State of the States (current to 2001)
IV. Guiding States Along the Green Plan Path

From both the macro and micro perspectives presented in this report, there is no mistaking the fact that a growing number of states are treating sustainable development as a policy imperative whose time has come. On all fronts—framework, innovation, commitment, and governance—an increasing sophistication of activity and purpose is positioning states to make commensurate advances in the underlying environmental policies that drive their programs.

At the same time, however, because only a fraction of the 50 states surveyed have incorporated sustainability into their environmental operations, much work will be required to expand the positive developments underway and their overall impact on environmental protection in the United States. As highlighted in the individual profiles, the most promising efforts now being made are concentrated in just a handful of states. It can be expected that as the compelling benefits of these initiatives are made clearer, many more states will act to adopt sustainability strategies of their own.

The effect of such activity will be to unleash a new level of environmental entrepreneurship from every sector. As eloquently observed in Stephan Schmidheiny’s book, Changing Course, “A clear vision of a sustainable future mobilizes human energies to make the necessary changes, breaking out of familiar and established patterns. As leaders from all parts of society join forces in translating vision into action, inertia is overcome and cooperation replaces confrontation.”

Hence, the stage is set for all states to progress down the green plan path. Rather than offering a retrospective summary and distillation of findings, this conclusion looks ahead to the challenges and opportunities in establishing sustainable development as the overarching goal of every state and, ultimately, of the nation as a whole. It does so to underscore the urgency of the issues at stake—namely the current and future health of our air, water, and land—and the magnitude of the problems that must be overcome.

Even those states that have done the most to embrace sustainable development continue to face an uphill climb. Minnesota, ranked number three in our survey of green plan capacity, offers a good case in point. Despite the state’s cutting-edge efforts over the past decade, Minnesota residents use more energy and renewable resources, generate more waste, and drive more miles than ever before. Without an aggressive plan and a clear commitment to reverse these trends, the state’s progress toward sustainability will be undermined. Such challenges illustrate the inherent complexities of attempting to achieve sustainable development. At the same time, however, because the state is educating its citizens and building a policy structure based on the principles of sustainability, Minnesota stands a much better chance of surmounting environmental obstacles than all those states that have so far not made sustainable development a priority.

In surveying state environmental activities nationwide, this report has endeavored to provide a common baseline of where we are as a country in developing strategies capable of leading to sustainable development. With this information in hand, the bigger questions that must now be asked are: Where do we go from here? and How do we get there?

Our report indicates that the answer to these questions include three elements.

First, efforts must be made to expedite expanding interest and initiative, being sure to build upon the strides already underway by establishing an interstate communication network that informs states of ongoing progress in every region of the country. Not only should this network serve as an interactive conduit that reaches all states, it should also function as an organizing vehicle for regional and national interchange via conferences, workshops, and exchange programs that periodically bring states together to learn from each other firsthand. Knowing that the systemic change called for will require broad-based cooperation, this effort must engage both public and private sector interests at the highest levels of influence and authority. Contributors to this work should include, among others, the Environmental Council of the States, the Multi-State Working Group (MSWG), the Council of State Governments, the National Council of State Legislatures, and the National Governors Association.

Second, to optimize the potential of these activities, green planning can be the common thread that weaves them together, ensuring consistency and coordination of sustainable development programs across state lines. High priority should therefore be placed on equipping state leaders with the knowledge and skills required to apply the green plan methodology. RRI’s Green Plan Leadership Program was founded with this purpose in mind and is one example of how the learning process can be undertaken (www.rri.org). Through the Green Plan Leadership Program, RRI is developing the necessary tools for enabling states to pursue green plan adoption. Program advisors include experienced green plan practitioners and implementation experts from the U.S. and beyond.

Third, the federal government must serve as chief facilitator for the transition to a regulatory system built upon the principles of green planning. Working with states and the private sector to establish an overarching set of environmental targets and long-term goals for the nation as a whole will provide the basis for coordinated and efficient actions aimed at achieving sustainable development. It will also foster the complementary roles that federal and state governments must play throughout the process. Recognition of the need to move in this direction is seen in the NEPPS program and in a congressional proposal titled the Second Generation of Environmental Improvement Act (HR3448). It is also exhibited in a recent letter from the MSWG to the USEPA and congressional leaders that calls for creation of “the next generation of environmental law and policy.” According to the MSWG, “the problems of maintaining the quality of life are difficult but solvable. A wave of new thinking and innovative problem solving abounds in the public and private sectors, presenting a great opportunity for the Congress and the Administration, in partnership, to address this important national issue.”

A. Elements of a Sustainable State

Knowing the major elements of a sustainable state is the first step in working to become one. What follows is not meant to be a prescriptive list; however, it appears unlikely that sustainability can be achieved without incorporating all of these provisions.

1. Goals, Indicators, and Benchmarks
To determine where, when, and how a sustainable state is to be reached, it is necessary to establish goals, measure progress toward those goals, and know when and if the goals have been achieved. To be effective, the goal-setting process needs to involve a wide crosssection of the public, have the cooperation of all government agencies, and be multidisciplinary. Knowing when to answer yes to “are we there yet?” constitutes the first sustainability requirement.

2. Integration of Law and Policy with Program
Consistency of government action both vertically, from local to national, and horizontally, between state cabinet-level agencies, is essential for any sustainability goals to be achieved. Thus public housing policy, transportation planning, water quality planning, environmental regulations, budgeting, and tax policy all have to be integrated accordingly. Because most state law is derived from enabling statutes originating at different times and with varying purposes, it is seldom consistent with a sustainability agenda. The Netherlands has attempted to integrate its laws to be consistent with the National Environmental Policy Plan.

New Zealand revisited all of its environmental laws and integrated them into one act, the Resource Management Act, which has at its center the goal of achieving sustainable management. Here in the U.S., New Jersey has taken two steps toward the integration of environmental and growth management laws within the state’s Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA) and water quality regulations to make them consistent with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP). The SDRP is the unofficial instrument for implementation of the Sustainable State goals.

3. Growth Management or Smart Growth
In many respects, how we arrange ourselves on the landscape with new construction and how we manage the built environment determine how just, healthy, and efficient our future will be. Therefore, determining what is needed, planning what is to be built, where it is to be located, and when it is appropriate are key elements in searching for a sustainable future. As reported, several states have smart growth initiatives starting on an integrated growth management path; Oregon, New Jersey, and Maryland are among the leaders.

4. Public Education
No sustainability effort will be successful without ensuring public buy-in. Compliance with environmental protection law, indeed the development of law itself, requires the support of major political players and the public. Most environmental protection law is perceived to apply to industry and public agencies, not to individuals. Yet, when the case is made and carried to the people, cooperation is obtained. Such is the situation, for example, with recycling and cigarette smoking in public places. Two decades ago, both recycling programs and smoking bans for indoor public places were a rarity. But intensive public education campaigns enabled strong laws to emerge and new norms to take hold on both fronts.

5. Social Equity
Everyone aspires to a healthy and safe environment. But while affluent communities use more resources than poor communities, low-income areas typically face greater environmental burdens. Equal access to clean air, water, and land is integral to sustainability. This can best be achieved through the deliberative efforts of government, industry, and the NGO community working together and recognizing the links between health, education, employment, poverty, overconsumption, and environmental quality.

6. Procurement Policy
Government has the opportunity—some would say obligation—to lead by example in ensuring that the products it buys and its methods of operation contribute to a sustainable condition. The effectiveness of procurement policies has already been demonstrated in recycling, where governments have mandated purchase of recycled materials, and therefore created markets, which have in turn led to widespread availability of recycled products that are competitive with virgin materials.

7. Media Transfer Policy
The U.S. traditionally has had a single-media focus in its environmental regulatory policy. Washing street contaminants into storm drains entering the nearest river, dumping sewage sludge into leaking landfills, or even stripping water pollutants and discharging them into the air are some of the many examples of how pollutants are transferred from one medium to another under the present system. Integrated policy that requires a holistic view of pollution is fundamental to creating a sustainable environment. The Dutch established such a policy as part of their first National Environmental Policy Plan.

8. Level Playing Field – Green Economics
No sustainable development program is likely to be successful unless what are now considered externalities are internalized in our economic reporting system. For example, under the present system pollution prevention activity is considered an economic cost and oil spill remediation an economic benefit. Further, we make no allowance for the depletion of natural resources in calculating our gross state and national products. Proper accounting of natural resource depletion and internalizing pollution costs are critical for making the informed decisions necessary to become a sustainable state.

B. Stepping Stones Toward a Sustainable State

The following actions can help any state forge programs and policies that incorporate the above elements and meet the long-term needs of all its citizens. This list fuses the major features of green planning with applied examples drawn from various state initiatives highlighted on these pages. In all cases, the environmental, economic, and social needs specific to a state will dictate the terms of both the process and the product.

• Initiate a focused effort that brings together diverse interests to consider the long-term future of their state, enabling each sector to express its priority needs/desires. Examples: The Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative, New Jersey’s Sustainable State Project, the California Environmental Dialogue, Oregon’s Environmental Stewardship Plan Committee, and the Eco/Eco Policy Forum of Maine have provided formal and informal settings for commencing this dialogue. The state legislature in New York is considering a bill to establish a sustainable development task force that would have this action as its first step (see Appendix C).
• From this dialogue, craft a unifying vision for the state that captures the contributions of all its voices and engenders a “chorus of concern” for the state’s long-term quality of life. Example: The vision statement of the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative provides an excellent model worthy of adoption by any state.
• Articulate the underlying principles that comprise the vision. Examples: Once again, Minnesota provides a good model with a set of five principles that cover the complex attributes that together define sustainable development. As explained by the multi-sector round table of interests contributing to the Sustainable Development Initiative, “Principles are general guideposts along the path. A set of rules for long-term economic, environmental, and social well-being ... ” In its work, the Environmental Stewardship Plan Committee of Oregon identified a longer list of principles flowing from a vision statement that features three key values: the environmental compatibility of business practices, the right and responsibility of every citizen to have a voice in determining the state’s future, and the need for accountability on actions impacting the environment.
• Equip multi-sector leaders and the general public with a detailed understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the state thus allowing for informed recommendations and decisions to be made. Examples: As described earlier in this report, state of the environment reports are an effective tool for this purpose. The report can be a straightforward accounting of environmental conditions such as in the states of Indiana, South Carolina, and Hawaii, or it can be based on the guiding principles and vision that give the report a focused theme and purpose. Reports from Oregon and Maine offer good examples of the latter. Worth reiterating is the fact that more than one-third of states (19) have not yet produced such reports.
• With a reliable and comprehensive information base, establish a clear and defensible premise for pursuing new policy actions that better serve the needs of each sector. Examples: The premise or rationale for undertaking policy actions meant to achieve sustainable development can come in a variety of forms. California’s Innovation Initiative builds upon a detailed premise that spells out the environmental, economic, and social basis for moving toward sustainability (see the initiative summary in Appendix C). Alternatively, as in Minnesota, the premise can be presented in the context of a strategic action plan outlining the challenges that compel the state to pursue sustainable development policies.
• Develop an integrated set of goals and objectives with a corresponding timetable and an appropriate set of indicators for tracking progress. Examples: New Jersey’s Sustainable State Project Report contains 11 goals “shaped with extensive public input, which embody the highest aspirations of New Jerseyans from all walks of life.” Together with its 43 indicators for measuring progress, the report provides a comprehensive picture of the factors that will determine long-term quality of life in New Jersey. Not included in the report, however, is a set of strategies or a timetable to achieve the goals laid out in the report. The Minnesota Milestones and Oregon Benchmarks programs also offer goals and indicators of progress, but like New Jersey neither effort provides strategies or deadlines for fulfilling the goals.
• Implement new policies and programs aimed at realizing the stated goals and objectives. Examples: At the state level there are two major avenues for implementing new programs and policies—either through executive or legislative action. The majority of states that have made advances on sustainable development have done so through gubernatorial initiative. The various actions taken by New Jersey that are profiled in this report were all accomplished administratively under Governor Whitman. The story in Oregon is similar, if not as extensive, with Governor Kitzhaber having taken steps to move the sustainability agenda forward. Following a failed attempt at legislative action in 1998, the governor signed an executive order in 2000 to make state operations sustainable (see Appendix C). It is slated to be the first in a series of executive actions on sustainable development. In Minnesota, what began as an executive initiative ultimately received endorsement by the state legislature, where numerous bills were passed that contribute to the state’s sustainable development goals. The measures are described in Minnesota’s state profile (see Section III).

Devise strategies to ensure long-term commitment to the policies and programs adopted. Examples: Because state implementation of the sustainable development agenda is still very much in its formative phase, tested examples of this action are not yet available. It can be expected, however, that the leading GPC states will provide the best-informed models for use in other states.

Implementing these actions will create a framework for achieving sustainable development. It will also spawn and strengthen the policy innovation necessary for continuous progress to be made. Because of the diverse support that comes from incorporating the priority concerns of all sectors, commitment to this endeavor will be strong, especially as its benefits are realized over time. This, in turn, will prompt the efficient governance and leadership required for ensuring long-term success.

Integral to the overall process of creating a sustainable state is the need to educate participants in the practice of green planning. Given that success hinges on changing a regulatory structure that has effectively segregated both the issues and the interests involved, the learning curve to be reckoned with is steep and will require focused action that brings policy makers in contact with viable alternatives to the status quo.

Through the Green Plan Leadership Program, RRI has learned that progress made stems from progress seen. Thus the “Seeing is Believing” policy tour has become the cornerstone of RRI’s education effort. Having led more than a dozen delegations to the Netherlands and New Zealand, RRI has found that there is no substitute for the inspiration and understanding derived from direct exposure to green planning in action. In fact, there is a strong correlation between those states that have participated in policy tours and their ranking in the Green Plan Capacity Index. Oregon and New Jersey, ranked number one and two respectively, were both motivated by experiencing the Dutch plan firsthand. As Judy Jengo, advisor to New Jersey Governor Whitman and policy tour graduate, recently wrote, “The effective strategy developed by the Dutch has not only been an inspiration for New Jersey; it has also provided us with a conceptual blueprint for the determined pursuit of sustainable development.”

An important caveat resides in the elusive nature of this pursuit. Sustainable development has yet to be achieved by any state or country. While the technical know-how already exists for defining and measuring elements contributing to a sustainable condition, up until now it has been relatively easy for detractors to dismiss the concept as academic, self-limiting, and impractical. But a more enlightened view is beginning to take hold, the essence of which is summed up in the following passage from a World Business Council for Sustainable Development report:

The extent of our inter-connectedness has changed the speed with which knowledge is transferred and problems are perceived—but not the speed with which these problems are solved ... our problems seem baffling in their interlinked complexity, and the slow and insufficient response of our institutions leaves many people feeling frustrated and disillusioned.

This sentiment is contributing to an accelerating push for effective new policies grounded in the cooperative and integrated principles of green planning. In the United States, nowhere is this activity more apparent than in the growing number of states that are setting the pace for lasting change, an encouraging trend that carries with it the promise of a sustainable future.