Sustainability History Project

[This post was written by Megan Rice, Angelina Peters, and Dennis Dunn, and complements previous students’ analysis of the question What is Sustainability?]

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle! A common mantra most people have heard before, but what does that mean and is that what sustainability is? The meaning of sustainability ranges from the formulated academic definition based on the Brundtland Commission report to an individual’s personal definition. The focus of this entry is not to dissect the many facets of what sustainability is but to discuss what it is not. The “three pillars” of sustainability are: environment (i.e, natural resources), economy (i.e., monetary value), and equity (i.e., social considerations). At a glance, some of the pillars are self-explanatory, once again, either using a personal or academic definition.

When focusing on what sustainability is not we will discuss measurability, openness to dialog, intergenerational needs, and “greenwashing.”

Measurability: yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is where our High School Math Teacher hopes that math will be the key element to defining sustainability. Not to disappoint our math teachers or to frighten anyone with the premise of complex calculus, this simply means is the sustainable program being reviewed measurable in some form. That does not necessarily fall under the need to break out the abacus or a calculator. Does the program have a benefit AND cost function that can be measured in some form? If the answer is yes, then we have met one of many sustainable criteria. However, what many programs fall short of is the function of measurability in terms of benefits and costs. Simply put, can we write down on a piece of paper the pros and cons of the program? That is one way of measuring—and it identifies sustainable aspects without breaking out any mathematical torture devices, right?

What does intergenerational mean and how is one supposed to know if intergenerational needs are being met? Intergenerational simply means the academic equivalent of children, grandchildren, etc. (not as scary now but when PhD is attached to a name that generally means using big words). When a program does not take into account the long-term or short-term (intragenerational) needs, then it cannot be sustainable. Mining minerals could be sustainable if the impact on the next generations and those several generations from now needs will be met, but mining practices generally provide a short-term needs gain and, therefore, tend not to be sustainable for generations to come. Why is this important? If a zombie outbreak happens, will our great great-grandchildren really care if they have gypsum to mine? If this was a zombie class on intergenerational survival then probably not, but for sustainability, yes they will care, therefore, so should we. Future generations will need drywall to build houses again, right?

“Greenwashing” one of our favorite terms. It simply means that companies present or market their products to draw attention to all of the great Earth-friendly aspects of their program or product and “hide” the costs of the product (like Grandma’s gambling addiction). If one wants to know about the costs or darkside of the product, the information is available (one might have to go to a dark closet in the basement of an alleyway to find it), but the information can be obtained if one is looking for it. But, you might ask, “why is knowing all the facts about my hybrid car or my cold-water-only laundry detergent mean when it comes to sustainability?” Excellent question. If I were to sell you a product that hypes and markets that this product will single-handedly save the Earth, but I forget to mention that we have to dump toxic waste into the community drinking water to get the product, isn’t that something you would want to know?

Okay, let us use a less boogieman scare tactic. Say that your hybrid car needs to have nickel mined from Canada, then the nickel is shipped across the ocean to Italy to be processed, then that processed nickel is shipped to Japan to be assembled, then once again shipped to the US to be assembled and mounted into your hybrid vehicle. For the company not to consider this resource-intensive production process, that would be a form of “greenwashing.” Does that make the car less sustainable? If a car company includes this data and the cost impact on the world with the benefit cost to the world, then the car and hybrid program meets a criteria of sustainability. However, when was the last time you heard any hybrid car commercial discuss the nickel mining process or the multiple-stop journey one piece of the hybrid car makes? That would be bad press and marketing for any car company and that is why hybrid cars could be included in the “greenwashing” non-sustainable box when looking at the big picture.

Is it important really to look at products that claim to be sustainable? Absolutely. Does that mean you are anti-environment if you buy or own a hybrid car? Not necessarily, as long as you understand all the factors that are included in the true definition of what is and is not sustainable. Education and open dialog are the first steps to help anyone and everyone create a better and more sustainable world. Neither of those are too much to ask for in a first step, right?