My major training is in visual art, but I'm an adept of the theory that "Everything is Art." If everything is art, then how do we do art that is everything? Guided by the conviction that climate change is the issue that best binds all living entities together, I have written the following:

HOW TO DO EVERYTHING

© Trevor Burrowes

The president is concerned with everything. Terrorism, economy, environment, energy, health care, education, international leadership predominate among oth er issues. Is there a way to wrap all these issues up into a ball and address them systematically? I think there is.

We needn’t go far to find that proverbial ball of issues. It is Planet Earth. Our cultural traditions have taught us to see the world as fractured little fiefdoms, and not as a unified whole. This needs to change.

Humanity must evolve to take in the whole planet as a single sphere of governance. The best catalyst for this evolution is climate change, since it is no respecter of geopolitical boundaries. But global terrorism, economy and health are also catalysts for a change of paradigm.

I suggest that a way for the president to wrap his head around the globe’s problems and opportunities is to focus on the discipline of planning (as in urban planning and city Gene ral Plans).

Why? Because every square inch of the planet falls firmly or loosely under some planning jurisdiction or other. In the US, planning jurisdictions can be cities, counties, states, federal government, tribal governments, and overlapping jurisdictions like national parks, rivers, oceans, bioregions, metropolitan districts, etc..

Huge resources go into these plans, which, for the most part, claim to promote sustainability and to address the range of issues mentioned above. Plans are also supposed to be internally consistent, so that one element of a plan, like open space, can be consistent with another, like community health, if open space encourages people to walk more.

So why, with all this planning don’t we have a better environment and better overall prospects for a good life? Because, just spea king of the US, there is no overarching policy from the federal government to require that a) various plans lead to common sustainability goals, and that b) all plans within the nation be consistent with each other.

Rather than single projects out of the context of planning, stimulus funding should be rated as to its ability to bolster planning for nationwide sustainability. Likewise, foreign aid and intervention should help direct international planning toward internal consistency and sustainability on a global level.

I further suggest that immediately, or as soon as feasible, there be a survey of planning nationwide and globally. The aim would be to assess the effects, benefits, deficits, gaps, and possibilities for international planning for global sustainability. This will get the ball rolling.