Beyond cliche--reclaiming the concept of sustainability.

Fuller, Robert J.

Introduction

The issue of sustainability was put on the global agenda at the 1983 World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former Norwegian Prime Minister. It was a turning point signalling to the world that we could no longer afford to behave as we had been doing for the previous 200 years. A significant outcome of the Commission was the publication of Our Common Future, also known as the Report of the Brundtland Commission or more commonly the Brundtland Report. This report tabled the concerns and challenges facing humanity (WECD, 1987) and established the framework for much of the subsequent debate. In Australia, a milestone in this debate was the development of the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD). The process was initiated by the Hawke Federal Government in 1990 and it reflected domestically the impact of the Brundtland Report. The Strategy was the culmination of the work of nine sectoral ESD Working Groups, who consulted widely with industry, academia, and conservation and community groups. Their reports were the foundation for the Strategy, which was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments in late 1992 (DEWHA, 2007). The subsequent demise of the National Strategy as a policy instrument is described by Walker (2002), who describes ESD as being a casualty of economic rationalism and bureaucratisation. In just over twenty years, the words "sustainability" and "sustainable" have been so overused that they are now meaningless and could even be described as cliches; i.e. words so commonly used that they are "drained of all meaning" and are now "dead bit[s] of filler material" (Wallace-Crabbe, 2008, p.1). It is ironic that the words "sustainability" and "sustainable", so vital for the continuation of life as we know it, should now have fallen into the category of the lifeless.

To resuscitate the concept of sustainability in the minds of groups of postgraduate tertiary engineering and architectural students at two universities, the author has been encouraging their reflection on what being "sustainable" might mean by using a simple model describing four principles of sustainable development. This is done by adopting a Socratic role and more rigorous definitions of the terms "sustainability" and "sustainable" are suggested. Students are also challenged by the author to think critically about the terminology used to describe current buildings and how the principles might influence the definition of a sustainable energy supply system. Both the universities publicise various "sustainability" projects and strategies, and one of them is a signatory to the Talloires Declaration. However, in the author's opinion, these reflect little more than accommodation to popular environmental consciousness, rather than part of an overall plan to provide genuine leadership towards sustainability. Students at both institutions are surrounded by examples which negate the most basic environmental consciousness. For example, nowadays (largely unread) big plasma screens hang in various thoroughfares continuously advertising university functions.

Sustainability and Sustainable Development

When the concept of sustainability was first being discussed broadly within Australia, the Institution of Engineers Australia (IEAust, 1994) defined sustainability to be "the ability to maintain a desired condition over time" (their emphasis) and that sustainable development was "a tool for achieving sustainability, not the desired goal" (their emphasis again). To some, the term sustainable development is an oxymoron. Development is seen to be the antithesis of sustainability, but this position is contested. Development is not the same as economic growth. Rather it is a multi-dimensional process and embraces concepts such as political freedom and social justice. In addition, economic development is urgently required in some parts of the world to end intolerable living conditions. It is beyond the scope of this paper to explore these contestations. For the present, this author has found that sustainable development has provided a useful framework for introducing critical analyses.

The most well-known definition of sustainable development is that taken from the Brundtland Report, being that which "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (WCED, 1987, p. 43). While recognising the major achievement of focussing the world's attention on the issue of sustainability, some believe that this definition, obtained through significant compromise, has long outlived its used-by-date (Daly, 1996, p. 2). This former World Bank economist believes that being "sufficiently vague to allow for a broad consensus" was "probably a good political strategy at the time" but "by 1995, however, this initial vagueness is no longer a basis for consensus, but a breeding ground for disagreement".

Certainly there has been good debate among environmental educators about the term sustainability and its usefulness. Jickling (2001) argues that while the meaning of the word is straightforward, definitional clarity is not enough. Similarly Wals and Jickling (2002, p. 122) argue that we need to "recognise its shortcomings as an organizing concept" if it is to "remain [...] helpful from an education perspective". While they acknowledge that "[...] literally it means to keep going continuously", they believe it "is conceptually flawed" because "it provides no inherent clues about how one should mediate between contesting claim between advocates of incompatible value systems".

A separate debate has taken place about whether education for sustainability (and/ or the environment) is valid (Jickling, 1994; Jickling & Spork, 1998; Sauve, 2002). This author shares their view that the purpose of education is to teach students to think about sustainability and what it means. Furthermore, this task needs to be revisited urgently given the uncritical way that students are using the term. Students can decide for themselves if some action or system is sustainable but unless they have been alerted to the looseness of their thinking, they cannot do this effectively.

Chapman (2004) "sidestep(s) the definitional debate" by asking "what sort of behaviour would be sustainable". His four answers are all ecologically-based. Redclift (1987, p. 29) also reminds us "of the primary ecological meaning of the concept" [sustainability]. The need to limit the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to a certain level underlines this primacy. Students are invited to reflect on whether this ecological need is more important than the economic or social dimensions of sustainability.

As reflected in the IEAust definition above, it is initially suggested to students that sustainability is not a process; rather it is a goal or aim of a process or system. Consequently, being "sustainable" is a characteristic of that process or system, in the same way for example that a thermodynamic system might be described as endothermic or exothermic. Consequently, a process is either sustainable or it is not. If a process is not sustainable, then it should not be labelled as such. To do so, confuses and misleads. Of course, one might argue that some action taken to improve a system might take it closer to being sustainable, but this does not merit the system being described as such until sustainability can be truly demonstrated.

When introducing the definitions of "sustainability" and "sustainable" to students, two everyday examples which they can relate to easily have been found useful. Students can readily understand that if their financial situation were to be described as "unsustainable" then clearly their expenditure was exceeding their income. Likewise, if they were consuming more food calories than they required for their level of daily physical activity, then their weight would not be sustainable at its present level. These examples show that for a process to be sustainable there is clearly a relationship between inputs and outputs. In the case of the ecosystem, depletion should not exceed renewal rates, and waste generation should not exceed the rate at which the system can safely absorb the unwanted products. "The limits regarding what rates of depletion and pollution are tolerable must be supplied by ecology" (Daly & Townsend, 1993, p. 29).

The Principles of Sustainable Development

One model that has been found useful to introduce the concept of sustainable development to tertiary students is based on the principles distilled from a review of the sustainability literature by Mitchell, May, & MacDonald (1995), and then pictorially represented by Cooper (1995) and later by Palmer, Cooper and van der Vorst (1997) (refer to Figure 1). The model has proven useful because it is simple, yet conveys the essence of the issues and their interaction. Importantly, it is also visually easy to remember. The four principles and how they might typically be introduced are discussed below.

The Futurity Principle

The Futurity Principle enshrines the idea expressed in the Brundtland Declaration that present-day actions should not compromise the needs of future generations. Critical questions posed to students include what is a "need" and how far ahead; i.e. how many generations ahead should we consider. Basic needs are reasonably easy to define and include adequate food, water, shelter and clothing for a healthy and productive life.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

We might safely add education, health care and useful employment. Enough energy is required for lighting, heating and cooling/refrigeration. At a certain point, however, further increases in per capita energy consumption do not result in improvements in the "physical quality of life index", as demonstrated by Palmedo, Nathans, Beardsworth and Hale (1978) and cited in Krugmann and Goldemberg (1983). Beyond the basic level, defining "needs" becomes more murky. According to Williamson, Radford and Bennetts (2003, p. 5), the term "needs" does not apply merely to basic requirements, but allows for "a reasonably comfortable way of life". Unfortunately, Williamson et al. (2003) do not define what their phrase means. In Australia, as in all industrialised countries, basic needs were met long ago and now "yesterday's wants" have quickly become "today's needs".

Predictions related to climate change regularly consider the end of the 21st century as a milestone. Most of today's students are likely to live to 2070 and most of their children will witness the turn of the century. It is quite common for people to be alive simultaneously with their grand children and even great-grandchildren, indicating that the needs of four generations are being met at one time. Limiting one's forward vision only as far as one's own living family was surely not the intent of the Brundtland Declaration. How much further constitutes "futurity" is debateable and a good discussion point with students.

The Environment Principle

The Environment Principle recognises the need for us to act in harmony with the environment, rather than trying to conquer it. Disregard for the environment created many of the problems we now face. These include climate change, loss of biodiversity and ecosystems, and over-exploitation of natural resources. Ecological footprint analysis is a powerful way of illustrating the impact of different lifestyles (refer to Figure 2). Developed by Wackernagel and Rees (1996), the system calculates the productive land area (ha) that is required to support a particular lifestyle. The analysis includes resource provision and waste disposal. It has been calculated that collectively by the end of the last century we were already living at 20 per cent above the Earth's biological capacity (WWF, 2002). Although the methodology has been criticised for perceived inadequacies (e.g. VROMRaad, 1999; van Kooten & Bulte, 2000), it has also been recognised as a powerful educational tool (UNEP, 2005). Recent developments of the analysis (Lenzen & Murray, 2001) have reportedly improved its applicability and accuracy.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The Equity Principle

According to the United Nations (UN, 2009, p. 1):

 Equality can be understood as parity in the enjoyment of
 fundamental rights and freedoms, and equality of opportunities with
 regards to education and work and the fulfilment of one's
 potential. Equity relates to a degree of equality in the living
 conditions of people, especially in terms of income and wealth,
 that society considers desirable. Reduction of inequalities is then
 justified by equity considerations.

In practice, this means that it is not just a question of everyone having an equal share of resources or the right to pollute. Past discrimination and disadvantage must also be considered. Equity denotes a sense of social justice. Equity programmes in Australia have long been recognised as necessary to counter the discrimination and disadvantage. Programmes to ensure equal opportunity for women, indigenous and disabled people are examples. Why should a similar view not be applied internationally? Currently many developing countries are disadvantaged by unfair terms of trade and stringent loan conditions. According to the World Bank (2009), approximately 1.4 billion people were living below the international poverty line of US$1.25 per day in 2005. It is argued that such gross inequality is unsustainable and breeds social discontent. Continued inequities also make it difficult to argue for the cooperation of developing countries in solutions to global problems such as climate change. Ultimately equity is essential for global sustainability.

The Participation Principle

Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development from the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit stated that "environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level" and "each individual shall have appropriate access to information ... and the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process" (UNCED, 1992, p. 2). The societal changes required to make human activity sustainable at national and global levels will be truly massive. It is impossible to envisage this being possible without a high level of education and the involvement of the majority of the population. The introduction of wind farms and the opposition that this can generate is cited as an example of the discontent a massive deployment of these and similarly technologies might generate, if not done with a high level of participation.

Sustainable Buildings

When teaching architectural and engineering students about energy use in the built environment in an elective of a Masters of Energy Studies, an understanding of the meaning (or lack of it) of common terms is vital to the development of their critical thinking and to their future ability to design sustainable buildings. Students are asked to reflect on the meaning (or otherwise) of the following widely-used building descriptors: an energy efficient or low energy building, a green building and an environmentally-friendly building. This exercise is a prelude to discussing what the characteristics of a sustainable building might be.

The term "low energy building" is used by the Property Council of Australia in its guidelines for reducing energy consumption from buildings by energy management and design (PCA, 2001). Use of the term continues a tradition established by the council's predecessor, the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA, 1994). Initially, the targets for low energy buildings were based solely on the performance of existing building stock. The later methodology combined this approach with detailed auditing and simulation to establish benchmark targets. Students are asked to reflect on both the comparative nature of the term and its temporality. There is nothing absolute about the term and it is highly likely that today's low energy building is tomorrow's energy guzzler.

The American Environment Protection Association (EPA, 2009) describes the practice of green building as:

 ... creating structures and using processes that are
 environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a
 building's life-cycle from siting to design, construction,
 operation, maintenance, renovation and destruction. ... Green
 building is also known as a sustainable or high performance
 building.

By this stage, students begin to see that such definitions do not really have any precise meaning and raise more questions than they answer. For example, what is being environmentally responsible, what is a resource-efficient process and what is a high performance building? How do we measure these descriptors and against what benchmark should they be compared? One Australian building, described as "deep green" (Johnson, 2001), provides an example of how it is possible to fail the basic criterion of a low energy building (Taylor, Fuller, & Luther, 2008). In this case, a rammed earth office building used more energy for heating than a comparable concrete office building in the same location. Most students quickly see that the description "green" is too vague to be of any value and that such a description is likely to be era-dependent. Today's green building may be viewed in years to come as being quite "brown".

The term "environmentally friendly" simply means "not harmful to the environment" (Cambridge, 2010). While the term has probably been overtaken by the word "sustainable", it is still in use. A media release in 2004 from the South Australian Government announced the "Green Light for Environmentally-Friendly Government Office Accommodation" (SA Government, 2004) and the NSW Government has a programme to make your home an "environmentally friendly building" (NSW Government, 2010). Once again, the definition is too vague to have much real meaning. What is minimal harm and how much is too much? Perhaps, like the term "green", it is used only to promote the "feel good" factor.

All the above terms and definitions are vague and may even be contradictory. Is it therefore possible to be more precise? It is suggested to students that a sustainable building is one that has a zero or positive net environmental impact over its lifetime in terms of direct and embodied energy, resource use and waste production. A further criterion of occupant health is added to the list since if the occupants are sick or unhealthy as a result of being in the building, then it could never be described as sustainable. The proposition that dollars ($) are not a criteria by which sustainability should be measured usually challenges students and promotes lively discussion. The argument made to defend this proposition is that the listed criteria are governed by physical and biological laws and processes. Money and its value, on the other hand, are human constructs, which can change. Most students are smart enough to reject the classical economist view that "everything has a price".

Some students may question whether there is such a thing as a sustainable building. In response, a simple timber, earth and stone building is described. A tree plantation provides the timber for building, heating and cooking. Such buildings are still being constructed in mountain areas of northwest Nepal (refer to Figure 3) and doubtless in many other countries as well. While these houses are not made entirely from recyclable and renewable materials, the overwhelming content is locally sourced and natural.

Energy for Sustainable Development

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

The four principles outlined provide a framework for teaching about renewable energy technologies as part of a subject entitled Energy for Sustainable Development, another elective within the Master of Energy Studies, and Sustainable Futures, a core unit within a Masters of Architecture. The key issues discussed while explaining the meaning and context of these principles are described below.

Increasing Energy Demand

Globally, energy use continues to rise driven by population growth and increases in per capita consumption. While those in many parts of developing countries are still realising basic needs, most in industrialised countries are raising their energy consumption as a result of satisfying increased wants and desires such as overseas travel, leisure and consumables. Students are asked to consider how such growth can be maintained and if this growth threatens the needs of future generations. At this point, the concept of exponential growth is introduced and students are usually surprised to learn that a modest annual increase in energy demand of 3.5% leads to a doubling of demand in just 20 years. Clearly continuous energy growth is not possible within a finite system. Yet this most basic fact is rarely discussed in the context of sustainability. Renewable energy technology (RET) must play the dominant role in a future safe and secure energy supply system. However, advocates of RET seldom discuss its limits (Fuller, 2005). Each decade, as energy demand grows, proponents of Lovins' (1977) "soft energy path" propose even more solar collectors, wind farms and biomass plantations to meet the burgeoning demand. The percentage contribution of renewable energy to Australia's energy production has actually fallen over recent decades as a result of the rising demand for coal and gas (ABS, 2004). The practical limits to renewable energy sources is discussed along with the need to halt the ever-increasing demand for energy if the Futurity Principle is to be properly addressed.

Contraction and Convergence

The most pressing energy-related environmental issue facing the world today is clearly global warming. The Australian Federal Government's advisor on climate science tells us that the equivalent level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should not exceed 450 parts per million (ppm) if we want to have a 50% chance of limiting the global mean temperature increase to 2[degrees]C above pre-industrial levels (Garnaut, 2008). A strategy to achieve these targets is therefore required. Contraction and Convergence (C&C) has been suggested as a transparent and equitable plan to achieve the 450/2050 outcome (GCI, 2009). Between the years of the adoption date and 2050, the C&C concept proposes that simultaneously industrialised nations reduce and developing nations increase their emissions to the level required to achieve stabilisation at 450 ppm. The C&C concept provides an example to students of how the Equity and Environment Principles could be met.

A Thought Experiment

The disparity of energy consumption between rich and poor nations is stark. It clearly violates the Equity Principle. On average, per capita energy consumption in industrialised countries is about five times that of developing countries (UNDP, 2004). While such inequity exists, sustainability is impossible. Understandably, the "have-nots" will always want the same as the "haves". More than twenty years ago, Goldemberg, Johansson, Reddy and Williams (1987) demonstrated that all the people living in developing countries could enjoy the 1970 lifestyle of the OECD countries if they had access to 1980s energy technologies. The lifestyle included some air and car travel, and air conditioning. If those in the industrialised countries were also satisfied with the 1970 standard, then equity accompanied by dramatic reductions in global energy consumption could be achieved, even if the global population reached eight billion (Fuller, 1997). This thought experiment challenges students to think outside of the current paradigm.

All in Favour?

A global energy supply system based on renewable energy will radically alter our built and natural environments because most renewable energy sources (solar, wind, biomass etc) are diffuse compared to fossil fuels. Land area requirements per Megawatt (MW) for biopower and coal-fired plants were found to be two orders of magnitude greater for the renewable energy technology (Serchuk, 2000). The same author found that wind farm required 7-16 more land per MW compared to a coal-fired plant. To date we have only had a modest glimpse of what our surroundings may look like. The scale of the changes required is illustrated to students with the following examples. In 2007 in Denmark, 17% of their electricity came from 5267 turbines (DWIA, 2009). In Brazil, 3.1 million hectares, equivalent to ten times the sugarcane crop area in Australia, is used to produce 40% of the country's transport fuel (Brazil Institute, 2007; Canegrowers, 2008). In Germany, the world leader in photovoltaic installations, over 400,000 solar electric systems provide only 1% of its electricity (Sawin, 2008; DENA, 2009). To decarbonise our current energy supply system using renewable energy technologies will require a Herculean effort requiring the goodwill of the vast majority of the population. Some authors have suggested that a similar involvement has only previously been witnessed in wartime (Spratt & Sutton, 2008). The involvement and agreement of the vast majority of the population will be required and thus careful adherence to the Participation Principle will be necessary.

Conclusions

This paper has described the material used to introduce tertiary engineering and architecture students to the concept of sustainability, particularly in the areas of renewable energy and the built environment. Students are presented with a simple model of four principles of sustainable development and the background to these principles is explained. This approach has never failed to stimulate a lively discussion and for a short time at least "sustainability" is certainly not a lifeless cliche. Students debate both with the author and with each other. The discussion is designed to encourage students to think more critically about the key issues involved in any debate about sustainability. Comments from students such as "I never realised that sustainability involved equity" indicate that initially many have only a limited understanding of what should be considered. In order to further stimulate their thinking, some of the words used to describe the new generation of buildings are analysed. Feedback like "I will never use these words so carelessly in future" is precisely the outcome desired. It is hoped that ultimately greater clarity will improve their practice. The aim of this paper is not to criticise the efforts of those genuinely trying to make the world sustainable, rather to challenge the illusions that can hide behind uncritical thinking. It is the author's opinion that we do not have time for such illusions.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to acknowledge the two reviewers of this paper for their useful and thought-provoking feedback.

References

ABS (2001). Australia's Environment: Issues and Trends. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. (Catalogue No 4613.0)

ABS (2004). Energy, 1301.0--Year Book Australia, 2004. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

BOMA (1994). Energy Guidelines. Melbourne: Building Owner and Managers Association.

Brazil Institute (2007, April). The global dynamics of biofuels. (Special Report, No. 3). Washington, DC: Author.

Cambridge (2010). Dictionaries Online. Retrieved April 8, 2010, from http://dictionary. cambridge.org/define.asp?key=25959&dict=CALD&topic=environmental-issues

Canegrowers (2008). Annual Report 2008. Brisbane: Queensland Cane Growers Organisation Ltd.

Chapman, D. (2004). Sustainability and our cultural myths. Canadian Journal of Environmental Engineering, 9, 92-108.

Cooper, I. (1995). Environmental assessment methods for use at the building and city scales: Constructing bridges and identifying common ground? In P. S. Brandon, P. L. Lombardi & V. Bentivegna (Eds.), Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability (pp.1-5). London: E & FN Spon.

Daly, H. E., & Townsend, K. N. (Eds.). (1993). Valuing the Earth--Economics, Ecology and Ethics. Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond Growth. Boston: Beacon Press.

DENA (2009). Power from sunlight. Renewables Made In Germany, German Energy Agency. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://www.renewables-made-in-germany.com/

DEWHA (2007). National strategy for ecological sustainable development. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Retrieved December 19, 2008, from http://www.environment.gov.au

DWIA (2009). Wind Figures. Danish Wind Industry Association. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://www.windpower.org/

EPA (2009). Green Building--Basic Information. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/pubs/about.htm

Fuller, R. J. (1997, Oct-Nov). Living in the 70s. ReNew, 61, 40-43.

Fuller, R. J. (2005, November). Renewable energy and sustainability--An evaluation. In B. Lloyd (Ed.), Renewable energy for a sustainable future: A challenge for a post carbon world. ANZSES conference held in Dunedin, New Zealand (pp. 1-7). Melbourne: ANZSES.

Garnaut, R. (2008). Understanding Climate Science. Chapter 2, Final Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

GCI (2009). Contraction and Convergence. A global solution to a global problem. Global Commons Institute. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://www.gci.org.uk/contconv/cc.html

Goldemberg, J., Johansson, T. B., Reddy, A. K. N., & Williams, R. H. (1987). Energy for a Sustainable World. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

IEAust (1994). Policy on sustainability. Canberra: Institution of Engineers, Australia.

Jickling, B. (1994). Why I don't want my children to be educated for sustainable development: Sustainable belief. Trumpeter, 11(3), 1-8.

Jickling, B. & Spork, H. (1998). Education for the environment: A critique. Environmental Education Research, 4(3), 309-327.

Jickling, B. (2001). Environmental thought, the language of sustainability, and digital wateches. Environmental Education Research, 7(2), 167-180.

Johnson, L. (2001). The view from Australia--green limits in the land of plenty. Architectural Design, 71(4), 52-59.

Krugmann, H., & Goldemberg, J. (1983). The energy cost of satisfying basic human needs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 24(1), 45-60.

Lenzen, M., & Murray, S.A. (2001). A modified ecological footprint method and its application to Australia. Ecological Economics, 37(2), 229-255.

Lovins, A. B. (1977). Soft Energy Paths: Towards a Durable Peace. Cambridge, MA: Penguin Books Ltd.

Mitchell, G., May, A., & MacDonald, A. (1995). PICABUE: A methodological framework for the development of indicators of sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 2, 104-123.

NSW Government (2010). Canterbury--Your Home--Environmentally Friendly Building. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from http://www.canterbury.nsw.gov.au/ www/html/1436-your-home-environmentally-friendly-building.asp

Palmedo, P. F., Nathans, R., Beardsworth, E. & Hale, S. Jnr. (1978). Energy Needs and Resources in Developing Countries. BNL 50784, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York.

Palmer, J., Cooper, I. & van der Vorst, R. (1997). Mapping out fuzzy buzzwords--who sits where on sustainability and sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 5, 87-93.

PCA (2001). Energy Guidelines. Sydney, NSW: Property Council of Australia

Redclift, M. (1987). Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions. London: Methuen.

SA Government (2004, December 3). Green light for environmentally-friendly government office accommodation [Media Release]. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www.gbca.org.au/media-centre/

Sauve, L. (2002). Environmental education: possibilities and constraints. UNESCO International Science, Technology and Environmental Newsletter, 27(1-2), 1-4.

Sawin, J. L. (2008). Another sunny year for solar power. Washington, DC: Worldwatch Institute.

Serchuk, A. (2000). The environmental imperative for renewable energy: an update. Renewable Energy Policy Project, Special Earth Day Report, REPP-Crest, Washington, US.

Spratt, D., & Sutton, P. (2008). Climate Code Red. Carlton North: Scribe Publications.

Taylor, P., Fuller, R. J., & Luther, M. B. (2008). Energy use and thermal comfort in a rammed earth office building. Energy and Buildings, 40(5), 793-800.

UN (2009). Poverty and inequality. Retrieved February 20, 2009, from http://www. un.org/esa/socdev/social/poverty/poverty_and_inequality.html

UNCED (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Report on the UN Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June.

UNDP (2004). World Energy Assessment--Energy and the Challenge of Sustainability. Overview: 2004 Update. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

UNEP (2005, November/December). Indicators for assessing progress towards the 2010 target: Ecological footprint and related concepts. Note by the Executive Secretary, Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.

van Kooten, G. C., & Bulte, E. H. (2000). The ecological footprint: useful science or politics? Ecological Economics, 32, 3, 385-389.

VROMRaad (1999). Global Sustainability and the Ecological Footprint: Advice No 16. The Hague, Netherlands: Council for Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment.

Wackernagel, M., & Rees, W. D. (1996). Our Ecological Footprint : Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society Publishers.

Walker, K. J. (2002). Environmental Policy in Australia. In U. Desai (Ed.) Environmental Politics and Policy in Industrialized Countries (pp. 247-293). Cambridge, Massuchusetts: The MIT Press.

Wallace-Crabbe, C. (2008, September 13). The Republic of Cliches. Transcript of Linqua Franca, Australian Broadcasting Corporation Radio National broadcast.

Wals, A. E. J., & Jickling, B. (2002). "Sustainability" in higher education: From doublethink and newspeak to critical thinking and meaningful learning. Higher Education Policy, 15, 12-131.

WCED (1987). Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Williamson, T., Radford, A., & Bennetts, H. (2003). Understanding Sustainable Architecture. London: Spon Press.

World Bank (2009). Poverty. News and Broadcast. Washington, DC: Author

WWF (2002). Living Planet Report. Gland, Switzerland: World Wildlife Fund International.

Robert J. Fuller ([dagger])

Deakin University

([dagger]) Address for correspondence: Dr Robert Fuller, School of Architecture and Building, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria 3217, Australia. E-mail: rjfull@deakin.edu.au

Author Biography

Bob Fuller has worked in the field of solar energy research for over 30 years. His research interests include the thermal performance of buildings, sustainability and renewable energy systems. He has a long-standing interest in development issues and has worked in several countries in Asia and the Pacific.