We’re planning a few relatively easy campaigns first: filling/activating the city of L.A.’s pedestrian advisory committee, pushing for better safe routes to school project/processes, pushing for counting/tracking modal shares, and perhaps some additional campaigns. If any folks out there are especially interested in volunteering to advance any of those campaigns, please drop me an email at linton dot joe at g mail dot com.

*crickets*

How does one participate with the new group?

Thanks to everyone who made suggestions… there were a lot of good ones… and it took us a while to decide on the name that we felt worked best for us.

Okay definition that is not a cheap corruption of the original meaning. Still, an adapted derivation and how do resources play in?

Can that definition be operationalized. Do have polices that if followed would be sustainable? (and does the associated analysis ignore population growth?)

I see this org with a mission like: improving our communities through better transportation choices…

btw – here’s a sustainable definition I like, “Economic and social development that meets the needs of the current generation without undermining the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” from
Our Common Future/Brundtland Report
World Commission on Environment and Development

Streets and transportation are such an important element of the public realm, and when I think of complete streets and mobility options I think of vibrant places.

Also, there are so many hundreds of groups with acronym based names, or names that string together various concepts, that they all blend together in the collective mind.

Americans for Transit Freedom – ATF

Californians for Transit Freedom – CTF

Im outta ideas.

yeah, maybe not so helpful?

Your example of forest clearing is perfect. From a resource stand point, that practice can not be continued in perpetuity at the rate at which it is a happening. You seem to acknowledge this.

You failed to mention that many forests are cleared by very rich corporations and individuals. Does that change the impact of the practice?

The economics promoting that action ARE IRRELEVANT to whether or not it is a sustainable use of resources. It is or it is not.

Is it important to know why its happening and what policies could be put into place to stop it, yes! But don’t confuse that with sustainability, in the original sense of the term sustainable.

Then what are the goals and mission of any of these groups?

Mother nature has a fetish. The atmosphere does not care how aware we are, or how much we care, or what the size of our INDIVIDUAL carbon foot print is. It only cares about the total CO2 concentration in the atm.

Whether or not we are without ample water supplies to water my half acre urban farm only matters if we have enough supply (numbers) to meet the demand (numbers). Demand being equal to average usage X population size.

You better base all your efforts on numbers or we are unlikely to live sustainably and we will leave our ecological debt on our children. That is the larger point, no?

Also, we shouldn’t make a fetish out of numbers. Yes, some things can and must be quantified, but an obsession with quantification can obscure the assumptions and values which go into a definition of sustainability (just like traffic engineer’s obsession with quantification obscures the car-centric values that too often underlie their analysis). The point about there being a multiplicity of definitions is proved perfectly by the debate.

Anyway, the larger point, I think, is that, IMHO, the group’s name should include the concept of sustainability, despite the fact that we’re still trying to figure out what it means :)

I hope you’ll be able to show me the data that the system your group will be promoting is sustainable for 200 years. But be aware that most people in the environmental movement won’t be very interesting is seeing “what percent of them are in good repair” and I am sure many people on this blog have been motivated by environmental issues. The obvious one to start with is Co2. You don’t mention C02. Why not address environmental sustainability? Isn’t this why most people want people to peddle instead of drive?

We can be talking about a transportation system that is sustainable and still be using the definition you list above. A system that uses a variety of modes and embraces a “Fix-It-First” philosophy of transportation investment, especially when it comes to highways, can be a sustainable transportation system with the definition that you’re using. When I talk about sustainable transportation, that’s what I’m talking about.

The way to calculate it is by taking a look at surveys of roads, highways, bridges and transit systems and see what percent of them are in good repair versus what percent are functionally obsolete. But, we’ll talk about all that more in a little bit.

We are doomed if people agree with the above statement. Sustainability is concrete. Water resources ARE quantitative. Co2 levels ARE quantitative. Food production is quantitative.

Here is a terribly sad example (see http://tinyurl.com/ofdgro ). These people will be suffering from a lack of resources regardless of level of “awareness” or social equity. That’s going to be a lot of suffering, which is likely to end in war or oppression. That will be an entire population who won’t give a hoot about being “green” or not).

Their sustainability is quantitative.

One definition given above = protecting the environment, protecting the economy, and promoting social equity.

A more useful and original definition relates to society’s ability to maintain its processes, functions, and levels of resource utilization indefinitely. A point where we can sustain the economy and environment in perpetuity. Sustainable forestry would be cutting down trees in a way and at a rate that could be continued forever.

Not that justice is bad, but the DEFINITION of sustainability shouldn’t be stretched over social equity. It promotes sloppy dialogue and thinking. I’m sure that has mostly gone unnoticed because there has been a lot of group think.

____________________________________________________________
The most fundamental civil right is the right to honest government.

If not, “Alliance for Progressive Mobility” is my suggestion.