Sustainability, Part I: On the Edge of an Oxymoron

• Lindsey Grant
• March 1, 1997
• Forum Papers
• Forum Paper
• 0 Comments

On To Sustainability

Socrates complained that classical Athens in its glory was destroying the forests and farmlands of Attica, but he offered no thoughts as to how to stop the process.  Sustainability states the goal of avoiding that degradation.  The WCED definition at the start of this paper fits the goal of “sustainability” better than it does the ambiguous term “sustainable development.”

“Sustainability” has a lot going for it.  It has broader connotations of human well being than “environmentalism,” and it is less easily lampooned as an excessive concern for whales and wolves at the expense of other humans.

It is popular with environmentalists.  It is particularly felicitous because, mathematically, it embodies the recognition that true environmentalism demands an end to growth.  This should commend the word to population policy advocates, which in turn suggests that we might well adopt it as a shorthand for the population movement, which has never really had a satisfactory title.⁵  Adoption of “sustainability” by population policy advocates might help to bridge the rift that exists between them and environmentalists.  Although some environmentalists are reluctant to face up to the mathematical truism described above, it is hard to imagine that even the most insular of them would dare to stand up and claim that perpetual growth is sustainable.

Sustainability demands a redefinition of consumption goals and a search for the least damaging ways of providing for them.  Above all, however, a smaller population would make the pursuit of sustainability less difficult and the conflict between it and other goals less intense.  A smaller population, or even slower growth, makes it less necessary to reduce consumption (e.g. for the poor) or to restrict freedom than does a large and growing population.  It would be less damaging to the environment, at any given level of conservation or technological solutions.  A successful policy to stop population growth makes sustainability less painful to achieve.  This should be welcomed by those who are pursuing other goals such as social justice or urban revitalization or human rights.

A Cautionary Note

There is a delicate line at which “sustainability” itself can degenerate into a burlesque.

How broad is its meaning?  The term requires clarification.  Some proponents apply it simply to humans.  Others point out that human well-being depends on preservation of the ecosystem in which our species evolved.  Among national and social objectives, what priority does sustainability have?  Does it have an absolute priority over individual freedom (e.g. in forest management or wetlands preservation)?  If not, where are the compromises drawn?

One can argue that preservation of the nation is essential to the “ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”  Is national defense therefore a prerequisite for sustainability and at what level even though defense expenditures may divert funds from resource preservation or environmental protection?

Is sustainability more important than the maintenance or for the poor the improvement of living standards?  What are the specific measures of sustainability, and how are they to be achieved?  What degree of certainty is needed to persuade the nation to forego current consumption in pursuit of a better future?

What claim does sustainability have on the budget, and what costs can be borne in its pursuit?  Conversely, is a balanced budget a goal of sustainability, since growth of public debt cannot be sustained forever?

  Writers have defined “sustainability” to include everything from justice, social equity, women’s rights and budgetary reform to decentralization of economic power.  Such wide definitions can cause any campaign for sustainability to degenerate into generalizations. It would seem wise, for the purposes of this paper, to accept Prof. Herman Daly’s restrictive elaboration of the WCED definition of a sustainable economy:

• Its rates of use of renewable resources do not exceed their rates of regeneration.
• Its rates of use of nonrenewable resources do not exceed the rate at which sustainable renewable substitutes are developed.
• Its rates of pollution emission do not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment.

How far do we carry it?  This is a beginning, but even here we encounter problems.  Zero soil loss is not really compatible with any agriculture.  Some soil, even if it is replaced, descends into streams, accelerating siltation and change.  Humans do not control all the elements of sustainability.  Change and degradation can occur without human involvement; the Mississippi delta was being formed out of prairie topsoil long before humans arrived (though much more slowly).  Aluminum constitutes 8% of the Earth’s crust.  One can contemplate running down the resource with equanimity; the argument for recycling, aside from aesthetics, is the high energy cost of extracting the aluminum from the ore.  A similar and even more compelling argument can be made concerning the use of silicon to make glass.

Advocates of sustainability should define their goal in clear and limited terms.  Otherwise, they may be dismissed as flower children for demanding the impossible, or on the other hand they may become encumbered with “allies” who demand that they advocate other social goals that while they may be desirable enough in themselves are irrelevant to the central task of sustainability.  That task is to confine human activity so that it can be pursued without peril to the natural systems that support us.

Sustainability too rigidly defined does not admit of much compromise.  No goal, even sustainability, is absolute.  We must develop guidelines for its application.  Perhaps as a start we should pose the issue in these terms:  For every contemplated policy or action, how serious is the threat to sustainability? are the anticipated gains so overwhelming that they would justify bending the absolute?  All Together, Now: “Sustainability!”These are cautionary notes only.  My real message is that “sustainability,” properly defined, is a great rallying cry for both environmental and population policy advocates.  By its nature, it forces them to recognize that they share the same goals.  Continued growth is not just a failed “solution” but indeed an eventual impossibility.  And “eventual” may be closer than we think.

Notes

1. Our Common Future, report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED or “Brundtland commission”), 1987.
2. The Sustainable Society. Implications for Limited Growth (New York: Praeger, 1977), p.10.
3. Digby J. McLaren, past Director General of the Geological Survey of Canada, “Population and the Utopian Myth,” in Ecodecision, June 1993, pp.59-63.  In fairness, be it said that a large and growing number of economists recognize the frailty of the Keynesian assumptions and are beginning to recognize the limits to growth.
4. National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), 1992 Report to Congress (U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1993), p.3.
5. I am indebted to Alan Weeden of the Weeden Foundation for the genesis of this idea.