 |
www.hopedance.org
|
| <back | home Creating Centers for Urban Sustainability An Interview with Scott Kellogg of the Rhizome Collective The following interview took place in February, 2006, in Washington, DC, where Scott was giving a presentation about his work with Rhizome Collective and other efforts to promote self-reliant and ecologically sustainable communities. HD: Can you talk about the history of the Rhizome Collective and what you do? SCOTT: Rhizome Collective is a non-profit organization based in Austin, Texas. For the past six years we have been creating centers for urban sustainability and community organizing out of a warehouse we own. We provide low-rent space for activist organizations like Bikes Across Borders, the Inside Book project and Austin Independent Media. We display ecological tools and technologies to teach the public how to be self-reliant in urban areas with life’s essentials: food, water, waste management, energy production, shelter. We’re a consensus-run collective of about 10 people. HD: You mentioned that 10 acres of land were recently donated to your group. SCOTT: In 2004, we were given 10 acres in the city of Austin, an incredible piece of land that borders a 350-acre park. The site had about two acres of illegally dumped debris on it and would have cost the owner more to clean it up than he could get from selling it, so he was looking for a non-profit willing to take possession of the land. We did so, with the intention of creating an ecological justice park. Instead of taking all the debris to a landfill, we wanted to reuse as much as we could to build infrastructure for the park. We received a Brownfields cleanup grant from the EPA, given for property that is suspected of being too contaminated for development. HD: You spoke about how the word sustainability has been co-opted. Can you talk about what you mean by “radical sustainability” and “autonomous development”? SCOTT: Well, radical sustainability and autonomous development are really the same thing, as distinct from sustainable development, which is basically the neoliberal model at this point, because it’s been co-opted. Sustainable development is a policy used by the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank through their structural adjustment programs to put poorer nations in conditions of dependence and economic slavery. For example, deciding that they’re going to be growing one crop, such as coffee, and selling it to the northern nations. That’s only sustainable from the perspective of the U.S and the global-north nations. So we came up with the terms radical sustainability and autonomous development to set our mission and purpose apart from that. What we favor is creating autonomous, decentralized, locally-based networks producing food, waste management, water, energy, shelter, where the means and power of production are put into the hands of people. We’re building an infrastructure for the world that would be a lot less reliant on the dominant power structure. An example would be setting up wind turbines, with people being able to build the turbines themselves and maintain them, being therefore self reliant and not dependent on loans and grants from foreign institutions. HD: You also mentioned the term permaculture which can be a bit vague and means different things to different people. Do you still find that term useful in describing what you’re doing? SCOTT: I think I use it less because there’s already a lot of baggage attached to it. Not that any of it is bad, but it’s sort of become an institution in itself. What we’ve done in our trainings is distill the elements of permaculture that are most relevant to people living in urban areas. A lot of permaculture is rurally based, and if you have a lot of acreage that’s fine. But to folks living in cities, there are only certain aspects of it that are going to be useful. Our approach has been not to talk as much about the theory of permaculture, but to get people started doing permaculture. HD: You also mentioned what you called “tempo-culture” as a technique for people who don’t own land or property but want to engage in permaculture. Can you give an example? SCOTT: The idea is that you can design a lot of permaculture systems to be mobile. For people who are nomadic, like the urban renter, why spend tons of energy improving the property of the landlord. One example would be a raised bed garden that you could put in a bathtub and put it on a board with some shopping cart wheels so that if you get evicted you can just roll it down the street. Or even rainwater collectors. It’s just a barrel attached to your gutter, so you can take it with you. The main thing is to encourage people who don’t own property to still be doing this stuff. HD: You also mentioned activism: challenging city codes on issues like chickens and greywater systems. What has been your experience with city bureaucrats and why is this type of activism important? SCOTT: It’s really important because we want to create good functioning models and the precedent for approving these systems. If they’re ever going to become mainstream, they’re going to have to be code-approved. And also we want to be open about it. We want to teach it, encourage it and spread these ideas. In many cases, people are going to be discouraged because they think the city code enforcers will come down on them, particularly if it’s greywater, or humanure or chickens. So I think that’s a really important type of activism, for people to be challenging codes whether it’s in rural areas or in cities, and getting these things on the books so they are legal. Where I live in Austin, that’s been done for a number of things, like straw bale. Austin is one of the few cities where you can build straw bale houses. To get that approved involved a fight. It can be very expensive because it may involve lawyers and engineers. I’ve been working with an environmental engineer for three years to get a code-approved composting toilet. HD: You also mentioned there were some condominiums being built in a poor section of Austin, marketed as “green buildings.” Any thoughts on elitism within environmental movements? SCOTT: Green building in terms of construction has become more or less mainstream. That’s great, but these people don’t necessarily have any political or social involvement aside from that. They see sustainability as an end in itself. We need the “dual power” of building a sustainable infrastructure and at the same time working for social justice. You need both. Because you could easily have a society that’s totalitarian and also “green.” There are folks who want to build these green houses in the poor part of town where land is cheap. But they don’t realize that by doing this they’re raising the tax base on families who have been living in this part of town for generations, and they’re getting kicked out of their neighborhoods. Part of the problem is that gentrification is an unchallenged paradigm. They just see it as a natural process. We need to find ways to integrate these sustainable technologies into our lives and not result in the displacement of poor people. HD: How has being in Texas and Austin in particular affected your community? SCOTT: Well, Texas is Texas, although the stereotypes are not always true. It’s not always as bad as portrayed. Austin is an oasis of progressive ideas within Texas. East Austin, where we live, is probably 95% Latino. The fact that we live in East Austin makes us particularly conscious about gentrification, cultural sensitivity, and the relationship we have with the community whose top priorities are not necessarily building greywater systems. For a lot of folks, the main concern is getting food on the table for their kids. We’re here as an information resource and a way to help, not trying to force it on people. In Austin as a whole, we’ve definitely had a lot of support from the progressive community. I think if we had done this in Dallas, it would have been a lot harder. And parts of Austin have progressive codes such as straw bale and subsidies for rainwater collection and solar panels. I think it’s particularly important that we’re doing this in central Texas, as opposed to San Francisco, where there’s a high concentration of progressives. And also the fact that we’re deliberately doing it in a city. HD: A lot of people these days are tied to the money economy, and an independent lifestyle that revolves around cars. How do you educate people about the type of work you’re doing? SCOTT: Every person is going to be at a different level of readiness to accept the value in what we’re doing. Someone who is immersed in mainstream or corporate culture and is happy with it is not going to be interested in what we’re doing. A lot of people immersed in that culture, however, have a feeling of dissatisfaction with their life, and they may not really know why. They may visit our project and say this is a better direction to move in. They may take what they need from it at different levels. A lot of people don’t get into sustainability too much until their standard of living is challenged. Our challenge is to get this information to as many people as possible and have projects in place so that by the time there are shortages in energy or food we can have a gentler transition. Brad Johnson conducted this interview for HopeDance. He lives in Baltimore. In the last issue he reported and interviewed a number of the Bioneers presenters for HopeDance. He can be reached at Brad25710@aol.com. Scott can be reached at skotty@rhizomecollective.org. <back | top^ |