Comment EI-22677
Received or sent (printed as 4/20/2016)
From: Greg <g_keilback@hotmail.com> To: Jeffrey.Herzig@stb.dot.gov" <Jeffrey.Herzig@stb.dot.gov> Date: 04/20/2016 09:17 PM Subject: Re: Submission Without a Docket Number This is in regards to the Great Lakes Basin Railroad proposal. I am not sure what happened during my submission, but please file this in the OPPOSED file. I am sorry for the confusion and as for the docket number- I left it blank as per your instructions. Thank you for your patience, Greg Keilback From: Jeffrey.Herzig@stb.dot.gov <Jeffrey.Herzig@stb.dot.gov> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 2:20 PM To: g_keilback@hotmail.com Cc: Andrea.Pope-Matheson@stb.dot.gov Subject: Submission Without a Docket Number We received the submission below, but I am not sure what the docket number it belongs under. In order for your submission to be processed and part of the record, it needs to have a docket number. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Jeff Herzig Surface Transportation Board Office of Proceedings (202) 245-0397 The concept of social sustainability as Littig and Griebler (2005), “signifies the nature-society relationships, mediated by work, as well as relationships within the society.” They expound that social sustainability can be reached if the work done “within a society” meets the criteria to “satisfy an extended set of human needs, and are shaped in a way that nature and its reproductive capabilities are preserved over a long period of time and the normative claims of social justice, human dignity and participation are fulfilled (p. 72). These complicated and multifaceted issues are often referenced as the pillar models of sustainable development. Littig and Griebler (2005) define each dimension and explain the logistics. In the multi-pillar or three pillars model, they explain how the three pillars - ecological, economic, and social - must be balanced if sustainability is to be reached. In their definition of the one-pillar model, it is explained that the ecological dimension takes precedent, but they conclude that, “human needs cannot be sufficiently met just by providing an ecologically stable and healthy environment, but that—if a society is indeed committed to sustainability—the equally legitimate social and cultural needs ought to be taken care of as well” (pg. 67). Therefore, perhaps the most useful definition of sustainability focuses on balance and compromise – that all aspects must be considered, and no one group or aspect is more important than another when trying to achieve sustainability. Lee (1993) would add that “sustainability is a goal, like liberty or equality: not a fixed end point to be reached but a direction that guides constructive change” (p. 563). A useful definition of sustainability that the authors Vucetich and Nelson (2013) reach is, “meeting human needs in a socially-just manner without depriving ecosystems of their health {or populations of their viability}” (p. 12). All of these definitions have the concepts of balance, compromise, and equality in common. The problem with “sustainability” is that our terminology will almost always need to be modified. If we are to understand that language is fluid, the dynamic tendencies of human behavior will always need to be reviewed. It is becoming clear that “sustainable development” is already a buzzword in community planning – or perhaps another “figleaf”. But it is yet unclear if any of this new environmentally-conscious development is truly sustainable, or if simply our mere existence and reproduction on this planet is sustainable. It is also uncertain if the compromise and balance used to define sustainability is truly a 50-50 split between humans and the environment; is there one half of this equation that gets less than half of the benefit consistently over time? How does that impact the result? Therefore, sustainability may, over time, prove to take on new meaning as we “do the work within society”. As Leopold, (1949) pointed out, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” (p. 224)."
Submitted by: Greg John Keilback
The Board publishes this comment in its environmental-comment table for this proceeding. It is quoted here as printed; nothing is inferred from it, and it states the commenter's own position in their own words, not this record's.
Permanent address docketyard.org/d/FD-35952/comment/EI-22677 · back to the docket sheet