Brian, where'd you get this photo...it's perfect!

Venn diagrams rock.

how could you possibly change a company's bottom line to do all three though. wish it could happen, but shareholders want payout. regulation? yipes.

are there companies that have genuine multiple objectives other than simply one: profit? They must be privately owned, i'd assume

jeff Z said: "are there companies that have genuine multiple objectives other than simply one: profit?"

jeff any company with "profit" as a bottom line will soon go out of business. It's classic economics theory. The most successful businesses are not driven primarily by "profit." Check out Economics in Christian Perspecitve, by Claar and Klay; The Entrepreneurial Vocation, by Father Robert Sirico; Business to the Glory of God by Wayne Grudem; Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell, and the Roman Catholic Catechism on Economics as well as the Catholic Social Teaching on economics being profitable is a sign of good stewardship, not a driving force behind the nature of free enterprise. Not being profitable is a sign of wastefulness or natural resources. At least this is what Christians have believe since the discipline of economics began at a monastery in Spain (Salamanca)...

Did you ever go to an Acton conference?

At any rate, to answer your question, "yes." I know several Christian led Fortune 500 companies whose bottom line in meet customer needs and treat employees well while making sustainable products: Herman Miller, for example.

It worries me when we start to talk about the man/nature dichotomy. That, without pesky man walking around, nature would be perfect. That because I consume I am bad.

It also worries me when we throw around the word sustainable as if we have the capacity to sustain ourselves. Perhaps a better word we could use is mitigate or harmonize or even exist.

The problem with the sustainable notion is that we almost need to set up an us vrs. them scenario. That nature is benign and perfect and man is just f#$%in' it up and that if I pump gas I am killing my grand kids.

Perhaps a better way to look at 'sustainiblity' is the notion that man is called to glorify and redeem creation. Nature (as if we can separate it from man) fell under the cures of sin just as man did. In so doing, man was called to bring creation back to it's former glory just as we are striving to bring man back to it's former glory through the work of Christ.

God is please when we create, after all, he is the Great Creator and we are made in his image. We are to build, to craft, to use, to enjoy, to glorify all of his creation. And when we do that we will be sustainable. When we stop to misuse, abuse, mismanage, waste, desecrate His creation we will be 'sustainable', but only then.

While I don't think you will disagree with what I wrote, I would challenge you to think of being sustainable as the act of man redeeming and glorifying God creation and not simply as a way to lessen our impact as if we are not here.

side note: I think God is more pleased by the stuff we make than he did. I think he looks with more favor upon our cities than his 'unmolested nature'.

Churnock said: " We are to build, to craft, to use, to enjoy, to glorify all of his creation. And when we do that we will be sustainable. When we stop to misuse, abuse, mismanage, waste, desecrate His creation we will be 'sustainable', but only then."

Well, not really.

This sounds like pleasant Reformed jargon but what does it actually mean? Not too much actually but it sounds good and makes many people think they're actually doing something.

How does it apply to how we design buildings, cell phones, lamps, toasters, shoes, etc. What about design and biomimicry?

Embracing the rhetoric does not tell you how to "redeem." It's empty pietistic language.

As Etienne Gilson put it, "Piety is no substitute for technique."

This "redeeming creation" jargon does not clarify what type of glass should be used when building a building or whether or not it's worth it to "recycle" aluminum cans.

The jargon tells us nothing about what the best balance is of nuclear, solar, wind, or coal energy, or how to build the best grid.

This one of the reasons why Christians are so useless in discussions about the environment. We come with good jargon but no ideas about product design or innovation. How does "glorify God" affect the chemical processes related to making carpet?

"We are to build, to craft, to use, to enjoy, to glorify all of his creation. And when we do that we will be sustainable."--This statement can't be true because I don't know many churches at all that build church buildings that are sustainable and I wouldn't say that they didn't build the building to glorify God. There are church buildings built where people have office space with no natural light, how is that sustainable? How can a church glorify God and redeem creation and also promote paper recycling and even use recycled paper; even as deadly toxic as that process is?

Piety is not a substitute for technique. Evangelical "environmental stewardship" is primarily nothing more than religious language some would say.

You are correct in that the goal is not simply lesson our impact. Actually, the larger task is to turn our waste into food the way God seems to have designed creation in the first place. Humans are the only creatures that create waste that is not immediately degraded and reused in natural systems. This is our task beyond "redeeming, blah, blah, blah..."

Does the "is" always tell us the how to's of the "oughts?"

Anthony,
I agree with what you said, that there are actions that go with ideas. I agree that this is where the church falls very, very short. However, my beef was with the reason why we should desire 'sustainablity' and not so much the hows. Without the why, the hows are trite. This is where, for me, the 'green' movement missed the boat. It should have been started by the church instead of missing the church completely.

you said, "I don't know many churches at all that build church buildings that are sustainable and I wouldn't say that they didn't build the building to glorify God. There are church buildings built where people have office space with no natural light, how is that sustainable? How can a church glorify God and redeem creation and also promote paper recycling and even use recycled paper; even as deadly toxic as that process is?"

I don't know if I want to get into the methodology of how we come to call something sustainable (as I feel the current definitions fall very short and are extremely near sighted), but I would ask how does natural light make something sustainable? Is that really our litmus test?

In the diagram above are the circle equal in weight as shown? Should we scale the equation towards the environment or the economics? And how to you quantify social concerns and what do those look like?

Frankly, I don't care what type of glass a building has or the SRI value of it's roof or if it has an open paving grid. These do little to address the issue of what it means to be sustainable. But when we have all our existing buildings occupied, our brownfield reclaimed, our wetlands protected, and our settlement patterns condensed to promote alternative forms of transportation other than the car, then we can talk about fundamental refrigerant management. Until then it is just flotsam and jetsam on the currents of the 'green movement'.

churnock, sadly said: "Frankly, I don't care what type of glass a building has or the SRI value of it's roof or if it has an open paving grid. These do little to address the issue of what it means to be sustainable. But when we have all our existing buildings occupied, our brownfield reclaimed, our wetlands protected, and our settlement patterns condensed to promote alternative forms of transportation other than the car, then we can talk about fundamental refrigerant management. Until then it is just flotsam and jetsam on the currents of the 'green movement'."

Wow, you should care about the glass because natural light has an effect on the worker. This is matter of human dignity.

The rest of your concerns lack the nuance and differentiation that would make continuing pointless. The fact that you're only concerned about buildings being occupied and not how they are made exposes your lack understanding what sustainability and stewardship is actually about. I would suggest reading the Compendium on Catholic Social teaching on the environment to get the best (theological, economic, and social) synthesis so that you fill in the categories beyond the rhetoric.

How one can claim to care about this issue and not care about the environmental impact on people and environment in terms of how things are made puts you back in the 1970s as an "environmentalist." Let me guess, you've never read "Cradle to Cradle," you don't understand LEED categories, aren't familiar with Sustainable by Design: Explorations in Theory and Practice by Stuart Walker, and so on.

Or perhaps your definition sustainable is completely different so that you don't care about the built environment or processes. Having a fully occupied building that pollutes and is internally toxic is no more sustainable than an empty one. "Promoting" alternative forms of transportation don't mean jack if those forms don't actually help or make matters worse in the process of how they are applied, etc. . .

Actually, could you list any books and sources you've been reading because they you explain it doesn't sound like anyone I can think of. Could you help with which school of though you're representing. I'm curious about dichotomy you've set up and does see sustainability as directing processes?

You also said, "It should have been started by the church instead of missing the church completely." Again, nice rhetoric but most Christians I know don't have a clue about any of this stuff by into green rhetoric just as easily as anyone else.

"Without the why, the hows are trite."

This is also true, but this should actually be conjoined instead of separated. Christians think that just because they have the how that gives us direction on what to do. It does. The "why" is not a substitute for technique.

Biomimicry is much promising and closer to creation norms that anything I've ever read a Christian write on the subject.

Got any other authors in mind?

You have got to love blogs and the nature for conversations to go downhill quickly. I will try and not take your personal attacks on my character as an insult. And per your suggestion I thought a little back ground into my views would be appropriate. I am currently working as an Urban Designer for the City of Birmingham, Alabama. I have a Master�s in Landscape Architecture from Auburn University and I am LEED AP and a card carrying member of the American Society of Landscape Architects as well as a member of the Congress for New Urbanism (although I�m not that proud of that one� it was peer pressure). I have read Cradle to Cradle, but I have not read the Compendium (thanks for pointing that one out). I am an Aries and I like long walks with my dog. My favorite color is blue and I am a die hard Cardinals fan (even if Albert stunk it up last night).

While I hate to bother you with more rhetoric (as I am sure you have better things to do), perhaps I may be so bold as to respond to some of your concerns (as I think we agree more than disagree).

While looking at individual systems and building materials is fine and all (more power to you if that gets you out of bed), my concerns about sustainability has more to do with how we organize ourselves than what kind of paint we use. I feel like the �green movement� is unable to really address the needs and concerns we should be trying to address. To quote a wise man, using things like low VOC paints �is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic�. So you are right, our definition of sustainability must be different, and that is fine.

My initial comment was about my concern of the �green-movement� was that it is easy to set up a dichotomy of man and nature. Brian stated, �Humankind is changing the face of the earth at an unprecedented pace. We have wiped out whole ecosystems. We have accelerated the extinction rate. At the same time we have brought real choice to hundreds of millions of people. No longer struggling to survive. Millions are added annual to our ranks. There is nothing pretty or predictable about the process� in his second paragraph. This type of talk leads very well into the thinking that man is a parasite on nature. This is the type of (may I use your word?) rhetoric that I had to deal with in grad-school and try to fight everyday. Not saying that is where you were going, but to me there are some leanings towards more of a Naturalist way of thinking.

Brain also stated in his follow up comment that �There is no man/nature dichotomy. I was pointing out the fact that man is drastically changing the earth in his image. Never once did I mention nature is perfect. It has been rather brutal causing mass climate change and extinction.� There you assign ethics to nature, which helps set up the dichotomy you said didn�t exist. And before you say there is no man/nature dichotomy you may want to talk to Descartes. Hardly a staw man.

Since we are throwing around reading lists you may want to check out Neil Evernden�s The Social Creation of Nature or The Natural Alien. I think some of Jared Diamond�s works could be appropriate here (but he is a bit deterministic for me), specifically Collapse. And there is always Fritjof Capra who looks at systems like nobodies business, but his deep-ecology leanings get old. But perhaps the must have for any talks about being sustainable is Bruce Mau�s Massive Change. *Why do I get the feeling that we are really comparing penis size here?*

I would love to hear your lists; I am always looking for some pearls of wisdom.

i just got an error message, so sorry if this posts twice.

You have got to love blogs and the nature for conversations to go downhill quickly. I will try and not take your personal attacks on my character as an insult. And per your suggestion I thought a little back ground into my views would be appropriate. I am currently working as an Urban Designer for the City of Birmingham, Alabama. I have a Master�s in Landscape Architecture from Auburn University and I am LEED AP and a card carrying member of the American Society of Landscape Architects as well as a member of the Congress for New Urbanism (although I�m not that proud of that one� it was peer pressure). I have read Cradle to Cradle, but I have not read the Compendium (thanks for pointing that one out). I am an Aries and I like long walks with my dog. My favorite color is blue and I am a die hard Cardinals fan (even if Albert stunk it up last night).

While I hate to bother you with more rhetoric (as I am sure you have better things to do), perhaps I may be so bold as to respond to some of your concerns (as I think we agree more than disagree).

While looking at individual systems and building materials is fine and all (more power to you if that gets you out of bed), my concerns about sustainability has more to do with how we organize ourselves than what kind of paint we use. I feel like the �green movement� is unable to really address the needs and concerns we should be trying to address. To quote a wise man, using things like low VOC paints �is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic�. So you are right, our definition of sustainability must be different, and that is fine.

My initial comment was about my concern of the �green-movement� was that it is easy to set up a dichotomy of man and nature. Brian stated, �Humankind is changing the face of the earth at an unprecedented pace. We have wiped out whole ecosystems. We have accelerated the extinction rate. At the same time we have brought real choice to hundreds of millions of people. No longer struggling to survive. Millions are added annual to our ranks. There is nothing pretty or predictable about the process� in his second paragraph. This type of talk leads very well into the thinking that man is a parasite on nature. This is the type of (may I use your word?) rhetoric that I had to deal with in grad-school and try to fight everyday. Not saying that is where you were going, but to me there are some leanings towards more of a Naturalist way of thinking.

Brain also stated in his follow up comment that �There is no man/nature dichotomy. I was pointing out the fact that man is drastically changing the earth in his image. Never once did I mention nature is perfect. It has been rather brutal causing mass climate change and extinction.� There you assign ethics to nature, which helps set up the dichotomy you said didn�t exist. And before you say there is no man/nature dichotomy you may want to talk to Descartes.

Since we are throwing around reading lists you may want to check out Neil Evernden�s The Social Creation of Nature or The Natural Alien. I think some of Jared Diamond�s works could be appropriate here (but he is a bit deterministic for me), specifically Collapse. And there is always Fritjof Capra who looks at systems like nobodies business, but his deep-ecology leanings get old. But perhaps the must have for any talks about being sustainable is Bruce Mau�s Massive Change. *Why do I get the feeling that we are really comparing penis size here?*

I would love to hear your lists; I am always looking for some pearls of wisdom.

Brian,
I thought this was a very thoughtful post. I just finished preparing a history lesson (for my kids) on the salinization that ruined the farmland in large chunks of Ancient Mesopotamia. This optimistic way of looking at our ongoing attempts to "eat from the sweat of our brow" was right on time.

churnock, huh? so, now I'm really confused by your comments. Were you at Auburn when Bruce Lindsey was there? He's been a sort'a tutor of mine on this stuff (he's in St. Louis now at Washington Univ). At any rate, could you explain again why you don't care if workers are in environments where they receive natural light and why the type of building does it matter as long as it's full of people; and how those are not concerns or sustainability? Aren't those the types of things the Green Council looks for?

Joking aside, the Catholic stuff on the environment puts the "redeeming creation" jargon to shame and exposes it as novice and lacking differentiated nuance at best. Theologically, "redeeming creation" doesn't direct people at all because it does not address processes and systems.

Brian,
I don't know which approach is going to work best (top down or bottom up). At the city we are trying to rewrite the ordinance to be more 'green', but we are having a really tough time trying to figure out where to mandate and where to encourage. Bottom up won't work without support from the top and top down won't work without desire from the bottom. However, given the nature of the implementation process, I think it will be weighted more heavily on the bottom than the top, just because they are the most flexible.

Anthony,
I was at Auburn with "The Bruce is Loose" Lindsey, but he spent most of his time in admin. and with the architect students and didn't make time for us poor landscape kids. I shouldn't say I don't care about things like natural light, just that if we had a priority of implementation of process it would be further down my list than other items/factors such as site selection. You're right that the USGBC and LEED love that kind of stuff, but they also like bike racks and we know how those get used...

I think one benefit to the Catholic church is the structure of the organization. They can have top-down decrees. In reformed churches, that isn't going to happen. One thing I have been working with my church on is how to use the property for the other 6.5 days of the week. We have started a farmers market on Saturday mornings that draws around 400-500 people and puts money in the pocket of 8-10 farmers/week. I think this does more to the 'sustainbility' of the church than any wool carpet would.

No books?

churnock, books:

Green Sisters: A Spiritual Ecology (Hardcover)
by Sarah McFarland Taylor

In Earth's Company: Business, Environment, and the Challenge of Sustainability by Carl Frankel

The Ecology of Hope: Communities Collaborate for Sustainability by Ted Bernard, Jora M. Young

Design Is the Problem: The Future of Design Must be Sustainable by Nathan Shedroff

churnock, I'm glad to hear about your church using it's building more than a couple times a week. I'm about to write something regarding how empty buildings during the week is pathetic.

Surely universities are some of the worst offenders as far as empty buildings go

@churnock You are right going to be a mix. Example putting a price on carbon emissions may if done well spark the bottom up growth of solutions. I still believe the solutions will be found from the bottom. It will be an emergent system. Of course policy can be constructed to foster a movement to more sustainable solutions.

But policy makers do not like to have guidelines, they would rather mandate "solutions". Great example catalytic converter. Instead of mandating emissions reductions and leaving the solutions to the market. They implemented one of the worst technologies to address the problem.

Good luck on rewriting the ordinance. Does your team run experiments on what will work and what won't? I know Boulder has been working on it for years. They tend to mandate strictly. Though lately they have been moving to guidelines. One of my favorites is if you are building a house over 4,000sqft it must be zero net energy. Another is low interest loans to improve efficiency of your home. The loan is tied to your property tax, so if you move the loan stays with the property.

As for books, the ones Anthony recommends are good reads. Most of my reading lately has been papers and stuff put out by the Santa Fe Institute (Complexity Science)

Sweet use of your church. Great example. Sustainability has many facets.

Anthony,

Thanks for the reply (way above). No, I've not been to the Acton Institute, but it sounds like I should consider a try. I'm sure I'd enjoy it. I'll be honest, I didn't have time to finish my Claar and Klay last Spring, it's on my finish list.

Exciting blog so far. I'll have to save it to a doc on my computer.

Churnock,

I'm stoked what you're doing with your church.

1. I don�t see how financial systems are different from human systems.
2. I do believe in mystery, especially surrounding humanity. Introspection is extremely difficult. I question the desire for a single model � usually the object is prediction, a desire to manipulate. I prefer to let systems emerge.
3. I really don�t know what sustainable means. Populations may expand as the ability to feed them expands. Or, wealthier people may choose to have fewer children. How long do we need to sustain for? What eschatological perspective is directing the normative positions?
4. Environmental concerns are luxuries. Only after people have enough food and clothes and shelter do they start consuming environmental quality. The most obvious way to see this is to notice that suburbs are cleaner environments than cities most of the time. It is a luxury to live in the suburbs. Shall we insist to the developing world that they must consume more luxuries before they have satisfied their necessities?

...color me unconcerned. Aaaa, glorious prices. Problem solved.

"there is nothing inherent in evolution to promote the welfare of humanity. So I see the need for humanity to actually be involved in the directing of the system."

This is well put. If humanity is involved in directing the system, what is it that humanity is directing the system toward? Can we agree on a direction? Can we agree on more babies vs. higher quality babies (fewer)?
There is a presumption about agreement on ends, and a similar presumption that evolution will take us closer to that end.

Perhaps the discussion cannot continue along those lines unless an incredible assumption is made: human nature is static. With that, we can at least derive good legal systems through a common law process, and then more particular collective decisions can be handled through markets.

It seems like some of what you are saying is strategic rather that theoretic. I might just suggest that you will just be spinning your wheels until the right theoretic is built in to the knowledges of enough decision makers.

My Libertarian self says, we are not ready to put Libertarian policies into practice.
Christ within me says today we must practice the gospel.

Such a dichotomy.