Sustainability what

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, Sustainability represents (by the numbers)(my thoughts by the letter):

1. “The traditional definition of sustainability calls for policies and strategies that meet society’s present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

A. If this is true, then why has the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) not made any real changes to mining laws when mining “Public lands (BLM Lands). They have been using these same practices since 1872, with no real revisions. Therefore, for a around $135 in federal fee on a 20 to 160 acre parcel (not including local fees), one can place a claim for rights to mine the minerals and metals within the “Public land.” The federal government has interpreted this right to supersede “All” other potential “Uses of Public Land.” Meaning the untouched Public forestland put aside for future generations by President Teddy Roosevelt, for his great grandchildren is forfeited.

In addition, the claim holder is not required to return any money to “U.S. Taxpayers” for the value of the minerals and metals extracted from their land.” (This is according to BLM). With the Taxpayer not being reimbursed for their public lands (YOUR LAND) being used but in the same breath, to say that the Taxpayers are flipped the bill for the waste cleanup on these same public lands is a travesty.
Local State Legislation is also responsible for your lose of Public lands. Alaska at least has their state residents reimburse for the oil removed from their pubic lands. Saving our land (Mother earth) and its (Her) natural resources for “future generations,” I do not see with this kind of public land laws been practice. Nothing but a cesspool do I see left for our future generations, not a untouched wilderness. Just look at the recent mines that have collapse, exploded, even flooding and now the oil spill in the Golf or Mexico. All are “Cesspools” for future generations, left by extracting the minerals and metals from our land and seas.

2. The 1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) formally established as a national goal the creation and maintenance of conditions under which humans and nature can exist in “productive harmony,” and fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.
Here, here I say, “productive harmony” is the key indeed.

B. And yet, how can one clam this and still we build to resist nature and not to follow with it. Where is Building Code change to reflect this view? To be in harmony with nature (Mother earth), you must find a way to flow together. Just as two skaters must have perfect harmony on the ice, so do we need to build in harmony with nature. If not the IBC, UBC, or Local code change, then why has not NEPA demanded change in the building codes so that “humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.” It is as if the NEPA is blind to “Ecological Damage” caused by natural disasters when civilized society and Mother earth collide. So many pollutants, such decay, and destruction are left in the wake of these encounters.

The NEPA should be more concerned with the local “Natural Disaster Environmental History” (N.D.E.H) of a region that a building is to be built in. If we are truly to find “productive harmony,” with Mother earth, we must build in harmony with nature and not to resist it, and in accordance with the “Natural Disaster Environmental History” of the land. Until we do ecological, economic, social, devastation will be the price we pay and the same for our “Future generations.”
Moreover, what of the ecological, economic, social, devastation done by producing these so called “Green Products.” The only “True Green Product,” are all natural and should have no waste byproduct in any way well being made or sold, not even if goes through a natural disaster.

3. The concept of sustainable development was described in a 1981 White House Council on Environmental Quality report: “The key concept here is sustainable development. If economic development is to be successful over the long term, it must proceed in a way that protects the natural resource base of developing countries.”

C. If we can not even stop our own government from selling off our Natural Resources from our Public lands (BLM land), what make you think that our government is trying to save other developing countries natural resources. Furthermore, the White House just okayed more offshore drilling for oil and the vary next week we have the worlds largest oil spill in history. Creeping up from the Golf of Mexico, the looming ecological damage emanate, as well as the death and decay to our ocean and it’s life forms (natural resource). Then there are the economical reproductions to the states (already suffering our recent economy) that boarders the cost line. Where is this sustainable development at Mister and Misses White House?

4. Over the past 30 years, the concept of sustainability has evolved to reflect perspectives of both the public and private sectors. A public policy perspective would define sustainability as the satisfaction of basic economic, social, and security needs now and in the future without undermining the natural resource base and environmental quality on which life depends. From a business perspective, the goal of sustainability is to increase long-term shareholder and social value, while decreasing industry’s use of materials and reducing negative impacts on the environment.

D. Okay let’s get this strait; there is a “Y” in the road to sustainability. One road is called public (Human) and the other is called business (Corporate), and some how these two roads are to meet back up in the end to and still have sustainability mean the same thing as when it started? When it comes to the public interest, I really don’t see any real movement. I am not saying the public is not trying to make a difference, just that the powers that be (Corporate world/UN) are making it an up hill battle.
Then I see in the business sector a dollar store mentality. With over packaging, single servings of every kind are being develop and sold, the MSG’s (and other impurities put in our food chain and harmful to the human body) in our food, running a muck, how can they claim this. Infect over 75% of rain-forest in North and South America have been cut down by US Corporations. Then the fact that the corporate world has even sterilized our seeds so a farmer no longer can replant their fields without the buying of new seed. As will as the fire-retardant in everything made that has leeched it’s way in to every living thing on earth to the point of disrupting the Killer Wales food chain and ours. How can they claim anything of the kind?
Note: Why claim a ”Green Product,” when the packaging; to be made, supplied, shipped and than disposed of, is not Green.

5. Common to both the public policy and business perspectives is recognition of the need to support a growing economy while reducing the social and economic costs of economic growth. Sustainable development can foster policies that integrate environmental, economic, and social values in decision-making. From a business perspective, sustainable development favors an approach based on capturing system dynamics, building resilient and adaptive systems, anticipating and managing variability and risk, and earning a profit.

E. As we have moved down the list by numbers, the true meaning of Sustainable has become watered down, and from save our land and natural resource been number one, we go to support a growing economy being number one. And this would not be if the “Y” in the road to “Sustainable” spreads further and further apart, with new “Y” being added to the already split road and one to many times.
Then there is the fact that by this point, the business perspectives is capturing system dynamics, building resilient and adaptive systems, anticipating and managing variability and risk, and earning a profit. Why don’t they just say the privatization of our water and other natural and unnatural resources? (Tank Girl the movie)

Sustainable development reflects not the trade-off between business and the environment but the synergy between them.

NOUN:
pl. syn·er·gies: The interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects. Cooperative interaction among groups, especially among the acquired subsidiaries or merged parts of a corporation, that creates an enhanced combined effect. To work jointly toward a common end.

A human impact mathematical equation was developed in the 70's and is called the I PAT formula.
A × T × P = I
Where: A = Affluence, T = Technology, P = Population I = Environmental impact
If math is based on a hypothesis, then what makes this the proper way to determine our survival on our planet?

In closing I would like to ask, "Where dose Mother earth stand in all this so-called sustainable movement?" Nowhere! As we speak, indigenous people from all over the world are coming out to speak on behalf of Mother earth. Only to be told that their views and concerns for Mother earth are unfounded, and do to the face that Mother earth is not a sanctioned being, her rights and their do not matter (You can thank the UN/Corporate world for this). Well to heck with that! Mother earth is more alive then ever and about to have a heart attack do to the ill parasites of corporate world doing as they please to there own gain for so many years.