All too often, the discussion about sustainability pits environment against economy. But, as Tom Seager, a civil engineer and associate professor at the Golisano Institute for Sustainability in Rochester, NY, points out, we need to look at the question in a new light.
Dr. Seager, as quoted on Treehugger, offers a clear explanation:
Sustainability requires cooperation. You have to discard the idea of Adam Smith economics, which says that it's better for society if everyone is working in their own self-interest, and move towards the economics of John Nash, which says we can find a better outcome if we work collectively. The question about whether it "costs the consumer" implies that sustainability is like some kind of add-on feature — like power windows or side-impact air bags. That's not the right way to think about sustainability at all.
For example, it is true that abandoning coal-fired power plants would require an increase in electricity costs. But if everyone did it, we'd all be better off. The only way it "costs" is if some people do it, but others "cheat." Our economic system can't handle a cost discrepancy between green and black power. But it can handle a uniform cost increase for all power. Think of it this way: If you could run your manufacturing firm today on $25/bbl oil — which is what we had just a few years ago — you would have an incredible competitive advantage. But you can't. All firms have to pay $80/bbl. That's more than triple the oil cost in three years. We still have rapidly expanding economies all over the world. So "cost" is not the big issue, at the moment — it's "comparative costs”.
The full interview with Dr. Seager can be found on “Industrial Design Supersite” Core77.
| 
lora
It does seem simple to me, cooperation and a true global democratic society.
To ensure we survive, we have to focus on the environment, like some have been saying for decades.
The economy will take care of itself and the wars will end because we won't have time to make weapons.
Solar and wind are clean and doable.
We had lots of water on this planet, but we wasted it. Solar and wind will help us clean it up and get it to where we need it.
We have the power, the money and the ability.
Who is stopping the action?
Why?
Thank you for the supersite.
Lora
nathan
Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls global warming the biggest scam in history. Unfortunately many politicians and journalists are gullible enough to fall for the false theory that carbon dioxide is causing what Coleman calls the illusion of rapid global warming.
The claim that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas with the power to control air temperature sounds like magic. Someone offering a product capable of doing what CO2 can supposedly do in the atmosphere would likely be arrested by the police for fraud. The evidence for global warming is of little value.
Those who talk about global warming claim a 1 F (0.5 C) increase in what they call the global average temperature over the last century indicates the earth is getting warmer. You dont have to be a mathematician or physicist to recognize that one temperature cannot represent every place on earth from frigid polar regions to blazing deserts. Nor can a single temperature represent year round conditions in temperate regions where temperatures can range from 0 F (-18 C) in the winter to 100 F (35 C ) in the summer.
It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth, according to thermodynamics expert Professor Bjarne Andresen, of the Niels Bohr Institute, University of
Copenhagen. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, etc. which make up the climate.
The claim that a 1 F (0.5 C) increase is significant ignores the fact that the number represents only a 0.17% change over a century. (Note: Per cent changes in temperature must be calculated using the Kelvin
scale because of the arbitrary zero points of the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales.) Scientists might be able to obtain an accuracy within 0.17% in laboratory conditions, but not in the real world. Inadequate maintenance of equipment can reduce accuracy. Changes in
nathan
Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls global warming the biggest scam in history. Unfortunately many politicians and journalists are gullible enough to fall for the false theory that carbon dioxide is causing what Coleman calls the illusion of rapid global warming.
The claim that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas with the power to control air temperature sounds like magic. Someone offering a product capable of doing what CO2 can supposedly do in the atmosphere would likely be arrested by the police for fraud. The evidence for global warming is of little value.
Those who talk about global warming claim a 1 F (0.5 C) increase in what they call the global average temperature over the last century indicates the earth is getting warmer. You dont have to be a mathematician or physicist to recognize that one temperature cannot represent every place on earth from frigid polar regions to blazing deserts. Nor can a single temperature represent year round conditions in temperate regions where temperatures can range from 0 F (-18 C) in the winter to 100 F (35 C ) in the summer.
It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth, according to thermodynamics expert Professor Bjarne Andresen, of the Niels Bohr Institute, University of
Copenhagen. A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, etc. which make up the climate.
The claim that a 1 F (0.5 C) increase is significant ignores the fact that the number represents only a 0.17% change over a century. (Note: Per cent changes in temperature must be calculated using the Kelvin
scale because of the arbitrary zero points of the Celsius and Fahrenheit scales.) Scientists might be able to obtain an accuracy within 0.17% in laboratory conditions, but not in the real world. Inadequate maintenance of equipment can reduce accuracy. Changes in