I like it…

Building a sustainable community.

One word springs to mind instantaineously.

Cloughjordan.

But on a world wide scale.

We all depend on each other, and as I said in my last entry, one person/communities action impacts on another, almost like a butterfly effect if you think. Many people, when they think of a “sustainable community”, think of something like this:

I.e, something far fetched. Not saying this is far fetched, just that it is a little…imaginative. That isn’t what a sustainable community is. A sustainable community is one that can live independently and survive off the resources it has, without over exploiting them. It is one where the people are all aware of the consequences that their actions have on the world and on other people, where we are aware of our spending and of our environment. Ultimately the aim is to more so have a sustainable population than a community, which I mean have a sustainable population of Earth. But with such diversity and such different values, this is near impossible.

In short, a sustainable community is one which takes a little piece of the positive out of each of my blog entries to date and uses them to live in harmony with the environment… and itself. The reason I mentioned Cloughjordan was because it’s the closest example we have in Ireland and it’s the only green settlement I’ve ever been to. It requires co-operation between the villagers, agreement, innovation, participation, communication, evaluation; all of which are necessary to form a sustainable community.

A perfect example is ants. Ants knew about sustainability over 50,000,000 years before us. It is now part of their instinct to be in harmony with their environment. Why can’t we do this?

We destroy our habitat yet they protect it. We destroy our economies frequently. We are human, therefore we are destruction. In the highest. And it is that destruction that is what has caused such dire need for sustainability. We need to change the way we act. We need to conserve our resources.

The Venus project. A possible sustainable community. There is also a new city project in the Middle East. Are these our hope for the future? Only time will tell.

Law, Policy, Europe and sustainable development.

Normally you wouldn’t really tie these together would you? Well, maybe you may think that in the future sustainable development will become part of practice and thus law, but already, it is. We’re all affected in our day to day lives by every single action of every single individual. Rarely do we notice or consider what impact and influence politics and law have on our lives, because it’s rare that we deal with these things unless there is an election or unless you are/someone else is after breaking a law. Take a moment to think about Europe. Think of what effect our joining of the EU has had on our country. Think of what effect it has had on your life. All of the different laws that we now must obey, all of the policies and trade agreements. The grants, the opening of borders, the free flow of people to all member states. It’s pretty impressive isn’t it? If you were born after 1973, you were born into this union. You know not of what it was like before it, and so this has become your policy and you do not know what influence it has on your life compared to when we were without it. It has given us wealth, and taken it away. It has given us opportunity, and taken it away. It has done a lot. But is it a good thing?

Let’s set another scenario. You can probably tell by now that I (try to)  explain things best through scenarios.

Lets pretend that in Ireland it is legal to allow backseat travelers in a car to have the choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt, i.e it’s not compulsory (this is just a scenario). This is a national law, independent of any other nation. Now, we join the EU, this big union of powerful states. We sign agreements (but being Irish we don’t read the fine print), and we’re in. Our economy begins to grow, our people become happier blah blah blah. So, after a while, the EU sets a law for all member states that it’s citizens MUST at ALL times when travelling in a car, regardless of front or back seat passenger, wear a seatbelt. Therefore that law falls upon Ireland. But Ireland didn’t wan’t that? Is there something wrong here? (No because seatbelts are good, but this is an example.)

Well yes and no. We did agree to the contract. And we must abide by the laws set down by the union, we are a member state aren’t we? But are we after loosing our national independence? Well on some levels yes. Not every decision is ours anymore. We must agree to limits in trade, obey certain quotas etc. A good example is the opening of the Irish box. This was a region around the coast of Ireland that had very large fish stocks and was a conservation zone. As we are a member of the EU, we came under increased pressure to open our waters to Spanish and French vessels (they are very big fishing nations with large fleets). This happened. The conservation zone was drastically reduced in size and even still, vessels are fishing inside this zone. We have sacrificed our fish resources. But the positive was the common agricultural policy. Our agricultural sector boomed with all of the money that the EU was pumping into modernizing and equalizing Europe’s agricultural sector.

But what about us, as people? Ireland has only a population of 3.5million, not counting Northern Ireland. This, compared to the population of major countries in the EU, is miniscule. It makes one question, do we really have a say when it comes to the vote? Not really. We can agree to say no on certain things, but usually we are brought around to saying yes anyway, cough Lisbon Treaty, cough.

Is this sustainable is the question? Is it sustainable to have a peaceful union of nations sharing ideas? Economically and socially it sounds amazing. And it is a good thing. But as I questioned, is it taking away independence? Is it giving all the power to the key players? Yes. Of course it also allows us to share energy with our neighbours. Interconnectors between Ireland and England, England and France link us all. If one country produces excess, simply send it down the grid to somewhere in our fine union where it is more needed, ideally. Environmentally, it doesn’t harm us. Infact, perhaps environmentally it drives us. Europe is cleaning up its act, it is good to be a part of this.

Of course there are some things we rule over. Our national education system. Our religious beliefs. Our military. We have independence still. But no longer are we under the sole policy of serving Ireland. We are now under the sole policy of serving Europe. And I think that gives us a lot more opportunity. And a chance to make a change.

Sustainability Metrics

Never heard of this before.

 

Well it’s pretty obvious. Everything needs to be measurable. So does sustainability. And so sustainability metrics is exactly that. A measure of sustainability. But is it a very good measure?

Bernadette O Regan showed us that it can be inaccurate. A region might seem like it has a high development index, but for what reasons? Lets take for example, the quality of life in a region. It’s very high. Then we look at the income, it’s also high. Therefore the people can afford to live relatively well. Now look at where is the money coming from? Pollution. And the primary source of income is pollution clean up and transport. So when we think about it, the region might have a high score in the income bracket, but might have a very low environmental sustainability level.

The same could be true for another region, only different conditions. Maybe the environmental sustainability index is very high, so high that it overshadows the negative development in the region, and thus gives a reading the same as that where the environment is very badly polluted. Maybe the people here are poor, and health services are low. It’s things like this that we need to question.

 

The case study that we saw was between Anacotty and Limerick City. It was a perfect example of how sustainability metrics may rank a place high on the sustainability index, but for reasons that are not exactly… perfect.

 

So what do we use as indicators? Well: Air quality, Water, Energy security and Efficiency, Population density, Transport infrastructure development, Health, Income… etc.

It should be clear that if one out weighs another, it will give a similar result on a number scale, but for different reasons. So we need to be critical of these things when we view them. What we have seen are Kite diagrams. Now I think these are very effective. At first I didn’t understand them, but I’ve looked them up and they actually display a lot more information than your average graph and you can really see what is influencing what, despite the similar figures. This is an example of a kite graph:

 

Where have I seen one of those before… ah yes… the pokémon gameboy game… anyway…

 

Yeah, so. We need to be aware of our total sustainability. We need to not allow things to out weigh others and give false readings. We need to find a BALANCE between all of the things that influence our development. That is, I am sure, what this whole module is trying to teach us. This is just a very educational way of showing it over all graphically. At first, I thought these sustainability metrics lectures were incredibly boring, too much facts and figures and like I said, I didn’t understand the graphs. But after looking over the slides and doing a bit of digging I can see exactly why it is necessary, as I’m sure I’ve stated plenty of times by now and don’t want to be repeating myself.

 

Unfortunately I wasn’t able to find any other kite graphs of sustainability between different regions as good as those in the lectures. What I did compare was the development similarities and quality of life index between Brazil, India and China. Check it out, It’s pretty interesting. Just like I said, they appear similar but for different reasons. Here’s a start. India has more science graduates than the US and Canada combined graduating yearly. What influence does that have on the index? Education is very high…

 

But we know India isn’t the richest country in the world…and some people do not have the best quality of life… to put it mildly… (yet).

Project Poster and Project Essay

The Water Crisis in Gaza – Essay

The Water Crisis in Gaza – Poster

My student number

Because there are two Brian O’ Connors and I don’t want confusion.

 

10096531 IS MY STUDENT NUMBER.

Corporate Social Responsibility? Is it really THEIR fault?

So, many of us have this idea that if a business/organisation/company/corporation is linked with a problem, it is responsible for that problem. But that’s not exactly a fair view is it? Yes, responsibility is key on some of their actions but not all. Let’s start early with an example.

 

A company starts up in a rural area. After it has been there for a long time and become well established, smaller spin off businesses start around it. The majority of employment and prosperity in the region is tied with that company.

Then the company leaves.

People get upset. “Why did they leave? Now we have no jobs, no money, what are we going to do?”. They resent the company. The spin off businesses fail. The population starts to decline due to emigration Why? It NEVER said that the company was responsible. The company never said it was going to be there forever. It’s not their fault. After all, it’s only a profit driven business. That is what happens, companies find somewhere where the work can be done cheaper and quicker and move there. But the people have come to depend on that company for their livelihoods? Now the question remains: Who’s responsible?

The company’s point of view: “We are not responsible. The people came to depend on us despite the fact that we never stated that we would be there for the future. We have found more efficient methods of doing our work in a different region, hence we shall move there. We are a profit driven corporation, not something to bank your entire future on. We care about our workers, but we do not want them to depend on us.”

 

The workers’ point of view: “This company was the primary source of income for the region and they knew it. What they have done is cold and heartless. They have left us to wither, forced our children to emigrate and ruined our livelihoods. How can they not claim they are responsible for this mess now?”

 

But it is in fact the business that is correct. They are sticking strictly to the business role. Profit. They never did state they would stay. The people created the dependence themselves. But it is easy to see it from the peoples view. They did depend on the corporation, and the corporation did know this. So morally, they are responsible for the mess. But legally and logically, no, they are not. So this is what ‘corporate social responsibility’ is. It’s understanding circumstances like the example I gave above. There are situations of course where the corporation is directly responsible for a problem, the best examples are those concerning environmental issues.

I’m going to use the stereotype example of recent times.

BP – The Deepwater Horizon Oil spill.

This company created a disaster that saw the contamination of a very large volume of water in the Gulf of Mexico. To be precise, approximately 62 – 53000 barrels of oil were spilled into the ocean each day for almost 4 months, affecting an area of over 11000km^2. The company did not deny that they caused the spill. It not only damaged its own profit, but also the monetary intake for many large scale and small scale fisheries and tourism industries in the region.

Responsible? I think so. The difference is, this was damaging the environment and the company, something that is not allowed. In the other scenario, no one was at a contract to be right.

Corporate social responsibility is messy. I think anyway. Of course on one hand the people are right if they depend on the company so heavily and the company should take this into account but on the other hand it’s not their responsibility. It’s not a businesses responsibility to bring wealth to a region, it’s just something that happens. It’s not a businesses responsibility to produce a certain amount of something, they produce to the demand that is there.

People cannot complain if a company is damaging the land either when you think about it. If you consider the BP spill, the reason they were drilling in the region in the first place was to SUPPLY THE OIL THAT THE PEOPLE wanted. They were simply supplying to demand, as businesses do. So technically isn’t it the people buying and using the oil that are responsible? If they hadn’t wanted it, they would never have had to drill and hence, there would have been no catastrophe.

 

Do you see what I mean? There is two sides to EVERY story. When it comes to CSR, it is no different. On one hand, the corporation may be to blame. On the other, the people. So when it comes to the subject, whoever is right is the person who is proved to have not given any statement that said they must act a certain way, my opinion. Without a stated list of acts that can and cannot be done, how someone must act or not act, there can be no responsibility, in a sense. You may be responsible for something else, but not if you are like the business in situation one, who never said they would be there forever.

Think about it.

 

Often corporations may be making it seem like they have a good image, by building schools, hospitals etc. But what about the background work? What are they doing to build these? What are their corporate methods, are they damaging to the world? To the workers health? Are some corporations only using scapegoats to make it seem like they are socially responsible? There are examples. Many, but I won’t go into detail.

 

What of a child working in a sweatshop for a MNC (multi national corporation). They’re paying the child. The child’s job is the sole source of income for the family. But law says that it is child labor. Is the company responsible if it lets the child go and the family starve, to comply with law? Or is the company responsible if it keeps the child on, as it knows the circumstances. In the second case, the corporation is drawing unnecessary responsibility on itself, as technically it is not responsible for the child’s family. But in either case, the corporation is morally responsible. Which do you think is right? Think about it.

This is very informative, and interesting. My opinion.