Where the Present Meets the Future

 ot to be too scattered, but the discussion of Pinchot, Muir, and Leopold will   
 have to wait. I’m delving into Susan Cain’s book Quiet, and I think that 
 argument would be better suited in conjunction with a more thoughtful 
 examination of introversion culture.

What I would like to discuss is how ridiculous the world of sustainable development and transparency in the market has become. There is this stunning new initiative that would bring to light company information on “climate change, diversity, employee relations, environmental impact, government relations, human rights, product impact and safety, and supply chain” that has been presented to NASDAQ by investors. The purpose of such a bold release of information for public/investor consumption is to increase awareness and allow the market (*I believe in the market*) to make more informed, transparent, and sustainable decisions.

And before you roll your eyes and shake your fist at those granola-crunching, hippie investors, consider that the London, Sweden, and Denmark stock exchanges already have minimal requirements for transparent reporting of corporate responsibility—that’s weird, the U.S. is behind other nations in seemingly obvious and forward-thinking concepts? That has never happened. I present to you, as exhibit A, in all its thickheaded, proud to be an Amurican glory: Kansas.

Otherwise known for its revolutionary idea to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools in 1999 (yes, 1999, as in a time in recent history—apparently the “theory” of evolution skipped over this group of Homo sapiens sapiens), the agro-based economy state is proposing a bill that would OUTLAW sustainable development. I would like to pause here for a moment of silence in memory of all the brain cells and IQ points everyone who has read House Bill No. 2366 has lost.

So what is sustainable development, anyway?

There are many definitions of sustainable development, including this landmark one which first appeared in 1987:

"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

—from the World Commission on Environment and Development’s
(the Brundtland Commission) report Our Common Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

I’m paraphrasing a bit from the Capital-Journal here, but the man who brought this bill to the House Energy and Environment Committee (which he is conveniently the chairman for) claims that he saw “no conflict of interest in the fact that he is a contracted geophysicist whose client list includes 30 regional oil and gas companies.”

It’s always nice to see people like Rep. Dennis Hedke taking a stand for future generations by proposing a block of public funding for a fundamentally progressive (and conceptually historical) development goal. And what’s even more interesting is that from what I've been able to uncover, he as kids of his own. Which strikes me as hilarious and terrifying seeing as he clearly underestimates his own life span in comparison to that of his children and potential grandchildren. Hey, remember that time a House Representative lived forever in a world that was unchanging? Me neither.

I like to think I’m telling you things you already know. I like to think that this is an obviously appalling and inexcusable use of elected power and monetary incentives to pursue personal gains. I like to think that everyone can see this as blatantly and excruciatingly clear as I can. But the truth of the matter is that not only was this man elected and placed in a seat of power (questionable—so questionable), but he was educated as a geophysicist in our education system, made the chairman of a state committee to promote environmentally sound governmental decisions, and he also sits on the committee for education. WHAT.

So hats off to you, Kansas, and especially you Mr. Hedke, for proving that despite investors (representing the market) attempts to improve corporate responsibility and forward motion toward a more sustainable future, communities, individuals, and indeed entire states (representing society) like you have made only one thing perfectly clear: nothing is for certain about the future of sustainability.

My advice to U.S. voters:

1. Educate yourself on the full story—or for that matter, read at all (props if you've made it this far in my post, unfortunately, that likely means you’re not the audience who should be reading this part) 
2. Don’t compromise progress, no matter how tempting (and self-serving) the immediate returns might seem 
3. Follow the money trail—and in that vein, think about where you’re spending your own dollars; they are like little votes toward what you want the future to look like 
4. Think about the children (intentionally cliché, but seriously, do you want your future spawn to grow up as we Millennials have—facing the seemingly insurmountable environmental (economic and political) consequences of our past generations neglect? That’s what I thought)

Well, that's my rant for today. I hope it has brought some balance to whichever side you've been leaning toward on the sustainability and environmentalism scale.

With love,

J