Sustainability History Project

[The post below was written by students Ian C. and Brian H., with notes by James V. Hillegas]

This week we looked at two articles that are critical of sustainability, “The Roots of Sustainability” by Glenn M. Ricketts, and “Is Sustainability Sustainable?” by Daniel Bonevac.[1] Both authors take strong anti-sustainability stances.

Ricketts mostly criticizes sustainability as a political movement. He accuses sustainability proponents of being dogmatic, and spreading their beliefs in an evangelical manner, calling it a secular religion. According to Ricketts, a culture exist within academia that is hostile to any critique of sustainability. Though he does little in the way of actually offering critiques of the principles of sustainability themselves, except to point out that the more dire predictions of previous decades have not yet come to pass. He focuses on presenting a sinister-sounding narrative about the people and social trends supporting sustainability rather than engaging with the ideas behind it.

Now if Ricketts’ claims about real debate on sustainability being shut out were true, that would be a real problem.[2] It is important to examine critically the assumptions and conclusions that go into any major endeavor. Otherwise one risks blinding following a course of action based on a mistake. But there are limits to how much attention those who oppose well-settled issues should expect, unless they have new compelling evidence. So when Ricketts asked “Is it possible that carbon emissions don’t cause global warming?” the answer is of course yes, it’s possible (Ricketts, 51-52). But one needs evidence to overturn an established scientific fact, not just a suggestion that it might not be true.

Within the field of sustainability, several endeavors towards a definition of best practices have been created. Bonevac outlines several proposed courses of action to solve or stay the impending drain of our earth’s resource. He introduces three concepts in particular: strong, weak, and sensible sustainability. Each deals with the way in which we are allowed to use capital. Strong sustainability, being the most restrictive, does not allow any movement or change in capital, such as college (increasing social capital). Weak and sensible sustainability allow for slight capital change but still keep a tight fist around resources. While these plans have the potential to achieve the goals set forth by sustainability definers, a totalitarian state would be necessary for their implementation. Bonevac uses these extreme examples of solutions to illustrate that perfection in the sustainability field is relatively impossible without a collapse of freedoms. By highlighting these, and only these, strategies of implementation it makes it easy for the reader to come to the conclusion that sustainability is unfeasible. This demeans actual progress made in the field and weakens the discourse by labeling current sustainable efforts as inadequate instead of as a move in the right direction.

The practice of using thin, undefined arguments for the sake of being a contrarian is a plague upon true discourse and progress. While it is important to understand that none of the existing practices are perfect or entirely infallible, acting with environmental compassion and stewardship should never be viewed as inconsequential or misguided. Depicting the actions of compassionate individuals as disillusioned is irresponsible, unethical, and adds nothing to the sphere of discourse. As we move towards a sustainable future, we cannot let poorly-constructed roadblocks stop us from accomplishing goals and continuing to develop better methods.[3]

—-
[1] Glenn M. Ricketts, “The Roots of Sustainability,” Academic Questions 23:1 (2010), 84-101; Daniel Bonevac, “Is Sustainability Sustainable?” Academic Questions 23:1 (2010), 20-53.

[2] Ricketts’ one source supporting this contention is physicist Freeman Dyson‘s review of two books in the New York Review of Books, “The Question of Global Warming,” June 12, 2008. For an exchange of ideas spurred by Dyson’s review, see William D. Nordhaus, Dimitri Zenghelis , and Leigh Sullivan , reply by Freeman Dyson, “‘The Question of Global Warming’: An Exchange,” New York Review of Books, Sep. 25, 2008. Ricketts identifies Dyson as “a skeptic with regard to global warming” (p. 51). However, my interpretation of Dyson’s point of view from these two sources is not that he’s a skeptic of the phenomenon of global climate change itself, but that he’s skeptical of what he terms the “majority opinion” that climate change is, to quote Howard Dalton, spokesman for the British government, “a major threat to the environment and human society” and that “urgent action is needed now across the world to avert that threat.” Dyson is not convinced that global climate change is a dire emergency, but is convinced that global climate changes are occurring due to elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by human activities. He advocates for a less dogmatic and catastrophic outlook when he observes that “In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right. It may—or may not—be that the present is such a time”; Dyson is here stating that he’s prepared to be wrong about his view of the threat of climate change. Ricketts, therefore, does not accurately characterize Dyson’s point of view; rather, Ricketts pulls Dyson’s quote out of context to propel his own argument.

[3] For another perspective on Bonevac’s article, see In response to Bonevac, “Is Sustainability Sustainable?”.

–