As we rode one of Washington’s ferries this weekend, my
husband turned to me and asked if I knew how old these boats were. Honestly, I
am not sure, but they certainly are not new by any means. As we continued our
conversation, it turned to a discussion about infrastructure, and how upgrades
in efficiency (new equipment) is a way that organizations, businesses and
countries tout their sustainability. Upgrading the fleet of carpool vehicles at
your office to hybrids…or 100% electric vehicles. “Our emissions are lower! Our
operations are carbon neutral!” is what their annual report reads, and the
company shows improvement with a pat on the back.
But what really happens?
Back to the ferry discussion from the weekend.
When US ferries are deemed to be too old, too unsafe, too
high emissions for our standards, we retire them. “Retire” in this case really
meaning selling them to continue their lives elsewhere. My life in WA recently
collided with my experience studying in East Africa when I learned of a ferry
tragedy connecting two places I was intimately connected to. In June 2012, a
ferry boat, purchased from a retired US fleet, had sunk on its crossing fromZanzibar to Dar es Salaam, killing over 150 onboard. I had been on that very
same crossing in 2007, on a similarly overcrowded vessel. Where exactly was
this ship from? The same route that we were riding this weekend…West Seattle to
Vashon Island. The sinking was caused by weather conditions combined with severe
overcrowding and mechanical problems. Regardless of the reason, this ship was
one that we had taken off our books as a country, but for the world, it was
still polluting, running and endangering lives.
This is not the only example of infrastructure that we write
off in favor of our local sustainability. Fleets of city busses, and school
busses, are routinely sold to developing countries once they are too unsafe, do
not meet emissions standards, or are too aged to run here. These aged, less
safe and more polluting vehicles are sent overseas where they are run for years
beyond their first life in the US.
As we explore measurement of sustainability, and defining
metrics around what and how to track it, it is critical that we do not just
push the problem elsewhere. A popular acronym used in environmental issues is
NIMBY…not in my backyard. Waste water treatment, factories, refineries,
landfills, highways…all of these large, infrastructure projects are typically
located in less affluent areas, leading to social justice and environmental
justice issues. Even as a company evolves towards their internal sustainability
goals, how often are they asking about how their actions impact these
indirectly related issues.
The world is a complicated network of challenges as we
discuss sustainability. My call to you, is to consider all the impacts of your
actions, both upstream and downstream. What may look like sustainability gains
to you, may just mean compounded negative implications to someone somewhere
else.
Wow, that was a powerful story -- one that really hit home with this ferry commuter. Seems like you have the beginnings of a very powerful op ed piece here.
ReplyDeleteHow did you learn about this story?
And what else would you need to consider to make it into a powerful op ed piece that could pursue the logic to the end of the story?
What I'm thinking is this:
- It makes sense to give these complex objects a useful life after their First World expiration dates: this is good for the developing world (solving various types of problems at an affordable cost) and it's good for the environment(keeping these things out of the scrapheap and taking advantage of their embedded energy).
- It is tragic when these objects result in loss of life and limb, but that is not inevitable (I hope) and has less to do with the characteristics of our castoff resources and more to do with the way in which they are used (or abused).
If you agree with this analysis, then the issue is not whether or how we pass along our material goods, but how we insure (if, indeed, we or anyone can) that they are used safely?
That's a different problem with a set of potentially different solutions and -- as always -- business opportunities!
Wow, Lauren, what a terrible and tragic story. I'm very sorry to hear of it-- it's kind of awful how much world news slips by me now that I'm in school.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing to think of all the ways our world is interconnected, even when we don't realize it. A friend of mine started a company called Project Repat. The company "re-patriates" used t-shirts sent in massive quantities overseas to African countries to flood the market. The shirts (which have been donated by us, to Goodwill or similar) are then sold to vendors and hawked on the streets. Project Repat buys these shirts back from the vendors for a fair price, and turns them into attractive gear to be sold here in the US, and sends the profits back to an educational foundation in Africa. It's a complicated system but they seem to be doing well-- and sending a fair amount of money back to Africa.
I wonder how we could change more of these systems so that rather than dumping our unwanted goods on poorer countries, we could help turn those goods into more viable, sustainable versions?
Thanks for the great post!
Great insight Lauren, I have always been a little suspicious of the prius buying logic, mostly because of the inattention to production emissions and other scope 3 outputs. Also, this ties into an interesting conflict between environmental bottom line and our social sustainability. How sustainable is it for the planet when we off shoring our polluting boats, but also their hazard to life and limb? not good for the earth or for its people! Thanks!
ReplyDelete