Episode 5: Why Sustainability Is Not Enough

Episode 5: Why Sustainability Is Not Enough
5/30/08
(Written on the grid)

Once certain words become adopted by the federal government and large corporations, we know it is time to seek new ground. “Organic” is, perhaps, the most recent and certainly the biggest example. Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma does a great job of demonstrating that industrial organic is more industrial than organic, but most Whole Food shoppers fail to recognize this. By the time mainstream America began embracing organic macaroni and cheese real organic farmers were dropping the “organic” label not necessarily because of the cost of certification, but because of the paperwork required and the complete lack of spirit retained by the word once the EPA got involved. Substituting inputs – organic fertilizers and pesticides for chemical fertilizers and pesticides – is the narrowest interpretation of organic that one could demise. It limits “organic” to only that which relates to the chemicals themselves and ignores much of what the grassroots organic movement was/is about: building long term soil fertility, enhancing biodiversity, shortening supply lines, etc.

In much the same way, “sustainability” has become more narrowly defined by some as little more than input substitution. Few Americans realize that Hydrogen is not an energy source but a storage mechanism, much like a battery. Ethanol may be a domestic product, but some say its carbon footprint is bigger than the carbon it contains. In other words, it is a net energy loser. Meanwhile, the more methanol we produce the higher corn prices rise in Haiti, Nicaragua and every other country we convinced to dismantle their local sustainable (oops, slipped there) agricultural systems over the last decades. Electric cars in America will likely run indirectly on the remains of our massive coal reserves. Again, input substitution.

Beyond the narrow-mindedness of input substitution, the most popular interpretation of sustainability has less to do with the preserving the planet for the Seventh Generation than with making compromises. The Sustainability Triangle is a way of watering down high environmental standards. It is aiming low, not high. William McDonough says, “Being less bad is not being good. It is just being less bad.” If the greatest goal of our most innovative schools, businesses and government agencies is to be less bad, what happens if we fall short? What kind of message does “being less bad” send to our children? Who is driving this natural gas powered bus?

The “triple bottom line” is still a bottom line.

“People, Profits, Planet” is still two versus one. It’s not easy to beat a double-team.

Sustainability was new and exciting ten years ago. It was an admirable goal then, but times have changed. Substituting inputs is a grossly inadequate strategy to address the manifold pressures closing in on human culture. “Being less bad” only buys enough time to figure out how to be good. That time has come.

It is a good day to be good!

Obama – Hope we can belive in!
Stewart – Humor always works.
Colbert – Give me the bump, please.
Beck – I'm turning positive, Glenn. Act fast!
Jack – "This world is gonna hurt, you better turn that thing down..."

Peace and Post Petroleum, Nedly, RfD

noslen.obel@gmail.com