Leigh over at Five Acres and A Dream posed an interesting and thoughtful commentary on how the definition of sustainable had changed over the years. It is a worthwhile thought, as the word "sustainable" is now a common place term which is thrown about in everyday communication. From Leigh's blog:
"2013
"Sustainability requires that we not use up what we have to the point where there is no more." - "Defining Our Goals,", 5 Acres & A Dream The Book (p. 21)
2020
"Sustainability refers to a system that maintains its viability by using techniques that allow for continual reuse, such as sustainable agriculture." - "Reassessing Our Goals", 5 Acres & A Dream The Sequel (p.14)
From my recent lecture notes:
Sustainability - a system that produces enough energy over its lifetime to maintain and replace itself. - Bill Mollison, Permaculture Design Course
(End Quote)
As noted, sustainability is on everyone's lips now. Companies and corporations are falling over themselves to make statements about how they will only be "sustainable". "Our sustainable future", or some other phrase similar to it, shows up in almost every sort of government strategy communique now.
But what does it really mean?
If we start with Mollison's quote - not a bad place to start, really - we find the following:
- A system (as opposed to a series of random happens or one time events);
- Producing energy (substituting "starting materials" or "resources" here would not be out of line, I think, for non-agricultural applications);
- Lifetime (acknowledging that that ever system has a start, middle, and end - e.g., it is not eternal or infinite);
- Maintain and replace itself (in other words, not use significant outside inputs (maintenance) and have the ability to self replicate (replace).
If we take that as a definition, how can one truly state that a modern society is even remotely sustainable? I will take my own industry as an example.
The production of biopharmaceuticals is a non-sustainable system. Raw materials have to isolated and manufactured (reagents, chemicals, media). The great push in the industry is towards single use manufacturing (materials which are disposed of after one manufacturing run) which invalidates the need for a cleaning validation; thus tubing, manufacturing vessel bags, sampling tubes, filling apparatus, etc. must all be manufactured (typically out of some form of plastic) and then disposed of as biohazardous waste, meaning sent off for incineration. The leftover solids, when expired, must be disposed of by incineration as well and the remaining liquids must be treated and then disposed of (typically this is a treatment system followed by release into the sewer for further wastewater processing). Additionally of course, people have to do this work, so bouffant caps, beard covers, shoe covers, gloves, and overalls/suits are needed - after all, who wants individuals in street clothes making products that go into one's body? In some cases - overalls/suits and even shoe covers- these are reusable (which has its own set of issues as cleanliness and decontamination needs to be assessed) but in most cases they are not and they, too, are added to the waste stream.
It hardly seems like a sustainable system as defined. Yet no-one I know of in any position of power or the business world or the medical profession (or really, in the sustainability movement) is in any way stating that sustainability should be attained by scrapping the biopharmaceutical industry and moving solely to only naturally derived, "traditional" herbal remedies.
We have had the same discussion in the past here about plastics, in that there is a world wide problem of having "too many" yet no-one is pushing for their complete removal and a return back to leather (the pre-modern version of plastic).
In other words, our modern world - the one that is proclaiming "sustainability" as a core goal - is fundamentally not a sustainable system.
A sustainable system, by Mollison's definition and as an example, could be powered by only three or four things: wood, water, animal labor, and possibly wind. There are examples of all of these in pre-modern society. Solar only exists here as the ultimate driver of all energy systems (weather and photosynthesis), as the manufacture of solar panels and solar systems involves the use of materials that are not sustainable.
Such a system rules out the use of such conveniences as cars, trains, airplanes, and possibly bicycles. Metal items are not inherently sustainable but as metal can be recycled fairly easily once it is out of the ground - remaking ploughshares into teapots and pots, for example, or reversing the process and doing the same - it can probably get a pass. But again, to be sustainable, new mining of any sort would have to be curtailed. Which obviously means that anything using rare earths - lots of fancy technologies, including quite likely the smartphone we all use and the computer on which I am typing this - would have to stop being manufactured and over time, would disappear.
This is the sort of thing that a truly sustainable system would represent - a system (not driven by consumer trends or perceived state needs) producing energy (wood, water, animal, wind) over its lifetime (producing and building for years and years, not planned obsolescence) which can maintain and replace itself (using materials that are only above ground and able to be regenerated or recycling existing materials).
However, I suspect this is not how most folks and companies that use the term "sustainability" think. They only think in terms of "sustainability" in terms of "doing the things that are not too difficult and make us feel good about ourselves while we continue to run our business." It is planting a tree, or 10,000 trees, while continuing to use energy and resources that far outstrip whatever the trees would be able to provide.
How refreshing it would be to see a business actually announce this. Think of what would happen if a major cancer drug manufacturer announced "After carefully consideration, we have decided to end our business. We are not, and will never be sustainable. We will be closing the bulk of our plants and converting them back to the pre-existing environment. We will maintain a much smaller footprint, but will be working exclusively with natural remedies that we know we can grow and produce year after year. To our patients, customers, suppliers, and employees who will all be impacted by this, we are sure that our true commitment to sustainability outweighs any temporary inconvenience this will cause."
Or the government that states "After a careful review, we can no longer support any program instituted by us which requires the use of non-sustainable energy to execute. Our military will be removed back to our shores and we will be discontinuing the use of all aircraft and internal combustion engines. Navy ships will be retrogressed to only those which use wind. Transport will be reverted back to cavalry and wagons. As our supply of ammunition and firearms dwindles, we are 100% committed to the use of sustainably grown woods for all construction of bows and arrows and spears and will make a significant effort to source the metal for our replacement armor (modern synthetics and ceramics being non-sustainable, of course) from previously constructed metal items. While we acknowledge that this may create the perception of an inability to project force or provide a significant deterrent for internal or external threats, we rest assured in the fact that the global community will recognize our firm commitment to sustainability."
I know this seems a bit hyperbolic - and it is to a certain extent. But it underlines an issue I have had with such things for a long time: ideas which people proclaim as critical and fundamental but which they are not willing to consider all the ramifications for, or following those ramifications, because it would impact their own lives detrimentally. People use words and ideas without being willing to implement those ideas to the extent that they would need to be implemented to truly execute it.
The equally amusing thing is that to those that would work towards such things to their logical conculsions- for example, the Joel Salatins and Gene Logsdons and Masanobu Fukokas and Leigh Tates of the world - are considered at best outliers and at worst, potential lawbreakers.
It could be because those in business or government do not like be challenged. I suspect it is more likely that they simply do not like being embarrassed by those going out and doing the things they proclaim they would like to do and following things to their logical conclusions.
While I tend to agree with you thoughts, I also know it depends greatly on how you define your system in determining if it is sustainable. For example, you sort of defined mining for metal as unsustainable. But are not meteorites still smacking the earth and bringing more iron with it? I don't know at what levels the balances are but until we understand the rates, it is hard to say for sure that we aren't sustainable. Our usage of metal over time also greatly varies. On a per capita basis, we probably use less metal today than one 100 years ago mostly due to plastics and other materials that have come along. As you stated, we also recycle a large chunk of that further decreasing our overall usage. On the flip side, our population is only increasing so even with less per capita usage, our overall consumption may still be increasing.
ReplyDeleteBut my entire point is that these systems are quite complex and where you draw the line may completely dictate if a system is sustainable or not.
Ed - Agreed that it is a complex question, far more complex than my simple rant - I suppose, for example, we should also estimate what the rate addition of metals due to volcanos is (but even then, are they anywhere we could use them)?
DeleteWe probably do use less metal (we certainly do in cars!) but the replacement, plastic, is manufactured using petroleum materials and while there is some recycling, I do not know I would call it a 100% closed system, as our rather large plastic zones in oceans and the collections of bottles along the roads might suggest.
But it also is completely unhelpful for groups, governments, and businesses to tout sustainability as a goal with the only measuring rod being the one that they provide, as they are more than a little biased. They will never - I think, anyway - determining their business is non-sustainable and as a result, dissolve the business. That is the sort of assessment I guess I am looking for.
As always, thanks for your thoughtful and reasoned response.
TB, you are eloquently stating the things I contemplate too. You hit on good points that are either overlooked or deliberately not addressed. The bottom end consumer is always made to feel guilty about it, but we are only able to choose from the options they offer us. Unfortunately, by simply tacking on the word "sustainable," it gives the impression that the powers that be care more for trends and political correctness than responsibility.
ReplyDeleteHere's another Bill Mollison quote from that same permaculture video course, "Society has fallen into disorder and doesn't care. . . (they) don't correct themselves because they think they're going to go on forever."
When I hear that I think the reason is becasue they (we) believe the oldest lie in The Book, "surely thou shalt not die." In other words, we humans always think we can get away with it! Maybe it's because we think the consequences are so far into the future that surely science will have resolved the problem by then. Or perhaps its because we love the thrill of the risk, of beating the odds, of seeing what we can get away with. There's always a reason/rationale as to why Self is excused from taking action.
You're correct, true sustainability would require a severely alternate lifestyle. Unfortunately, it's a lifestyle that very few seem to be willing to strive for.
What an interesting quote Leigh. I wonder, has society fallen into disorder, or is there always a lack of care and self correction? The examples of societies that managed themselves and left little impact on the land do exist, but on the whole they were very non-technological.
DeleteWe do always think we can get away with it. A more modern development is that we think merely by changing the words, we can get away with it. It does not change the facts, as you suggest. And we feel as if we have resolved the issue, when in fact we have really only absolved our own guilt.
I am as bad as anyone else. I drink coffee that comes from a bag and uses a filter (brown paper), consume oats that at some point have packaging, and enjoy yogurt which although it is made by me, originally started out in a 1 gallon container. It is a very tangled web. I suppose all that each can do is to start where they are.
Another point - one that I am actively continuing to work on - is cutting my consumerism in general. Ultimately this creates problems for those businesses as they will find that, although they can have sustainable policies, businesses are not sustainable without money. But that is their moment of truth, not mine.
I've talked to people for whom"sustainability" is almost a religion, who insist it is an attainable goal, but who can't explain it or the impacts I bring up.
ReplyDeleteI see sustainability as minimizing resource use/ maximizing resource reuse... since I include money as a resource, the sustainable solution needs to be similar in cost to other options. Those I've heard talk about sustainability universally ignore costs and clearly don't understand engineering, materials, or what really goes into making things of any size.
I have also pointed out that we don't know if something is sustainable until it's been around a long time; labeling a new technology as sustainable isn't defensible.
Johnathan - Your explanation makes sense to me. The reality is that reuse is probably the best way to reach some level of sustainability, if only eclipsed by not spending the resources to make the thing in the first place. I think of something like bottled water - Yes, the bottle can be recycled, but would it not be better just to not spend the resources at all and bring water in a cup?
DeleteYour second point is also well taken - we have no idea, for example, what we will do with expired solar panels twenty years hence - will they be recycled? Destroyed? Buried like Wind Turbine blades?
Thanks for stopping by!