The other day I bought a big jar of Lingonberry jam from the grocers. I'd been excited to try this for a while- I knew they ate a lot of it here because I see large tubs of it in all of the stores. It seemed like something that would be exotic and distinctively Swedish, and I love to try new foods from different cultures.
When I opened up the jar and tasted a spoonful, I found it was made from nothing other than plain old cranberries... so much for the exciting experience of a completely new taste! I can't complain too much because it is quite delicious. I had some on my toast this morning and it was a pleasantly tart way to start the day.
It's been a busy week or so with quite a

lot of schoolwork. We had an individual presentation yesterday that was basically intended to give us practice explaining some of the core concepts of sustainability and the ideas behind The Natural Step (TNS). Tomorrow we have another presentation, this time in a group of 7 people. The subject is applying the ABCD methodology for backcasting to the operations of a hypothetical organization.
I don't really feel that public speaking is one of my strong suits so all of this is good practice for me. I did get some good feedback on the talk I gave yesterday. My classmates seemed to think that I organized my ideas and explained the concepts well, so I think what I really need to work on is presentation and delivery and just feeling more comfortable in that role.
Since I will probably be referring to the “Core Concepts” of Sustainability quite a bit, it might be helpful if I provide some background for the folks at home who may not be familiar with some of the terms and ideas. Anyone who already knows this stuff should just skip the next few paragraphs.
Basically, sustainability is a term that is only necessary because of human activities since the industrial revolution. The natural world (biosphere) is inherently sustainable because it operates in closed loop cycles where the waste materials from one process become food for another. Plants, using sunlight for energy, create carbohydrates, sugars, and oxygen through photosynthesis. Animals can use these materials as their own energy source through respiration, in turn producing carbon dioxide and solid wastes that in turn are food for plants. In addition, the chemistry of natural systems is such that compounds produced by nature are eventually broken down and reused.

The earth is essentially a closed system with regards to matter, although it is an open system with regard to energy. The matter conservation law states that matter cannot (under ordinary circumstances outside of certain nuclear reactions) disappear, but only change form. This mean that whatever is created here on Earth, essentially stays here. If it is a compound that nature can recycle, it will become food for another process, if not, it will simply remain. This is where problems can be caused by human activities... if we create materials that nature can't deal with, they will simply accumulate, or increase in concentration, gradually over time.
Furthermore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, often referred to as “Entropy” states that energy tends to become more dispersed and disordered. The upshot of this is that it is only because of the constant energy input we get from the sun that plants are able to continually recreate the structure, or quality of matter in natural systems. Matter is not consumed on an atomic level, but it tends to devolve to less organized and useful forms when we use it. It takes energy for it to be reorganized into forms that can sustain us.

The four Principles of Sustainabili

ty developed by Karl-Henrik Robert and the Natural Step were developed by identifying the main ways in which people contribute to the degradation of nature. They found that people disrupt the natural flows of materials by adding materials from the earth's crust to the biosphere through mining and oil drilling. People also introduce compounds created by society into the biosphere, which are sometimes persistent. The biosphere is also degraded by physical means (deforestation, bulldozing, depletion of aquifers, etc.)
Each of these activities becomes a problem if they are systematic and lead to a continual increase. To some extent this depends on the materials in question... for instance iron is very abundant in nature, so much so that

mining for iron ore will not cause a systematic increase in concentrations. There is so much iron in soils already that the amounts added by human activities will not make any difference. Mercury, on the other hand, does not exist in nature in appreciable concentrations, so almost any mercury at all added by people will cause a systematic increase in the natural system.
Once these main factors contributing to unsustainability were identified, they were turned into principles for sustainability by adding the idea that we should not allow them. Therefore the four System Conditions for Sustainability are:
In a sustainable society, nature is not subject to systematically increasing:
1.concentrations of substances extracted from the Earth's crust;
2.concentrations of substances produced by society;
3.degradation by physical means and, in that society,
4.people are not subject to conditions that systematically undermine their capacity to meet their needs
The fourth condition recognizes the need for society itself to be sustainable. If society does not function at a certain level, it will be impossible to design, implement and enforce the preceding three conditions for sustainability. A certain level of social trust and social equity, along with functioning institutions, are a prerequisite for a sustainable future.
There is a lot more to this and perhaps I will write about some of the other concepts later, but for now this is probably enough. I don't want to lose anyone!

Today we are working on the group presentation that is due tomorrow. It really shouldn't be that difficult... 10 minutes divided by 7 people means each of us will only be speaking for a little over a minute.
The problem is getting 7 people to agree on anything and actually get any work done. So far we have put about 9 or 10 hours into this and we don't even have the text written yet! Is it always this difficult? If I were doing this purely on my own I would expect to spend 2-3 hours, total.

The irony for me is that one of the things we have been studying is the need for organizations to have a common vision and a shared mental model in order to function and plan

effectively. The metaphor that TNS uses is that of a tree. You need the organizational level to correspond to the trunk and the branches, and to avoid getting mixed up in the leaves (details). This is because it is nearly impossible to get everyone to agree on all these specifics, but if they all share a principle-level vision they can still make common decisions and progress towards the goal.
Unfortunately, our group is stuck in the leaves and it's making our meetings very slow, unproductive, and frustrating (at least for me). Everyone has great ideas that they want to talk about or include, but many of them don't contribute to getting the assignment done.
Last Friday we had a housewa

rming party for our apartment here on Norra Smedjegatan. It was quite a success and we probably had in excess of 50 people show up. The place got very crowded for a while!
The theme of the party was “wine, cheese and chocolate”, and people brought a lot of goodies to share and enjoy. Since we didn't have any speakers, Hickory, Matt M. and I played some music. It was very loud with so many people so I even got out my fiddle for a while. There was some great dancing and general merriment.
A small group of us kept hanging out and playing music even after most people had left... I finally made it to bed about 4:30 am. Unfortunately I never seem to be able to sleep in so I was up again by 10 am or so... it made for a slow, not-so productive Saturday.
One thing I did on Saturday was go out to Amiralen and buy a bike. My original idea had been to find an abandoned bike or two around town and fix them up. I located several bikes that seemed to be owner-less and friendless, but for various reasons I gave up the idea. It's difficult to tell whether a bike is truly abandoned or whether someone might be coming back for it. Even if it is obviously not in ride-able condition, it could be a bike that someone is keeping just for parts, for instance. Also, many of the abandoned bikes are actually bikes that were stolen by someone who just rode them across town after a night at the bars and then left them somewhere (usually after wrecking them or bending the wheels). This means that although they are separated from their owners and just rusting into oblivion, they are also technically stolen bikes.
I had been looking for used bikes but none of the shops here sell them. They do come up on Blocket (the equivalent of Craigslist), but there were very few mens bikes that would fit me, and there are many other stude

nts competing for the few that are available.
After a week of doing the ½ hour walk up to campus twice a day, I realized that it might be worth it to buy a new one. As my flatmate Laura pointed out, if it is going to be your primary form of transportation for 10 months, it is worth spending a little money on. So when I found a nice, black cruiser at a department store for 1899 crowns ($271), I decided to go for it.
“Harald” as I named it, after the Harald Nyborg department store where I got it, is not a sleek, sexy, or fast bicycle. It is a heavy, somewhat cumbersome black Swedish bike with three speeds, pedal brakes, and a rat trap carrier on the back. However it is much more efficient than walking, cheaper than taking the bus, and quite adequate for just getting around town. The tires are wide enough that I should be able to ride through the winter even in the rain and snow. For a cheap department store “cykel”, it also seems to be solid and fairly well made.
Pics this week include shots of architectural details around my neighborhood

, photos of our apartment (quiche dinner!), a few pics from the party, and a portrait of Harald.