A high school buddy of mine asked this morning that I write a little bit about sustainability as a concept- apparently I am more credible than the average raving tree huggers he has encountered, so he hoped I'd give a more balanced view.
At its most basic, sustainability as a concept really boils down to two things:
- Understanding and acknowledgement of the fact that both renewable and nonrenewable resources on this planet are not inexhaustible, and
- A desire to make the most efficient use possible of those resources, and in such a way as they will always be accessible for continued use
From that perspective, it really has a lot in common with the output maximization equations you might see in an industrial plant, figuring out the most efficient way to use limited or costly resources to extract the maximum possible benefit from those resources, doing as much as possible to cut down on waste and redundancy and to use less costly and / or more durable materials to the greatest degree possible.
Where they diverge is in the intent. In the industrial example, the goal is to extract the maximum value from the material inputs to deliver the greatest possible profit to the company. Sustainability from an environmentalist perspective, though, is all about reducing the amount of impact our economic activities have, most notably through reducing the amount of consumption (be it materials or energy) required to operate in a given industry. (Carbon and other emissions, while often set up as or misunderstood to be the goal of sustainability, are in many ways just a stand-in for this idea of reducing consumption.)
The part that is most interesting and exciting for me in all of this, though, is the fact that both the industrial and the environmentalist goals in this equation are the same- it's the same maximization equation either way, maximizing output while minimizing inputs.
A classic example of this in sustainability-oriented academia is Ikea; while I have my own issues with them (I don't believe that it is sustainable to manufacture a cheaply-made durable good designed to be commoditized and perpetually replaced, regardless of the recycling and sourcing policies associated with its manufacture), they were a relatively early adopter (due, notably, to a PR nightmare associated with their early policies relating to pollution and toxins) of recycling and waste reduction; by systematically analyzing their operations they were able to positively impact both their financial and environmental bottom line through a few different means:
- Reducing the amount of waste generated in the course of production
- Increasing the amount of material reclaimed as recyclables and reused within products
- Consequently reducing the amount of material consigned to landfills, thereby reducing that substantial cost
Now, obviously, the interests of industry and those of environmentalists aren't always going to be aligned, especially while the costs of polluting continue to be so easily externalized (to say nothing of the artificially deflated cost of energy as we burn through eons upon eons of stored energy in the form of fossil fuels in the course of a scant few centuries). But, to me, the idea that they can be aligned is very exciting- it is a win-win solution in an arena that has been characterized for decades by confrontational, unproductive bickering.
I genuinely believe that, as the costs of unsustainable practices mount over time and as industry is held more and more accountable for the total costs of their operations, these two divergent interests will find themselves more and more in line with one another. It may not- truth be told, probably will not- happen in my lifetime, but I believe that we are laying some very important groundwork now. This is not greenwashing, this has nothing to do with PR, but everything to do with the linked environmental and economic bottom line for a company.
(The idea of the linked environmental and economic bottom lines is not mine, I should note, but is a part of the larger concept of the triple bottom line; for a process to be sustainable, it must not only be environmentally sustainable, but economically and socially as well. In short, it is no more sustainable to operate in such a way as you are going out of business (in which case someone else will step in and do it however they see fit) or degrading your workforce (in which case you will chew through them eventually and be unable to continue operating) than if you were tearing through all available resources at an unsustainable rate.)
In any case, to return to the basic premise and reword it slightly, the idea of sustainability is to live within our means, whether we accomplish that by way of reducing our consumption or making smarter decisions on what and how to consume, such that we will continue to be able to live into the future and won't have to deal with any of the ugly consequences of running out. It's a concept that any business owner, manager, or person with a checkbook should be able to grasp very readily.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Furthermore, I see sustainability as a bit more of a naturalistic approach. Capitalism and business has an assumption that inputs are limited and therefore inputs and outputs are scarce. That is only because of the inputs being used. Nature does not operate on this principle: nature is abundant and has capitalised (for lack of better terminology) on the fact that the sun provides more-than-enough energy to sustain life and natural processes.
Scarcity is not a necessary part of an economy. It is, though, a necessary part of profit, I suppose.
Rethinking requires a lot of effort and isn't exactly something that is tangible now. But recreating a sustainable economy, where it operates in tandem with ecology and society, rather than at odds with both, leads to my world-view of sustainability.
In the mean time, I think we need to put more design, more thought, more effort into that which we create. We also should be learning from the world around us more than just seeing it as an engineering problem that needs solving.
I'm still amazed at how efficient and effective my worm bin is at turning old fruit into soil. If we could do that with all our industry (one worm's crap is another plant's treasure), we'd all be in a better situation. This involves coordination, cooperation, and policy change, which means it can no longer be an all-about-me, fragmented economy. I know that's hard for people; it is more difficult to work with others than to just do it yourself. But that's what is required.
...and that is why a lot of this stuff isn't happening.
Permaculture is an amazing thing: creating food and more topsoil instead of treating the earth as an extractive industry is a total mind-shift in commonly-held philosophies. But it is possible. Abundance is possible, but you have to be open to it and you have to be able to see it.
In general, I feel that sustainability is a vision first, and a process second. The vision is what many lack, and those who can't picture it now have no desire to let it come to fruition because change is always bad in their world. They live in a winners/losers world. That's not what sustainability is about: there is enough sunlight for all of us...
Post a Comment