The barriers to sustainability are everywhere. In fact, in the writing of this article these obstacles leapt out at me from all directions. It all started when my car broke down, only 5,000 miles outside of the warranty; at that moment I realized everything is made to break. My realization was confirmed when my new CD burner fizzed out on the same day.

Gone are the days of the dependable automobile and sturdy appliances; now are the days of the greedy corporation not paying their workers enough to get the job done right. Actually they don't care about getting it right because they want you to spend more money, anyway, which is sustainable

Barrier #1.

After lamenting that the material world brings no stability or permanence to my life, I had to figure out how to get around town without my car, bringing me to

Barrier #2:

Alternative Transportation ISN'T.

Not that I mind sitting on the bus and reading the paper on the way to work. It is just that the lack of routes and infrequent/ inconvenient operating schedules are ridiculous if encouraging alternative transportation is truly our goal. There has been a lot of criticism pointed at the only local bus operator, MTD [in Santa Barbara], lately and there should be. Voicing your opinion and being listened to at one of their meetings is about as effective as training a raccoon not to sift through a garbage can. The fact that they have a monopoly on the system probably impairs their hearing as well. Most of their money comes from UCSB and City College, and MTD has never been willing to negotiate its contract with these institutions to increase routes, stops, and scheduling to accommodate the needs of students. Of course, regional transportation issues are the worst, and Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties should find the means and commit to building a more efficient rail and bus system on the Central Coast.

Barrier #3

It seems easier to pollute than not to pollute. In the immediate sense in agriculture, yes, it is easier to apply a chemical than to do the hard work yourself. However, if you care about the little things in life such as water quality, air pollution, and rising cancer levels, spraying chemicals is not easier, and we spend millions of dollars in health care. As far as organic goes, it irks me that farmers have to pay a lot of cash for their farm to become "certified organic." Why do we make going organic a financial burden? Farmers should have incentives to go organic and it should not make or break their bank account to do the right thing.

Don't get me started on Corporations, as the government subsidizes their "right to pollute" as part of "free trade"; this, while they refuse to share profits with their workers.

In my work in Isla Vista, I am trying to build a Community Center. Our mission is to make it a green and sustainable building. One would think that sustainable elements such as solar panels, strawbale construction and composting toilets would be embraced, right? No. The cost to get a permit for these elements is so much that it makes them seemingly unreachable.

So, sustainable

Barrier #4:

the permit process does not favor social or environmental sustainability. Sometimes permits are essential, but the process should be designed to make unsustainable projects more sustainable, not serve as an opportunity to charge up the wazoo for energy saving measures [see Gary Duncan's article on "Green Building" in this issue].

Is it just me, or were we just in an "energy crisis" and doesn't that translate to encouraging energy efficiency? Look at the Big Box malls: monotonous, unfriendly, and enormous, these mass developments are far beyond human scale and are incredibly inefficient, yet somehow they are starting to dominate the landscape. Do we really want to replace our user-friendly downtown areas for seas of parking lots and behemoth buildings? How about we give incentives for sustainability while economically discouraging wasteful status-quo architecture?

How else is the permit process unsustainable? The Isla Vista Recreation and Park District decided to build a restroom in one of its most heavily-used parks: Children's Park. The Goal: to give kids in the recreation and after- school programs a place to use the bathroom. The County ended up sucking $10,000 in permits for this good deed. The costs to permit the construction of a new park ran about $18,000. To me, making a social situation more enjoyable IS an act of sustainability, and these kinds of things should be supported, not discouraged.

Permits for parks and bathrooms are not the only roadblock to sustainability in the permit world. If you want to sell your art on the street, sell your organic food at the Farmers' Market, build an energy-saving house, feed the homeless, run a pedi-cab business or a private bus service, have a festival, then be prepared to shell out a lot of money for a permit.

Somehow, corporations get away with murder and pollution while "The People" have to pay an arm and a leg to create community. As an environmentalist, I like that some aspects of society need a permit: cutting trees, building on fragile habitat, spraying pesticides, and operating industrial facilities (to name a few unsustainable activities). However, those elements that make our society more enjoyable and sustainable should not be destroyed because of "liability." Why do you need permits and proper zoning to distribute food to starving people? Why can't we follow a plain and simple rule: accept free food, deal with the consequences? If you are a local artist but can't afford $10,000 a month to rent a storefront, you should not be given a citation for selling your art on the street.

Sidewalks and streets are public places; you pay for them so you might as well get your money's worth.

I could go on about this kind of stuff forever. I have not even elaborated on how many paper/plastic bags, styrofoam cups and plates, chopsticks made from old growth wood, plastic bottles, and other items we needlessly use once and throw away. We should pay extra for those luxuries. We should pay the real price for a gallon of gas (and no, I do not mean by going to war), because that way maybe people would drive less. I will only mention that George Bush is the largest and most immediate threat to sustainability and I cannot understand how the American people sit back and watch him roll back all environmental protections and slash the budgets that could bring us closer to a sustainable future. I guess if our society is not sustainable then we are more dependent on corporations, and that scenario is just fine with the Bush Administration.

I suppose the bottom line of all this is to show that our way of life, on almost every level is unsustainable. We can do better, and we have to. We need to be vigilant about supporting (voting for) ideas, actions, and methods that promote and implement sustainability, and realize that their worth to us is not how much we can charge to permit them, but the good they do for us on a personal and community level.