Hawaii first state to have a Sustainablity clause in its Constitution

[Al Beeman]

Perhaps modify Article IX Section 8 to include :

Article IX. PRESERVATION OF A HEALTHFUL ENVIRONMENT
Section 8. The State shall have the power to promote, and maintain and require a healthful and sustainable environment, including the prevention of any excessive and/or non-renewable demands upon the environment Earth and the State's resources.

[Peter Kay]

I'm all for Sustainability. But what does it mean?

[Richard]

Sustainability seems to be one of those feel-good, nice-to-say, meaningless statements. Unless, of course, we look at things like Comrade Kokubun's "Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan" which reads more like a document heavily influenced by Marx or Lenin than one following the principles of capitalism. Sustainability is one of those phrases that captures all that is good and questions anyone who opposes it. Of course, the devil is in the details. One may have to give up some of those capitalistic principles like, private property rights, freedom to chose where to live, what to eat and where to shop.
Sustainability, as I see it used today in Hawaii, means more imposition by Big Brother and less dependence on personal initiative, rugged individualism, entrepreneurship, risk taking and pride of accomplishment, all the result of true capitalism.

[Peter Kay]

One of the problems I see with "Sustainability" is that nothing is sustainable. The sun is not sustainable. The universe may not be sustainable.

So for the concept of sustainability to be meaningful, I would think that it must somehow be measurable. What makes one option more sustainable than another?

In my opinion, this is the core of the problem with sustainability: there is no consensus on what it means.

And to use that nebulous concept at a constitutional level, I would think, is quite dangerous.

[Al Beeman]

"The sun is not sustainable. The universe may not be sustainable."
Hmmm.... I am pretty sure these two will outlast the Hawaii Constitution...

Hawaii needs to quit playing with words and get on with energy independence and growing a lot more of its food locally. We are in the middle of the Pacific with a large and growing population and dependence on a fairly fragile and unreliable supply system but with very predictable immediate food and energy needs.

Pick the words, but I think it could be very important to make "call it what word you will" food and energy and building materials independence a bedrock tenant of our constitution so we can keep on living here. It is pretty important, ask an Anastasi Indian if you can find one... Not that the nene geese would miss us much if we starved or left...

[Peter Kay]

I'm with totally with you on energy/food independence. My only point is that "sustainable" is a nebulous term and hence has no point in the constitution. The proposed clause is essentially unenforceable at best and highly subject to judicial legislation at worse.

[Rick M.]

I disagree. Let market forces decide. If oil is high, then "sustainable" energy will be profitable.

In fact, this whole section needs to be dropped. The "environmentalists" use it to stop progress and it is one of the reasons we have such a bad business environment here.

I really think we have the votes to fix this anti-business bias in the constitution. And, like I said, market forces will move to solar without any need for the government to shove more programs onto us.