GENERAL POLICY

    This assignment is due no later than the beginning of class. If you do not meet that deadline, I will deduct 10% off the final numerical grade (e.g. one letter grade) if the assignment is not submitted by the beginning of the next class. All assignments not submitted by the two class periods after it is due it will be assigned a grade of "zero" ; do not even attempt to submit these, please. All assignments must be typed and printed on a word processor with the question written clearly above the answer, then your answer following. All responses must answer the question clearly in grammatically correct English, be spell checked and proofed before submission. While you are welcome to discuss these assignments with your classmates, you are to write your own assignments individually. Submission of identical or nearly identical answers in my judgment will result in these persons being assigned a grade of "zero".

GRADING

    Assignments will be graded on a percentage basis of correct, reasoned, and well referenced answers to questions. Full credit will only be given to answers that obviously exhibit knowledge of the lecture, book, WWW, and reserve reading materials, and where additional materials have been found over the Internet. An answer I determine to be composed in sloppy English, spelling and grammar will immediately receive a deduction of 50% (or more) of the grade for that question. I will grade on a straight percentage basis on these assignments [(e.g. for this assignment there are 100 points/14 questions = 7.14 points per question (the 0.14 point is for following format instructions, e.g. if you do not follow format instructions I will deduct 2 points from the assignment)].

QUESTIONS

1a. Define "capital" in all of its uses.
1b. Why is it important to consider different types of capital when planning for a new government project?
1c. Why is "sustainable development" an oxymoron for some planners?
1d. Is there a difference between "growth" and "development"?
1e. Use the Internet Links in Chapter 1, and determine how the World Business Council for Sustainable Development is attempting to bridge the differences between growth and development.

1a. Define "capital" in all of its uses.

"Capital" in its most fundamental sense refers to the resources that any living system can harness or use in order to satisfy its needs and desires. This includes human, social, natural, manufactured, and cultivated natural resources.

Goodland and Daly define "natural capital" as the stock of environmentally derived assets that provide a flow of useful goods or services. This, in the past was  narrowly construed to include only those environmental
resources which appeared to be in relatively short supply. However, by necessity, this concept is now being broadened to include resources which in the past appeared to be virtually unlimited such as air, water, sunlight
and greater spheres of the known environment.

"Cultivated natural capital" is a hybrid form of capital which derives from man-made and natural capital. It includes such assets as plantation forests and fish ponds.

The Goodland and Daly article defines "human capital" as the investments in education, health, and nutrition of individuals. Perhaps a better definition would include the knowledge base, intelligence, creativity, skills, and all other personal potentials, both developed and undeveloped, held by the human population.

"Social capital" is defined in the Goodland and Daly article as the institutional and cultural basis for a society to function. An elaboration of this definition would include the network of developed, productive relationships which exists between humans, institutions, and other intelligent life.

Human-made capital includes all of the infrastructure, tools, equipment, and supplies that we have manufactured or processed from natural materials.

1b. Why is it important to consider different types of capital when planning for a new government project?

This is important in order to maximize benefits in terms of the total impact that the project will have on all life on earth, both now and throughout time. The planning of any project must take into consideration the mix of capital inputs that may be harnessed for the project. Additionally, the planning must consider the impact that the project will have on the stock of the different types of capital assets. As a minimum, the total stock of all assets taken together should be maintained and not depleted (weak sustainability). Better than that would be to plan the
project so that it will not impair the total potential of the capital stock by seriously depleting any one type of capital stock (intermediate sustainability). Still better would be to ensure that the impact of the project would at least sustain the total stock of each type of capital (strong sustainability). For example, as Goodland and Daly explain it, "for natural capital, receipts from depleting oil should be invested in ensuring that energy will be available to future generations at least as plentifully as enjoyed by the beneficiaries of today's oil consumption."

1c. Why is "sustainable development" an oxymoron for some planners?

This is owing to confusion over the term "development." Some planners think of development in terms of economic growth. Indeed, According to Boutros-Ghali, An agenda for Development (1994) , economic growth is the
engine of development. For those who view development in this way, there is an obvious problem, because economic growth cannot continue indefinitely. It would result in the depletion of natural resources upon which economic growth is dependent and would strain beyond its limits, the biological capacity of our planet to absorb and process the stream of waste that such continued economic growth would produce.

When we understand "sustainable development" the way it is presented by Goodand and Daly, "development without growth in throughput of matter and energy beyond regenerative and absorptive capacities, then there is no
inherent contradiction within the term, and it is not, then, an oxymoron.

1d. Is there a difference made between "growth" and "development"?

Yes. In their article, Goodland and Daly bring out this distinction. According to Funk and Wagnall's Dictionary, "growth" is defined as "an increase in size (amount, degree) by assimilation."  In contradistinction, "to develop" means to "expand, bring out potentialities, capabilities; to advance from a lower to a higher state."  They add to this that, "true growth refers to added value, but sustainability demands that we disaggregate what part of the value-added increase is due to quantity change (throughput) and what part to qualitative improvement."

1e. How is the World Business Council for Sustainable Development attempting to bridge he difference between growth and development?

It appears that their efforts in this direction are through advocacy and education. According to information provided on their home page, the WBCSD, a coalition of 122 international companies from 34 countries and more than
20 major industrial sectors, aims:  to develop closer co-operation betweenbusiness, government and all other organizations concerned with the environment and sustainable development; to encourage high standards of
environmental management in business itself through business advocacy on issues connected with the environment and sustainable development; to develop policies in order to create a framework that allows business to
contribute effectively to sustainable development; and to demonstrateprogress in environmental and resource management in business and to share leading-edge practices among its members.

To their members and other interested parties, they provide reports, books, media publications,  speeches on environmental issues given by members, and a Sustainable Business Challenge test.

2a. Define UNCED. Define Agenda 21.

UNCED is the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development which was held in June of 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. It was attended by more than 100 heads of state from around the world who came together to formulate
global conventions on biodiversity and climate. The result of this convention was Agenda 21: Earth's Action Plan, a plan of action for sustainable development on a global scale.

2b. Give two reasons why the world has so far failed to meet the challenges of integrating environmental strategies into economic policy?

I hope that you don't mind if I give more than just two reasons: lack of clear knowledge by the world's population concerning the current crisis, greed, short-term thinking, unwillingness to recognize the need and take
responsibility to effect the changes that are required.

People and  businesses stand to lose in the short term, because integrating environmental strategies often require substantial investments in order to upgrade plant and equipment and reduce the impact of their activities on
natural resource consumption and waste production. Industrialized nations do not want to reduce their throughput of natural resources because they feel this would reduce their standard of living. Industrializing nations desire to experience the same level of affluence as the industrialized nations and are unwilling to curtail their growth of
throughput since they feel this would thwart the fulfillment of their desire for greater affluence.

Governmental leaders, according to the Worldwatch Institute, do not yet take these problems as seriously enough, and so sustainable development is not a priority for them. According to Worldwatch Institute, although recently elected leaders of the World Bank embrace the challenge of sustainable development, they are not wholly supported by the hundreds of task managers and country directors that wield the real power of the World Bank. These individuals remain focused on narrow financial goals, and so far the Bank has failed even to develop an adequate environmental screening process for their loans.

Major economic and political changes during the past several years, including the end of the cold war and the collapse of economies in Central Europe and now South East Asia have diverted attention away from the
challenge of sustainable development.

According to Worldwatch Institute, economic and social pressures during the nineties have made "rich" countries feel poor, leading them to cut back on domestic social programs and, in some cases, to slash their foreign aid
commitments. Similar cutbacks have undermined the budgets of agencies that many nations had been counting on to promote sustainable development.

2c. How does the Multilateral Investment Agreement threaten the goals of UNCED?

It gives transnational corporations and investors substantial new powers and rights  without imposing any responsibilities on them to care for the people and environments which they impact. Since corporations are driven to maximize profits for their investors, and investors are well insulated from the impact which their investments have on the environment and quality of life issues, the concerns of sustainable development most often receive a
very low priority. The following is an elaboration of this answer.

MAI is designed to establish a whole new set of global rules for investment that will grant transnational  corporations the unrestricted "right" and "freedom" to buy, sell, and move their operations whenever and wherever they want around the world, unfettered by government intervention or regulation.

It seeks to empower transnational corporations through a set of global investment rules designed to impose tight restrictions on what national governments can and cannot do in regulating their economies. The ability of
governments, for example, to use investment policy as a tool to promote social, economic and environmental objectives will be forbidden under theMAI. While corporations are to be granted new rights and powers under the
MAI, they are to have no corresponding obligations and responsibilities related to jobs, workers, consumers, or the environment.

It elevates the rights of investors far above those of local communities, citizens, workers and the environment. Citizens, workers, indigenous peoples and civil society at large cannot hold  investors accountable for their actions under the MAI, and are excluded from the operation of the MAI dispute system.

It conflicts with many existing progressive laws, especially those governing natural resource use, environmental protection, workers rights and local social programs.

3a. Why are individual investors important players in the environment of the developing countries?

There has been a very substantial increase in private investment funds flowing to developing countries in 1990's, from $44 billion in 1990 to $234 billion in 1994 (French, H. 1995. Partnership for the planet: an environmental agenda for the United Nations. Worldwatch Paper 126.) About 40% of these new investments are mutual funds and "portfolio" investments by private individuals, a category of new money that didn't exist 10 years ago (French, 1995).

The environmental impacts of these flows are high because of their magnitude and the nature of the investments. Private investors and money managers who are mainly interested in maximizing returns on these investments have been investing little in sustainability in the developing nations. Rather, they favor investments which support "resource intensive growth" and mining natural capital since these types of investment yield greater short term returns.

Additionally, this has created a highly volatile situations for the economies in these countries.  The amount of money in these new investments is so large that when private investors get "jumpy" they can ruin the economies of nations (Mexico, Thailand & East Asia).

3b. What is a Baht and a Rupiah? and why have the Baht and the Rupiah become globally important issues for both the global economy and the global environment?

The Baht is the unit of currency of Thailand. The Rupiah is the unit of currency for Indonesia.

The devaluation of the Baht and the Rupia, and the economic crises in Thailand and Indonesia are examples of the dangers of our global market economy and global investment flows, especially when compounded by the very narrow margin of safety provided by the fractional reserve banking practices employed almost universally.

These currencies have become globally important issues for the global environment because of the interconnectedness of world market economies. When problems occur in one market, all other markets are affected. It is a situation that, to me, seems somewhat akin to the situation which gave rise to the great fire in Chicago during the least part of the 19th century. There was not adequate separation between the buildings and the individual buildings themselves were not very fire resistant. When one caught fire, it quickly spread to engulf a huge section of the city. In the case of the world markets, they have become so interconnected and vulnerable that
little problems with any nation's economy has the potential to erupt into a world economic crisis.

With respect to the global environment, the effect of interconnectedness of markets and their vulnerability to the whims of investors can be understood as in the following discussion of what has happened in Thailand recently
(the same probably being true for Indonesia, although I have not specifically looked into this because I answered this question before it was modified to include Indonesia).

The Thai economy was booming during the early 1990's. This stimulated a lot of foreign investment to flow into Thailand. Additionally, trade was stimulated and Thailand developed a substantial trade deficit. When the Thai economy began to falter, investors pulled large amounts of their investments out of Thailand. This created a shortage of foreign currencies including the Dollar with which to pay for the trade deficit. This put an enormous strain on the banking system and forced a devaluation of the Baht. It also forced Thailand to start austerity measures throughout its economy. When austerity measures hit, programs for environmental sustainability,
which are generally long term in nature,  give way to short term economic needs.

To avoid these  problems, I feel that the following should be done worldwide: 1. Encourage local ownership of corporations, mainly by the people who work in them. 2. Limit investment by people who are insulated from the impact of the companies which their investments capitalize. 3. Encourage local self-sufficiency for food, shelter, and the basic necessities of life. 4. Encourage trade of art, culture, technology, and knowledge, but discourage trade of basic necessities which can be produced locally.

4a. State Lyle's 12 principles.

   *  let nature do the work,
   *  use nature as the model and the context,
   *  aggregate, don't isolate functions,
   *  determine optimal levels for multiple functions,
   *  match technology and need,
   *  use information to replace power,
   *  employ multiple pathways,
   *  seek common solutions to disparate problems,
   *  develop storage as the key to sustainability
   *  use form to facilitate flow,
   *  use form to manifest process,
   *  prioritize for sustainability.

4b. What is regenerative design and how is this different from conventional design?

Regenerative design takes into consideration the impact of the flow of materials, energy, and other resources beyond the here and the now. It seeks to create sustainable solutions to whatever is being designed by
transforming linear flows into recycling loops and other natural processes which regenerate and enrich the ecosphere rather than to deplete it.

Conventional design, on the other hand, tends to maximize value in the here and now with little regard for the long-term and/or spatially extended impact of whatever is being designed.

4c. Give an example of how your home or dorm living situation violates one of the 12 principles of Lyle's sustainable society.

Rather than taking advantage of passive solar heating and cooling, our apartment building is poorly insulated, requires a lot of energy to heat, and is fitted with a noisy energy-hogging air conditioner (which we never
use). This is not "letting nature do the work."

5. Give a short statement on why the Convention on Climate Change is controversial and how the US is involved.

The Convention on Climate Change is controversial basically for two reasons: ignorance and self interest. It was and is very difficult to come to clear consensus on the issue with respect to understanding it, how to mitigating its impact, and how to monitor progress towards the goal of the agreement. Secondly, the Convention had the formidable task of balancing the disparate interests of governments, businesses, and NGOs throughout the
world, each attempting to protect its own self interests.

As stated in the Earth Negotiations Bulletin, Vol. 12, No 76, Saturday, 13 December 1997, "The consensus among the world's scientific community is that the climate is "out of kilter" and the human species is, in all probability, largely responsible. Such is the political process, however, that it is unlikely that political leaders have even begun to formulate the most salient questions, let alone formulate appropriate answers. The politics of climate change - as demonstrated by the Kyoto Protocol process - raises dilemmas and paradoxes for politicians whose careers are framed by the demands of attending to a development model that must now come under scrutiny. There is more than the weather out of kilter. And for more than one reason, the Kyoto Protocol text will have the quality of a riddle - designed to raise more questions rather than provide comfortable solutions."

How is the U.S. involved?

The U.S. is a major player in the Convention. As a major economic, cultural, and technological force in the community of nations, and as a nation which contributes a large share of the total greenhouse gas emissions,  it has a lot at stake, and wields enormous political power on the eventual outcome of the agreement. One of the reasons for this is that the agreement reached by the Kyoto Conference is weak if not meaningless if the U.S. does not ratify it, and ratification is seriously in question. As stated in an article in the Washington Post, Thursday, December 11, 1997, "The difficulty delegates to the global warming conference in Kyoto encountered in reaching agreement on reducing greenhouse gases is likely to pale beside the trouble Republicans have promised the Clinton administration when it seeks ratification of the newly negotiated international treaty. ... Hours before the final agreement was reached... key Senate Republicans declared the accord 'dead on arrival.'" The article also stated that during the summer of 1997, the Senate voted 95 to 0 to assert its opposition to any treaty that endangers the U.S. economy and spares developing countries from constraints imposed on developed nations.

The following is an elaboration of my answer to the first part of this question, and presents some of the difficult questions that faced the convention:

How should responsibility be apportioned for the historical burden that humanity has placed on itself? (Developing nations feel that they should not be held responsible for what was essentially the result of industrialized countries' action.)

How should the need for economic growth in developing nations be balanced with the need for reducing GHGs on a global scale? (In the eyes of the developing nations, the output of emissions is linked with development and
progress, which they consider their highest priority.)

Who should bear the costs of reducing GHGs within the developing nations? Developing nations held that the only way that they can reduce emissions is through costly technology. This and the costs of implementing the agreement
within their countries would be an enormous strain on their meager financial resources.

Should developed nations be allowed flexible arrangements to externalize or homogenize their efforts to meet quotas established for them? (Developed nations generally pushed for options such as emissions trading;
source/sinks tradeoffs; joint implementation; and banking credits; all of which were generally objectionable to developing nations.)