A Genuine Green Economy Would Bring Appropriate Technology—and the World’s Poor—Front and Center

Ashwani Vasishth, PhD

Associate Professor, Environmental Studies

Director, Masters Program in Sustainability Studies

Ramapo College of New Jersey

Mahwah, NJ 07430

vasishth@ramapo.edu

UN CSD is focused on “the transition to a green economy.” At its heart, talk of the “Green Economy” is talk about green technology. But what counts as a “green” technology? How would we know a green technology from a brown one, or a grey one? Are solar photovoltaics a green technology or a polluting one? Are hybrid automobiles and SUVs green? Or are they too tightly dependent on the dirty trade in rare earths to actually qualify for that label?

Back in the 1970s, we knew green technologies. We called them Appropriate Technology. Biogas plants, solar cookers, treadle pumps, low-cost technologies that focused on bringing the benefits of progress to the masses, as they are quaintly called. By some accounts, Mahatma Gandhi first focused attention on simple technological innovations that could help develop cottage industries across the colonized Indian landscape. The ideas of swadesh, or autonomy, of self-sufficiency, lay, in many ways, at the heart of his vision of a better life for all.

A better life for all. Surely that is the nub of it. If this new vaunted “green economy” does not reach the poor, is it truly a green economy? Uchita de Zoysa had organized a panel titled “Whose Green Economy,” at the last CSD. I seek to continue that thread here, by asking, whose green technologies?

In 1973, Ernst Schumacher published Small Is Beautiful, inspired at least in part by Gandhi’s ideals. He coined the term Intermediate Technology. And a movement was born.

Or was it?

As it turns out, and at that time, both the developing and the developed worlds were less than enthusiastic about the idea of Appropriate Technology. Either because small-scale, locally grounded projects are much more tedious to fund than large-scale, centrally-run projects, or because, low-tech was seen as being less “modern” than high-tech. But, in any case, a magnificent opportunity to redirect development toward true sustainability was lost.

After all, and understandably, our ideas of modernity are shaped to a significant extent by notions we carry in our minds about state-of-the-art solutions. To be modern is to deploy the most sophisticated technologies we have thought to develop. In many cases, this deployment serves us well. In health care, for instance, or in science research. But, in some cases, what is needed for "proper action" is something else, something less, something more--hence the notion of "appropriate technology."

Wikipedia says "Appropriate technology (AT) is technology that is designed with special consideration to the environmental, ethical, cultural, social, political, and economical aspects of the community it is intended for. With these goals in mind, AT proponents claim their methods require fewer resources, are easier to maintain, and have less of an impact on the environment compared to techniques from mainstream technology, which they contend (are) wasteful and environmentally polluting."

The US Office of Technology Assessment defines Appropriate Technology as being “small-scale, energy-efficient, environmentally sound, labor-intensive, and controlled by the local community.” In addition, it is taken that such technologies are simple enough to be maintained by the people using them.

For instance, it may be inappropriate to deploy some modern construction technologies in a rural context, in circumstances where local builders may not be familiar with, say, pre-stressed concrete construction or extrusion. Similarly, methane digesters may be a more appropriate way to deal with sewage than modern sewage treatment plants, when socio-cultural context is taken into account. Differently, composting may be a more appropriate way of dealing with organic waste than disposal in landfills. Fertilizers and pesticides and genetic engineering may be the most modern ways to deal with agricultural yields, but, in many ways, may be more harmful to the ecosystem level environment than less conventional techniques such as no-till farming, or composting or integrated pest management.

According to Schumacher, and in any particular context, an appropriate technology is “intermediate” between established local technologies and state-of-the-art modern technologies. But, in every case, an appropriate technology is small-scale, low-cost, and easily maintained by local communities.

Water supply and purification, energy production, sewage treatment, waste management, and agriculture are some of the sectors that currently cry out for innovation, when it comes to poverty alleviation. If we are to focus on the “green economy,” let us bend our attention as well to these fields.

The important point here is to broaden the discussion about the new “green economy” in a way that takes the discourse away from high-cost green technologies and toward low cost ones. And to bring the notion of poverty alleviation back into the conversation. A green economy that does not reach the poor is worth little to the sustainability movement.

Are locavores loco to buy local?

A commentary in the Boston Globe by Tom Keane, "A Bitter Reality," makes the argument that since transportation is only about four or five percent of the greenhouse gas emissions for all foods brought to market, there is no real advantage to buying local foods. The piece plays off a 2008 article in Environmental Science and Technology, by Christopher Weber and Scott Matthews, "Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States," which makes the argument that buying local may be a less effective way of cutting our carbon footprint than cutting out, say, beef from our diet.

The Keane piece has been used to make the point that buying local is not a wise choice, since local foods cost more than foods deriving from the corporate marketplace, and since there is not great GHG reduction benefit to be had from choosing local.

There are two points worth making here. First, the claim that local foods "cost" more than foods available in corporate food market chains is at least dubious. Second, the "benefits" of buying local cannot be derived simply from the distribution of GHG emissions from different stages for the production-consumption process.

The idea that "buying local" is not a wise decision (which was the point of the originating commentary)--or, conversely, that locavores are loco to be buying local--rests almost completely on the belief that present price structures are sanctified, in some way. My point was that, if present price structures were in fact a reflection of an informed response to reality, there might be some value to be had from abiding by them. But that is not the case!!! Current price structures hide more than they show. And are most certainly not the outcomes of the entirely hypothetical "free market."

Then, the fact that something "costs more" is not in itself an argument against doing that thing. The question is, when that "cost" was calculated, what was counted, and what was left out? What were the boundaries that were drawn? If the cost of grocery store food is lower than the cost of local food, does that mean that grocery store food is, in any actual way, cheaper than local food? Or could costs be counted differently, to make one realize that buying local is the smart way to go?

I think this is a snap/ All you have to do is make a few distinctions. Between renewable, non-renewable and conditionally renewable resources. Between different forms of subsidies. Between various sorts of externalities. And viola!!! We have a completely different "cost" structure. One can't, in my opinion, address the locavore issue without first understanding that locavores are closer to free market conditions than large corporate grocery store chains.

The idea that local foods are more resource intensive than corporate foods is also subject to challenge on the grounds that not all resources are equal, which it comes to ecological harm. For instance, it may be that corporate foods are more "efficient" to produce and so are said to be economically more viable, while local foods require a lot more work, and so tend to cost more in the sale-purchase marketplace. But it is at least likely that local foods use a lot more renewable resources (such as human labor), while corporate foods are more intensive in non-renewable resources such as petrochemicals. Are renewable resources "better: than non-renewable resources? I think so.

In the case of benefits, as has been pointed out by many that the camaraderie and conviviality that accompanies, say, Farmers Markets,may make shopping for local a lot more satisfying than a drive down to the local grocery chain, with its huge advertising budgets, lobbying costs and air conditioning. There is something to be said for being able to tell the name of the person that grew one's food.