What is “Sustainability”?
Photo by Maria Stenzel/National Geographic
I often talk about sustainability, and how certain practices are more “sustainable” than others. But what does the word actually mean?
I wish I could give you the short answer, but there are as many definitions of “sustainability” as there are disagreements over the scope and precise meaning of the concept.
A brief history lesson: In 1983, the UN General Assembly set up the World Commission on the Environment and Development (WCED) with Norwegian Labor Party leader (formerly prime minister) Gro Harlem Brundtland as chairperson. The findings of that commission, which was published in 1987 as Our Common Future, focused on a central theme:
Many present development trends leave increasing numbers of people poor and vulnerable, while at the same time degrading the environment. How can such development serve next century’s world of twice as many people relying on the same environment? This realization broadened our view of development. We came to see it not in its restricted context of economic growth in developing countries. We came to see that a new development path was required, one that sustained human progress not just in a few places for a few years, but for the entire planet into the distant future.
(Emphasis is mine.)
They defined this new path, which they called “sustainable development,” as “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Translation: What can we do so that our children and their children can keep doing it?
Even then, The Brundlandt Commission knew they couldn’t encapsulate “sustainable development” in just one sentence. They went on to say:
Poverty is not only an evil in itself, but sustainable development requires meeting the needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfill their aspirations for a better life. A world in which poverty is endemic will always be prone to ecological and other catastrophes.
Critics of sustainability argue that we could end up sacrificing economic growth if we became excessively concerned about the depletion of natural resources. The sustainability debate isn’t just about “environment vs. growth,” however.
In 1991, Professor Michael Redclift of King’s College, London, offered this definition:
Sustainability is about meeting our basic human needs, maintaining economic growth, and conserving natural capital.
Like Redclift’s, most working definitions of sustainability encompass three major principles, which the authors of Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things refer to as the “triple bottom line approach.”
1. Ecology
How does what we do effect the environment? How can we engage with the biodiversity and natural energy flows so that they have a place in our cultivated landscape, instead of of being destroyed or driven away?
2. Equity
Are employees being properly compensated for the job they do? Are they earning what’s considered a living wage where they live?
3. Economy
Does our ecological strategy make economic sense, as well? How can we profit while working within the parameters set by environmental, social, and culture concerns?
Ignoring the dynamic of these three forces, the authors go on to say, will produce “a large-scale tragedy of the commons, destroying valuable natural and human resources for generations to come.”
Ergo, a company which practices sustainability = good; a company which doesn’t = doubleplusungoodGETOFFMYPLANETYOUJERKS.
References:
1. Dresner, Simon. The Principles of Sustainability. London: Earthscan Publications, 2002.
2. Redclift, Michael. “The Multiple Dimensions of Sustainable Development.” Geography 76:1 (1991): 36-42.
3. McDonough, William, and Michael Braungart. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York: North Point Press, 2002.
aleta said,
March 6, 2006 at 2:35 am
“GETOFFMYPLANETYOUJERKS”
I’m gonna steal that. It’s an awesome curse for environmentalists.
The Worsted Witch » Why, Mike, Why? said,
March 10, 2006 at 1:03 pm
[...] Tread lightly! Living sustainably doesn’t require a lot of effort, not will it result in any noticeable changes to your quality of life if you make the right choices. The phrase to remember is “conscious consumption”—before you buy, look beyond the price tag to consider what a product’s made of, where it comes from, and who made it. Most of all, ask yourself, “Do I really need this?” and, if you do, “Is there a more responsible alternative?” [...]
» This Week’s Carnival of the Green at George’s Unplugged Living said,
March 13, 2006 at 8:30 pm
[...] And then pay a visit to the Worsted Witch for her pontifications on what is sustainability, exactly? “GETOFFMYPLANETYOUJERKS!” [...]
Sameer said,
March 13, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Nice post. I had been wondering about this topic for a while. Most of what I read confused me. But your post makes much sense. The most common refrain of people who are opposed to sustainable development is that “everything human beings have done is sustainable. After-all haven’t we sustained ourselves for so long?”. Here they are implying “sustainability of human race only” as t he definition. Anoher one is t he “resource sustainability” definition, where we try to maintain crucial resources for use of future generations.
The widest and perhaps most meaningful definition is “ecological sustainability” which encompasses biodiversity, climate change and all such issues. I think that is the one which should be focussed on. Also i think “ecological sustainability” is very hard to “measure” and therefore implement in any policy.
The Worsted Witch » Coming Soon: Greensleeves said,
March 23, 2006 at 1:30 pm
[...] I was going to wait on announcing this, but like a child on Christmas Eve I can’t contain my excitement any longer. As an environmentalist, fair-trade advocate, and knitter, I’ve been interested in exploring the less-traveled realm where knitting and sustainability intersect. I hope you’ll join me as I explore sustainable fibers such as organic cotton, hemp, bamboo, and even soysilk, and perhaps contribute to the online compendium of resources I plan to assemble. [...]
The Worsted Witch » Sustainability in Textiles: An Overview said,
April 2, 2006 at 9:37 am
[...] The Institute for Market Transformation to Sustainability, which provides several voluntary product-specific standards, has a rating system based on a textile’s sustainability (”sustainable,” “silver,” “gold,” or “platinum.”) During the audit process, companies can accumulate brownie points depending on their renewable-energy and energy efficiencies, their plans to reclaim the material at the end of its life, and whether the product makes use of bio-based or recycled materials. Another non-profit, BlueGreen plans to release its own voluntary Sustainable Textile Standard that uses advancing levels of merit to measure a company’s progress toward complete sustainability—this allows an established company the latitude to switch to more-sustainable practices gradually, instead of forcing a complete overhaul that is likely to encounter greater resistance. [...]
One/Change » Blog Archive » Where do you start? said,
April 17, 2006 at 5:45 pm
[...] You finally get that global warming is a HUGE problem. You get that we all need to become A LOT less dependent on oil. You get that we need to start buying products that are made in an environmentally friendly way and using sustainable resources. [...]