Sustainability History Project

[This post was written by Sam Medina, Charlie Zigmond, and Thomas Yabrough.]

The codependent pillars of sustainability (equity, environmental, economic) are typically not focused on as a whole, and therefore sustainable practices commonly fall short of their intentions or adversely affect another pillar. This concept of “sub-optimization” is a poisonous characteristic of haphazard attempts at being sustainable. People and organizations tend to focus on the environmental pillar of sustainability, with notions of the other less known pillars. In addition to this misconception, many systems of “sustainability” have been created, further “greenwashing” (having the appearance of sustainability without actually being sustainable) the public into thinking a specific set of actions will create an everlasting lifestyle that can be perpetuated for generations after.

This is a critical mistake for anyone to consider one pillar over another when making decisions about our lifestyle choices. Recycling electronics is simply a facet of sustainability, and the current definition needs to be reshaped in order to ensure that the goals of recycling are quantified, qualified, and are in common use to lead to the three-pillared version of sustainability. For example, since most of the measurement of recycling is implicated to reduce landfill use and not make the most of available resources (social equity aspect), and prevent harmful emissions (environmental), additional variables and metrics need be integrated into a system to evaluate progress (Atlee, et. al). When we as a people fail correctly to diagnose the underlying issue of a given problem, we end up “fighting fires.” In other words, we fix the next problem we foresee (landfill space), rather than the underlying issue (we waste too much). The clarity of evaluation of sustainability today is still quite elusive, but as whole society, we are narrowing in. While it is human nature to fix the most addressable problems first, eventually and with enough impetus we will come to the ultimate solution of actually changing our lifestyles.

Changing consumption and production habits is a “getting off on the right foot” strategy to get the unsustainable elements out of the picture when purchasing or selling electronics. Several initiatives have been proposed and implemented (such as the European Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) and the UK’s Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (ROHS)), but need to be expanded and modified with time in order for the evolution of sustainability to proceed. In addition, as Conrad MacKerron states, companies must increase research and development towards acceptable alternatives[1]. Shareholders in companies are also responsible for sponsoring and initiating these changes. The hope is that as the concept of sustainability becomes embraced by the majority of the population, they will in turn put pressure on the shareholders of companies of which there is a considerable gain to introduce sustainable alternatives of their products. The responsibility of moving society away from unsustainable practices is dependent on three parties: the consumers, shareholders/companies, and government. The interactions of these groups towards sustainable goals is of equal importance to the three pillars of sustainability (equity, environment and economic).

The other factor worth noting here is that this does not necessarily need to be a consensus decision. If a system is implemented that incorporates the true cost of production (normal costs of production + all costs needed to correct any deviations from the Brundtlandian definition of sustainability) then even the least considerate of consumers will be left with no choice to live sustainably. Furthermore, if this type of system were to be implemented correctly there would be no reason to “greenwash” or to judge people who drive hummers. They can live however they want so long as they pay for the environmental aspect of their decisions. This may seem farfetched but it is already happening on a variety of other fronts. Most people don’t even realize it, but when they consume cigarettes, a portion of the tax they pay (that is hidden within the purchase price) goes to offsetting the costs associated with tobacco use (via lung cancer research, etc.). Any system whose proposed solution is dependent on a manipulating of people’s will is bound to fail. The only true solution to something this controversial or complex is to remove choice from the equation and make participation mandatory (much like speed limits or jury duty).

—-

[1] See, for example, http://www.asyousow.org/about/staff.shtml.

—