I am really interested in environmental policy developments in the Great Lakes region, since I am originally from Wisconsin and protecting the environment is a passion of mine. I came across the following article in the Plain Dealer, Clevelands’s major newspaper: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/123322159481880.xml&coll=2. The article outlines a local sustainability initiative developed by the “Cleveland Carbon Fund”. This is a new development debuting just this past January which allows individuals to donate a number and although larger organizations such as insurance companies have such funds that individuals and companies can contribute to to offset energy use, the organizers of this fund are calling it “the first ever community-based, open access carbon reduction fund” in the country.

So what is a carbon footprint? One definition of carbon footprint that I came across is “the total set of greenhouse gas emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product”. Greenhouse gases are needed, but an imbalance of them – particularly too much of them – will cause imbalances in the earth’s climate causing major natural disasters. A local fund like this I can see growing beyond just supporting projects that seek to reduce the carbon footprint – I can also see it addressing other environmental concerns such as protecting endangered species and helping to clean our waterways.

Who developed this fund? About half a year before the fund was launched, a steering committee was created with representatives from a number of major local organizations including the City of Cleveland and the Cleveland Clinic.

How does the Cleveland fund work? I wanted to know more about the project besides just that it allowed individuals in the area to donate money to the fund which would then offset their carbon footprint. Where exactly will the money go? The clevelandcarbonfund.org website says the fund sponsors the formation and implementation of local carbon reduction projects. Examples of these projects include CFL (Compact Fluorescent Lamp) installation, showerhead replacement, and home weatherization. To be more specific, the home weatherization project would donate funds to seal and insulate homes to better retain heat in the winter. The fund website reports that weatherizing 20 homes, for instance, reduces carbon emissions by 40 tons each year.

While I am happy to hear of any sustainability efforts, I do not see how one person could be guaranteed a certain amount of carbon offset per dollar. The company does mention that the performance of the current project portfolio is $20 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. I would like to know how this is measured. The performance of the fund really depends on how the money is allocated. For instance, if a certain amount is allocated for a small local sustainability business to start, some of the funding may go to business start up and not necessarily to direct sustainability improvements. Secondly, if home weatherization services are donated to houses in low income areas, occupants may just choose to keep their house warmer than they normally would – which would not necessarily save energy.

Benefits to this fund are numerous regardless if the benefits are not directly translated into immediate decreases in carbon releases. It stimulates the local economy and helps build businesses focused on sustainability in the long run. This is especially important now considering that Cleveland is especially hard hit by the current recession. Even if immediate effects are not obtained, the fund sets the stage for long term sustainability benefits.

A fund like this could be translated to all levels of government and not just locally like the Cleveland Carbon Fund. Implementing a fund like this to a more widespread area would cause the fund to loose a number of benefits including stimulating the local economy and creating innovative small business. It would also loose the prospect of more evenly distributing wealth. A larger fund would more likely create or donate funds to larger sustainability businesses a.k.a gigantic corporations. Whether or not the environmental quality would improve at a larger level depends on where the money would go and the organization of the effort. There is a greater chance for corruption on a large scale. Businesses may not use 100% of the money in ways that contribute to sustainability, but like in recent scandals, may use it to give directors bonuses.

I could see a fund like this work at an international level if it was organized well. For instance, contributions could help set aside land to be protected in threatened areas throughout the world or be given to countries for the same types of projects that Northeastern Ohio has developed. Overall, I can see a fund like this at any level being successful not only for offsetting one’s carbon footprint but because of it’s ability develop innovative and energy efficient products and processes.

Sustainable Planning Tools

I am always interested in environmental documentaries to watch so the following review in the New York Times, “PBS and HBO Examine Global Warming, Dimming of the Sum and Vanishing Species” caught my eye. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/18/arts/television/18comb.html?fta=y

This article I think fits into 2 of the 11 general environmental topics we covered this week. One, the documentaries are important educational tools for sustainability planning. Wheeler states that “one common behind [education, communication, and consensus building] is the recognition that for political or social change to occur people’s beliefs, knowledge, values, and paradigms of thought must also change.” I completely agree, especially in a democratic society, the public at large must become aware of the environmental issues that we face. Educational grassroots efforts on the part of interest groups are likewise benefiting people in developing nations, helping them understand the concept of an endangered species. Many of the people in some of the most fragile areas do not understand that the areas that they live are unique to the planet – they simply think that the species and habitats that surround them are more far reaching than they are – which gives little motivation for them to protect those areas.

The article gives an overview of three documentaries – two on PBS, one on HBO. They are “Nova: Dimming the Sun”, “Journey to Planet Earth: The State of the Planet’s Wildlife”, and “Too Hot Not to Handle”. These are just some of the documentaries produced for the general public recently. I recently watched a PBS documentary called “Hot Zones: Journey to Planet Earth”. The movie, like the previous ones I mentioned is not only an educational device, but it touches upon the sustainability issues in industrialized versus less developed countries. For instance, “Hot Zones” talks about how many third world nations have lost all but less than 10% (in certain areas all but 1%) of their tropical rainforests to logging, farming, etc. The phrase hot zones refers to areas on earth that are densely packed with a high percentage of the world species and if destroyed a huge percentage of these species will be extinct forever. Some habitats are just one likely forest fire away from being swept away.

Countries like Brazil and Madagascar argue that they have the right to do what they please within their own countries while the international community including other countries, the UN, interest groups, scientists and biologists have been trying to stop the destruction. Overall everyone on earth is affected. A loss of a species and habitat has worldwide repercussions from the loss of our ability to study the species to the surrounding communities loosing the resources to sustain themselves.

One reason that these countries face such issues regarding regions that should be protected is because of informal housing arrangements. People do not have title to land and areas are not zoned against use. This situation leaves people, especially in areas where land and resources are scare, to encroach on regions that are endangered.

A New York Times article last September reports that “Portland Again Tops a Sustainable Cities List” - http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/portland-again-tops-a-sustainable-cities-list/?scp=1&sq=sustainability%20indicators&st=cse. Have you ever wondered how certain cities are measured based on their sustainability? Although it is common knowledge that Portland is an environmentally friendly city, who would have thought that Chicago ranks four – I always thought that city looked pretty industrial. How did Phoenix drop 10 spots from 22 to 32 in one year? What methods are used to measure a city’s sustainability?

The article summarizes that the criteria used to come up with the ranking analyzes a number of obvious issues such as transportation options as well as more obscure one such as emergency preparedness. The article refers to an organization called SustainLane which actually assembles criteria, outputs rankings (SustainLane U.S. City Rankings), and outlines how they came to their conclusions. Another issue that they look at in addition to the two that I mentioned before is what is happening at the city level – what policy is being created to help cities sustain themselves. So, not only do they look at what is being provided now – but what seeds have been planted to foster sustainable development.

In addition to organizations such as SustainLane, 25 large cities have assembled their own criteria as well according to “Planning for Sustainability” by Steven M. Wheeler. The most notable city and corresponding sustainability indicator comes from Seattle Washington – a city that is frequently among the top of sustainability rankings. Its called the Sustainable Seattle process and outlined a number of sustainable indicators that eventually grew to number 40. Another interesting set of indicators was developed by the Jacksonville, Florida local government and measure “Quality of Life”.

The indicators outlined vary per organization that developed them. Some are common such as Air Quality and others are criticized for not being accurate. For instance, how can a sense of community be measured? Some indicators are just measured locally, others by organizations, and others by large governmental departments such as the EPA. Overall sustainability indicators can be very specific in nature or can just give an overview of what is going on with the development of a region. In any case, they are useful to pointing out problems as well as show the improvements that sustainable development can bring.

Sustainability and Policy Making

1. How do you believe sustainability should be defined for policy-making?

A combination of strong and weak sustainability should be the goal for policy making with strong sustainability (although challenging) as the primary goal. Strong sustainability requires us to leave our future generations as well off as we are ourselves but acknowledges that capital cannot always replace natural resources – so leaving future generations with a lot of money and a fast-paced economy in place of natural resources will not do the trick. The weak sustainability mentality believes that a sum of money can be equivalent to an irreplaceable species. Strong sustainability argues that certain resources are irreplaceable. For instance once a certain habitat is gone we cannot bring it back because with it will disappear hundreds if not thousands of species along with it. We need to recognize that we are at such a fragile point in our planet’s economic development. For instance, if only one forest in the wrong part of the planet is swept with fire or overdeveloped it could be a significant percentage of species gone forever.

At the same time as promoting strong sustainability, we should honor certain aspects of weak sustainability in our policy making by understanding that making future generations as well off as we are requires a healthy economy in addition to natural resources so this collatoral is exchangeable to some extent. We should be careful not to slow the economy while seeking to protect the environment. Planning needs to be done in a way that maintains and even creates jobs instead of making people worse off in order to improve the environment.

2. What are the difficulties associated with making sustainability a policy goal?

Sustainability is a difficult policy goal to have because one does not see results in the short term and since legislative and presidential political positions have 2, 4, and 6 year electoral periods it is hard for them to get votes based on sustainability as a campaign issue. Sustainability requires a significant financial investment and money in policy is often spent where there are immediate or short term results. Additionally, especially during this time of economic crisis, other issues tend to take precedent over environmental issues.

3. If you had to design a practical framework to help a state environmental agency (e.g., Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality) achieve ecological, economic and social sustainability, what would the framework look like?

The framework would be both applicable to industries and individual households. For more long term goals I would work with industries in two ways. I would facilitate the design of a program that would help industries decrease the pollutants that are created and released via their production methods. Secondly, I would work with them to create products from recycled materials and that produce less waste themselves. To promote economic aspects with this program I would either provide funding or incentives such as free publicity to companies who participate in this program.

I believe that in order to make a big impact with the environment in the long term we need to change the behavior of industries yet at the same time we need to change what the public is demanding. I would help create “lightweight” methods for the public to participate in (such as making recycling more accessible) and distribute easy and fun to read educational materials to help the public understand issues surrounding packaging and smart consumption. When it comes to promoting participation in environmental protection, education is key. People do not know what they need to to follow a policy unless it is clearly and easily articulated to them - even for the brightest of us. For instance, people will not know that you need to rinse recyclables unless you somehow tell them. They will not know that they shouldn’t tamper with a certain endangered plant unless they know what that plant is. A great way to access a generation of people is in the classroom. I would collaborate with the state department of education to create programs for learning about the environment and sustainability.

4. Voters and politician often want short term results, but many argue that sustainable development calls for a long-term policy plan. How do we take the long term view that sustainable development requires in this political environment?

A long term view requires a significant backing by the public in order to motivate politicians to take sustainability up as a campaign issue. Politicians, likewise, can also motivate the public to take sustainability up as an issue they believe in knowing that in turn the public will pressure politicians to take this up as an issue to focus lawmaking and government purses on.

Take for instance Al Gore’s strong advocation of the environment with his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. Millions of people have watched his powerful and persuasive documentary. While there are some right-wingers that still do not believe that the environment has suffered from our over-consumption of the planet, most people who watched did get the message. As a result, we are closer to convincing a number of politicians to take up the environment as a focus.