Sustainable development

[themadkat]

Second, in your two examples there is a pointed difference between fishing and logging. With fishing, there is a clear (but decreasing) tendency to harvest and move on, which is not ver significant in logging. Your objection to logging in fact had nothing to do with sustainability. An objection based on unsustainability would be based on the conclusion that the trees were harvested and not replanted, but that was not your objection. Instead, it was based on a muddled property idea that a company has a duty to prevent flooding on your property, by limiting what they do on their property (not "our" property). In other words, this is just another instance of the standard environmentalist anti-industry stance, and it has nothing to do with "sustainability". Thus, we're down to fishing as an example.

This is something I wonder about myself. As an environmental scientist I've learned quite a bit about the far-reaching effects of certain types of land use, such as logging for one. I find your example a bit confusing. Let's say you own a timber-company and you clear-cut your patch of land (which is a big assumption in today's world - most companies cut on state or federally-owned land from which they buy or are given the logging rights, which is one reason there's little accountability). You clear cut your patch of land, and now runoff is a problem. I live downriver from your logging site. It rains, and not only does all of the topsoil and detritus from the logged site make the water unusable (say that I draw on this water source for drinking and such and have always done so), but the increased water flow causes flooding and erosion which ultimately comes in to my basement and threatens to wash out some areas of my property entirely, i.e. I would literally lose land. Purely from the perspective of property rights ONLY, particularly your logging land and my residential land, have you not harmed me? Are you not destroying some of the value of my property and possibly even endangering my life (from flooding)? Before you object that this is an unrealistic scenario, it really isn't. It's factually sound. Logging a whole mountainside does fundamentally change the dynamics of a watershed, and lots of people live close to rivers and streams.

I personally think that most if not all environmental problems can be solved by property rights, but you seem to be saying that someone who is being harmed "down the line" just needs to deal with it and move on, which doesn't sound very individualistic to me. It sounds more like justifications for eminent domain and such where people are "holding back progress."

To me the question boils down to this - what recourse does the Louisiana shrimper/fisherman have against the Iowa farmer (times several thousand) who is creating the dead zone in the gulf where virtually no marine life can live? What recourse do the people of New England have against the air pollution blowing across the lakes from the upper Midwestern states (this was before they lost all their manufacturing)? These are the issues I, and I suspect many environmental scientists, wrestle with solving. Note that these questions all concern harm to actual living people and not "nature".

[Jake_Ellison]

But to answer the question, "What is sustainable development?" The very name implies that current development isn't sustainable. (I personally agree with that premise.) Sustainable development is the movement to find a sustainable alternative to what we do now. Meaning, instead of depleting our resources, we continually reuse them in an ongoing process that closes the waste loop. Instead of going from cradle to grave, it goes from cradle to cradle. Further examples can be found in my previous post and in other sources.

Who is this "we" and "our" you are referring to in your definition?Unless you define "we" as something specific, your definition sound a lot like any advocate of socialism would define his creed:

Everyone knows that poverty exists, therefor we need to get together and find a poverty proof alternative to help our poor become rich. That's the definition of socialism, and your definition substitutes "poor" with "environment", leaving everything else in place. In both cases, I become responsible for "sustaining" other people's resources, or prosperity. Why? Why do we have to be lumped together, and be concerned with making everyone's resources sustainable, whether they want to or not? Why do you have to call other people's resources "our" resources? Why can't you keep my resources mine, and your resources yours? Why do you think it's OK that you are referring to my resources as "ours"? What if I don't feel like caring about your theories? What happens then, are you gonna turn around and leave me alone, or am I getting arrested?

Objectivism is antithetical to any for of collectivism, including your particular brand, which you decided to call "sustainable development". Its proper name is environmentalism, and it is a very obvious form of collectivism.

[DavidOdden]

Let's say you own a timber-company and you clear-cut your patch of land (which is a big assumption in today's world - most companies cut on state or federally-owned land from which they buy or are given the logging rights, which is one reason there's little accountability). You clear cut your patch of land, and now runoff is a problem.

Under these assumptions, the problem, if there is one (and I believe there is), is a property issue, and is not related to "sustainable development". Now, to clarify my point, to the extent that there is a valid issue regarding production, it has nothing to do with "sustainable development", and everything to do with property. For example, under the "sustainable development" ethos, there would be no limit on the amount of toxic output resulting from production, as long as that method could be continued perpetually without consumption of resources (which is, of course, an impossibility).

I live downriver from your logging site. It rains, and not only does all of the topsoil and detritus from the logged site make the water unusable (say that I draw on this water source for drinking and such and have always done so), but the increased water flow causes flooding and erosion which ultimately comes in to my basement and threatens to wash out some areas of my property entirely, i.e. I would literally lose land. Purely from the perspective of property rights ONLY, particularly your logging land and my residential land, have you not harmed me?

Let's start with something that is more easily graspable, namely ordinary tort law. Assume for example that you have a big tree on your property; the tree is big, maybe it's sick or maybe it's on a mushy slope, and it falls onto a neighbor's property, causing damage to their house. Then you are responsible for that damage, because your actions (failing to remove the tree) caused the damage to another person's property. This is a basic example of violating the rights of another person. You have the right to let a tree rot and fall down, but you do not have the right to let a tree rot and fall down and destroy the property of another. When your tree crosses another man's property line, you have trespassed on his property.

There is no difference in principle between falling trees and property rights, versus more remote environmental consequences such as generic pollution. The only difference is basically epistemological -- your unawareness that your water is now destroying another man's property.

I personally think that most if not all environmental problems can be solved by property rights, but you seem to be saying that someone who is being harmed "down the line" just needs to deal with it and move on, which doesn't sound very individualistic to me.

No, on the contrary I am saying that "sustainable development" is a socialist red herring, and that the proper solution for all environmental problems is the rigorous application of capitalist ideas of individual property rights -- which do not just apply to industries. The key is to focus on the legal concept of "trespass".

[themadkat]

There is no difference in principle between falling trees and property rights, versus more remote environmental consequences such as generic pollution. The only difference is basically epistemological -- your unawareness that your water is now destroying another man's property.No, on the contrary I am saying that "sustainable development" is a socialist red herring, and that the proper solution for all environmental problems is the rigorous application of capitalist ideas of individual property rights -- which do not just apply to industries. The key is to focus on the legal concept of "trespass".

OK, that works for me. The problems then, it seems, come down to the more practical matters of determining harm and when it has occurred, which is a scientific/fact-gathering enterprise moreso than a philosophical one. There would also have to be a better legal foundation for pursuing those sorts of damages. I grew up in an area where if your land, water, or air got polluted and you tried to say something about it the response was basically "oh well, tough luck".

From a purely practical standpoint, I still think establishing rights and ownership over natural resources, most particularly living and/or highly mobile resources, is a tricky business. I hope that environmental science sheds some light on these issues over the next few years but I am not optimistic. Thankfully that is not my area of research.

[Zedic]

So it is socialism. The premise is Marxist dogma that "our resources" are communal and the government has the power, authority, and duty to own, control, ration, and distribute according to what the government deems is necessary.

I never said that. Read my first post in its entirety.

This fails to address the question of what you mean by "sustainable". Concretely: what are a couple of examples of current development which you claim are not "sustainable"?

Well, for one, fishing in the oceans is pulling fish out faster than the fish can repopulate themselves. Phosphorus and oil are projected to have only a matter of decades left in reserves. The agribusiness is not sustainable. Monocultures are more susceptible to disease, the soil is depleted of minerals, and it vitally depends on another limited resource, oil. Nutrients such as phosphorous from large agribusiness establishments runs off and creates dead zones in bays, rivers, etc.; The Chesapeake bay is a shadow of its former self as a result of over fishing and said nutrient runoff. Not to mention the fact that agribusiness is propped up by massive government subsidies. Since oil is in limited supply, and so much depends on it, it doesn't take much imagination to see how unsustainable society is without looking towards alternatives. I'd put the decimation of biodiversity on the list as well. There's more I'm sure, but there's a start.

How do you determine that a particular development is sustainable?

By answering questions such as: Does it consume more resources than it produces? How does it affect the surrounding ecosystem? Is it sustainable? (Sustainable: 1 : capable of being sustained

2 a : of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged.

Webster online).

Finally, let's take seriously the idea that "continuously using our resource" defines "sustainability": this underscores the anti-man Luddite nature of the "sustainable development". By definition, the goal is to produce in a manner that does not consume resources, and this is impossible. (Consequently, according to the ethics of "sustainable development", production must stop).

Incorrect. Re-read my original post. I never said anything about the cessation of any means of production, only a modification of our extraction and a more efficient way to re-use the materials we've already extracted. For that matter, show me where anyone says anything about sustainable development means production must stop. That's a completely irrational conclusion. The ethos of sustainable development is to mirror nature in its ability to infinitely cycle resources in a continuous loop. To do that requires energy, sure. But since oil is limited anyway, we have no choice but to find a renewable energy source no matter if one believes in sustainable development or not.

Who is this "we" and "our" you are referring to in your definition?

I was speaking colloquially (informally). I was referring to the resources of the planet and the way humans use them, irrespective of who legally owns what.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Zedic

[softwareNerd]

Phosphorus and oil are projected to have only a matter of decades left in reserves. The agribusiness is not sustainable. Monocultures are more susceptible to disease, the soil is depleted of minerals, and it vitally depends on another limited resource, oil.

Typically these projections are bogus. Take the example of oil. The projections always use assumptions that are proven false in the future. And, if the assumptions are really seen to be real -- by the market, as opposed to some ivory-tower professor -- the price-bidding will soon do two things: it will throttle demand and it will make substitutes available.

As for agriculture being non-sustainable... that is more Malthusian hand-wringing.

Edited September 2, 2009 by softwareNerd

[Zedic]

Typically these projections are bogus. Take the example of oil. The projections always use assumptions that are proven false in the future. And, if the assumptions are really seen to be real -- by the market, as opposed to some ivory-tower professor -- the price-bidding will soon do two things: it will throttle demand and it will make substitutes available.

In other words: Oil will never run out? I hardly think oil has the thousands of years of reserves the uranium has. If it lasts by mid-century without peaking I'd be surprised. Don't take my word for it either. Saudi Arabia knows their time is limited. They're on the sustainable bandwagon as well and are currently researching solar technology.

As for agriculture being non-sustainable... that is more Malthusian hand-wringing.

Agriculture is sustainable, if done in a sustainable way.

[DavidOdden]

I never said anything about the cessation of any means of production, only a modification of our extraction and a more efficient way to re-use the materials we've already extracted.

I understand that you haven't admitted to the consequences of your position. But your position, given what "sustainable development" is, doesn't simply require more efficient production (we're all in favor of higher profitability), it requires the impossible -- production without the consumption of resources.

For that matter, show me where anyone says anything about sustainable development means production must stop.

Well, if there is no connection between the concept of "sustainability" and any ethical principles, if this is merely an arbitrary means of classifying methods of production, then there would be no irrational demand for man to cease existing, and we can ignore that movement as an idle exercise in classification.

The ethos of sustainable development is to mirror nature in its ability to infinitely cycle resources in a continuous loop.

What? Nature doesn't have any magical ability to infinitely cycle resources in a continuous loop. The perpetual motion machine and the violation of the 1st and second laws of thermodynamics were debunked long ago. The whole philosophical foundation of "sustainable development" contradicts reality; so what does it have to recommend itself to a rational being?

[softwareNerd]

In other words: Oil will never run out?

No, it will never run out, for reasons I described in my earlier post.

There is only a single caution here: governments may force things to happen in ways that rational free-acting people would not. First governments may forbid exploitation of oil (for instance the U.S. probably has more oil reserves than the Saudis if oil prices were to triple, but the government would not allow most of this exploitation); secondly, they may forbid alternatives (nuclear, coal etc.); and, governments may control prices so that the market does not respond in a timely way.

If the free market were to operate, we would not see oil running out any time soon. Nevertheless, if oil really starts to run out, its price will rise. The higher price will crimp demand. It will also make people shift to alternatives. (The oil-market has futures prices going out for at least a decade, allowing for long-term planning.) It is anybody's guess how far oil prices have to rise before quantity demanded is cut in half; but, if supplies appear to be under real threat, the price will rise. Cutting demand in half means doubling the number of years of supply.

There was a time when people fussed that millions of telephone operators would be needed to operate all the switchboards, if we all were to get phones.

If you have not already done so, you ought to read Julian Simon's book "Ultimate Resource-2", which is available for free on the web.

[Jake_Ellison]

I was speaking colloquially (informally). I was referring to the resources of the planet and the way humans use them, irrespective of who legally owns what.

You sure were. Your entire theory is irrespective of who owns what.

[D'kian]

In other words: Oil will never run out? I hardly think oil has the thousands of years of reserves the uranium has. If it lasts by mid-century without peaking I'd be surprised.

1) There are some known conventional reserves left untapped. Not many, but a few, like offshore in California and Florida, and the Arctic wildlife refuge.

2) There are knonw unconventional reserves entirely untapped, such as shale oil in Colorado and toher US states, tar sands, etc. Some tar sands, notably in Canada, have been partially exploited. This oil is harder to get to, it must be processed before it's even fluid, and it's heavier than conventional reserves (meaning it contains less of the more useful fractions like gasoline). In other words it's more expensive. But there is a hell of a lot of it.

3) there are conventional reserves in unconventional places, like very deep waters. These, too, are mroe expensive, but it's lighter crude and potentially there may be a lot of it.

4) There amy be conventional sources left to discover. Brazil is producing more oil than it used to, for example.

So there's oil to last a while, well beyond mid century.

But we'll probably abandon it, at elast as a fuel, in favor of other sources long before it runs out. Hydrogen fuel cells are nearly there, they're cleaner, cheaper to maintain and much quieter.

[SD26]

In other words: Oil will never run out? I hardly think oil has the thousands of years of reserves the uranium has. If it lasts by mid-century without peaking I'd be surprised. Don't take my word for it either. Saudi Arabia knows their time is limited. They're on the sustainable bandwagon as well and are currently researching solar technology.

What kind of government does Saudi Arabia have? And the "threat" of "limited oil" is favorable to their ability to sell at higher prices.

How is solar sustainable? Requires energy and materials to produce the cells, then it requires storage for the energy that is developed through a very, very inefficient process. Yeah, it's getting better, but the cost, which is a function of work, is expensive. Work is energy too. Is that "sustainable"? After all, that requires energy and materials to produce that also.

[Zedic]

I understand that you haven't admitted to the consequences of your position. But your position, given what "sustainable development" is, doesn't simply require more efficient production (we're all in favor of higher profitability), it requires the impossible -- production without the consumption of resources.

There is no consequence in anything I have said which demands the impossible. If you're so adamant that there is, you'll have to prove (rationally) how.

Well, if there is no connection between the concept of "sustainability" and any ethical principles, if this is merely an arbitrary means of classifying methods of production, then there would be no irrational demand for man to cease existing, and we can ignore that movement as an idle exercise in classification.

The delusion that sustainable development demands man to cease existing is baseless.

What? Nature doesn't have any magical ability to infinitely cycle resources in a continuous loop. The perpetual motion machine and the violation of the 1st and second laws of thermodynamics were debunked long ago. The whole philosophical foundation of "sustainable development" contradicts reality; so what does it have to recommend itself to a rational being?

Of course there's no magical ability. There's this thing called the sun and such a thing as "solar energy" which powers and will continue to power the perpetual loop for the next ~3 billion years. We also have other technologies at our disposal such as nuclear, wind, hydrogen, geothermal, and wave energy. If you honestly don't believe that nature cycles resources in an "infinite" (if you took my use of language so literally to justify this rant then I call red herring) loop, then I'm curious to know how you think it's supposed to work.

But we'll probably abandon it, at elast as a fuel, in favor of other sources long before it runs out. Hydrogen fuel cells are nearly there, they're cleaner, cheaper to maintain and much quieter.

Thank you for such a decent, rational reply. I'm glad to hear you're honest with yourself about the reality of oil. Yes, there is shale oil and more expensive forms of oil. So more expensive forms of oil means more expensive groceries, since petroleum is absolutely necessary for the operation of the agribusiness. Unless they were to go organic. I'd be interested to see if shale oil can indeed be turned into fertilizer and pesticides, and if so how expensive would it be vs. organic farming which uses neither.

How is solar sustainable? Requires energy and materials to produce the cells, then it requires storage for the energy that is developed through a very, very inefficient process. Yeah, it's getting better, but the cost, which is a function of work, is expensive. Work is energy too. Is that "sustainable"? After all, that requires energy and materials to produce that also.

So you're saying solar isn't sustainable? Is oil sustainable? If anything which uses energy or resources isn't sustainable, then you freely admit, by consequence, that nothing today is sustainable.

Look, just because something requires energy and materials doesn't mean it's not possible to make it sustainable. Unsustainable means the resources are depleted or permanently damaged. Just because we don't exactly have all the answers now doesn't mean man isn't smart enough to know how to adapt and figure out how to be sustainable. If members here insist that man doesn't have the capacity to not deplete or permanently damage his resources, then I'll have to respectfully disagree. I have much more faith in man's ingenuity than this sort of unimaginative nihilism.

Edited September 2, 2009 by Zedic

[SD26]

Look, just because something requires energy and materials doesn't mean it's not possible to make it sustainable. Unsustainable means the resources are depleted or permanently damaged. Just because we don't exactly have all the answers now doesn't mean man isn't smart enough to know how to adapt and figure out how to be sustainable. If members here insist that man doesn't have the capacity to not deplete or permanently damage his resources, then I'll have to respectfully disagree. I have much more faith in man's ingenuity than this sort of unimaginative nihilism.

So, based on this idea of infinite sustainability, are you stating that our sun is infinite? Or will it change? Will it be consumed and changed into other forms?

[SD26]

So you're saying solar isn't sustainable?

Will solar panels last forever?

[Eiuol]

How is solar sustainable? Requires energy and materials to produce the cells, then it requires storage for the energy that is developed through a very, very inefficient process. Yeah, it's getting better, but the cost, which is a function of work, is expensive. Work is energy too. Is that "sustainable"? After all, that requires energy and materials to produce that also.

You get more out of solar panels than the energy you spend to get produce them. Resources are consumed, resources can run out in the sense it is possible to use all of it (but a free market allows prices to be set in such a way that you won't run out). You can cut down an entire rainforest for housing, but then it may take centuries for it to restore itself. "Sustainability" would imply using resources in such a way that you don't completely run out. Spending more money than you earn is not a sustainable way of living. It is an irrational way to live if you don't try to counteract your spending. Cutting down a portion of a forest may be better in the long run than cutting it all down at once. At first it is completely acceptable to spend more than you earn, but at some point (when your resources are low enough) you need to think about either decreasing consumption or altering harvesting methods.

Sustainability for the Earth's sake is obviously a bad thing. Sustainability serves a particular purpose for a particular context, it is not something to be applied universally.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Eiuol

[D'kian]

Thank you for such a decent, rational reply. I'm glad to hear you're honest with yourself about the reality of oil. Yes, there is shale oil and more expensive forms of oil. So more expensive forms of oil means more expensive groceries, since petroleum is absolutely necessary for the operation of the agribusiness.

Actually oil is necessary for the operation of everything.

Shale oil is more expensive now. Should it become a major source, I'm certain prices will come down, if nothing else due to the sheer volume of oil in shale form. But also, most likely, through better means of mining it (shale oil is essentially locked inside rocks), processing it and refining it.

I'd be interested to see if shale oil can indeed be turned into fertilizer and pesticides, and if so how expensive would it be vs. organic farming which uses neither.

Of course it can. It's still oil. Venezuela's oil is almost the same as what you'd get from shale, well, most of its oil anyway. As to farming, it's cheaper to use pesticides and synthetic fertilizers because they produce larger yields than plain-shit and compost farming (sorry). Of course as GM crops get more advanced, there will be less need for pesticides and herbicides.

So you're saying solar isn't sustainable?

Solar is one of the worst forms of energy there are. For one thing sunlight is dilute (spread all over the day side of the world, literally), it's unavailable on cloudy days and at night. Solar panels are expensive and highly inefficient (it's cheaper to get electricity from coal than from solar panels). It may be fine, one day, as a supplement for home power consumption, but other than in the Moon (with two solid weeks of unobstructed sunlight at a time) solar won't ever be a major industrial power source.

On the other hand nuclear fusion may finally be about ten to twenty years away.

[Eiuol]

Will solar panels last forever?

It's not a matter of lasting forever. It's a matter of how long they do last. The panels last long enough that yes, in the long run they consume less than is required to produce and use them. It matters where you use the panel though, in the same way that tidal energy is pretty useless for Kansas.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Eiuol

[SD26]

It's not a matter of lasting forever. It's a matter of how long they do last. The panels last long enough that yes, in the long run they consume less than is required to produce and use them.

Already looked at quotes for using solar at home. I work, and that work can be converted into solar panels to produce power for my family and I at home to replace some to all of the electricity that we use. If my electric bills double under Cap & Trade, I still cannot justify solar as it consumes more work than the work that they would ever return to me and my family.

[Zedic]

So, based on this idea of infinite sustainability

Okay, fair enough. It was a bit of a faux pas for me to use "infinite" in such a way. But based upon my past posts, I think it's safe to assume that any intelligent individual without an agenda can infer what my meaning is and that I don't literally think the sun will last for an eternity (literally). But what I'm not interested in doing is spoon feeding every excruciating logical step for the logically infantile. You'll need to use some of those neurons of yours and figure some of this out yourself.

Resources are consumed, resources can run out in the sense it is possible to use all of it (but a free market allows prices to be set in such a way that you won't run out).

I have some issues with that. For the sake of argument, let's say phosphorus will only last us until 2050. By then, all natural sources of phosphorus has been extracted from the Earth and used up. As the supply dwindles it will become more expensive, thus raising the price of phosphorus. As a consequence, agriculture will become that much more expensive (not to mention the rising price of oil that may accompany it). So what do we do? We find an alternative I assume. That is my understanding. If that is indeed correct, my question is why wait until prices sky rocket? Why not start finding alternatives now? For those of us who prescribe to the principles of sustainable development see no reason to wait. We're instead finding alternatives now. In the case of the agribusiness's use of phosphorus, we choose to patron organic farming because we think it's more sustainable in the long run. It's the same general idea with all the other aspects of sustainable development. Instead of waiting until the last minute when prices of raw materials sky rocket and a scramble for a viable alternative begins, we decide to get a head start on the process.

But this is where I have a problem. If only X billion tons of phosphorus exists on the planet, how can it never run out if the way it's used depletes the world's reserves? Prices may soar to ridiculously high amounts with the last scraps of it, making it unviable to extract. But that's as good as gone. It's not going back into the Earth for millions of years. Now we're minus a very versatile and useful material which is used for thousands of applications. If we only use phosphorus in a non-recoverable way, then when it's gone it's gone.

Sustainability serves a particular purpose for a particular context, it is not something to be applied universally.

I agree, it is situational. There is no one particular solution to any sustainability problem.

As to farming, it's cheaper to use pesticides and synthetic fertilizers because they produce larger yields than plain-shit and compost farming (sorry). Of course as GM crops get more advanced, there will be less need for pesticides and herbicides.

Fair enough, you make a good point about shale oil and this above. In the end, it's all about personal choice and market demand. If people don't want pesticides, GM foods, or petroleum fertilizer food then they can choose organic. I personally don't like the way the large agribusiness is run and choose organic for that reason. I do think agribusiness is unsustainable, but I'm not an expert on the topic so I can't prove it right now. If indeed I'm right and it is unsustainable, reality will step in and give everyone a reality check anyway.

Solar is one of the worst forms of energy there are. For one thing sunlight is dilute (spread all over the day side of the world, literally), it's unavailable on cloudy days and at night. Solar panels are expensive and highly inefficient (it's cheaper to get electricity from coal than from solar panels). It may be fine, one day, as a supplement for home power consumption, but other than in the Moon (with two solid weeks of unobstructed sunlight at a time) solar won't ever be a major industrial power source.

Unless there's a massive technological break through, I don't see solar as a powerful enough alternative to oil and coal either. I'm placing my bets of nuclear power (both fusion and fission) for large scale operations. Wind, solar, and others will still play a role. But I agree with you there, they're better tailored for private homes.

[DavidOdden]

It was a bit of a faux pas for me to use "infinite" in such a way. But based upon my past posts, I think it's safe to assume that any intelligent individual without an agenda can infer what my meaning is and that I don't literally think the sun will last for an eternity (literally).

A bit of a faux pas? My, that is a huge understatement. Why should anyone be able to figure out what you really mean? You've shown that you don't have any ability to say what you mean. Solar schmolar: do you seriously believe that energy is the only resource consumed by production? And still, even after the illogic of "sustainable development" has been pointed out to you dozens of times, you still adhere to this irrational credo?

The rational thing for man to do is exploit the Earth in the most efficient way he can, keeping in mind the long term. That means burning coal and oil until nuclear energy becomes cheaper; it means engaging in wasteful small-scale farming but only until large-scale agribusiness can supply our food needs; it means extracting whatever minerals we need from the Earth, until we can extract them from the Moon or from asteroids. Production must continue at full speed ahead, including not just manufacturing of goods but also production of new kinds of goods, like new kinds of fertilizers, energy sources and metals.

[PatriotResistance]

Already looked at quotes for using solar at home. I work, and that work can be converted into solar panels to produce power for my family and I at home to replace some to all of the electricity that we use. If my electric bills double under Cap & Trade, I still cannot justify solar as it consumes more work than the work that they would ever return to me and my family.

Are you including independence from the power grid in your evaluation? How about self-reliance, an important part of individualism?

Not saying you should, just that some would value those things.

As an architect who's done some solar design I understand your concerns. In fact, realistically the first step to designing a system is to ask the user if they are interested or would be willing to reduce their electricity requirements. If the answer is no, the evaluation need not go any further. But if yes, and assuming a lifespan of thirty years, solar PV should be about the same cost as getting power from the grid. Only government incentives make it a net gain.

[SD26]

Are you including independence from the power grid in your evaluation? How about self-reliance, an important part of individualism?

...Only government incentives make it a net gain.

Why should I take the money of others?

[Capitalism Forever]

If anything which uses energy or resources isn't sustainable, then you freely admit, by consequence, that nothing today is sustainable.

BINGO! You've got it. But what I am still not getting is why lack of sustainability is a problem.

[Jake_Ellison]

Sustainability for the Earth's sake is obviously a bad thing. Sustainability serves a particular purpose for a particular context, it is not something to be applied universally.

What's wrong with having Capitalism as a political system, to leave individuals to rely on their own property and free trade for their long term survival?

Why do we need a political system that concerns itself with disallowing "unsustainable" development, and encouraging "sustainable" development, and what would the means of doing that be?

P.S. since the word "sustainable" has now been redefined by both you and Zedic as "unsustainable, but long-lasting", perhaps it's time to change the name and also set a limit on what "long" means, and where does the dreaded "short" begin.