Home > Thoughts on what sustainability is
Home > Thoughts
on what sustainability is
Managing a two-year-old is like nailing Jello to a tree, goes an old saying.
Maybe getting adults to agree on a definition of sustainability is like that,
too. Individuals and groups keep trying, but no one has hammered out one that
everybody accepts.
Still, common themes run through most definitions of sustainability. They usually
deal with nature, the economy, society or, perhaps most often, all three together.
Most are not about maintaining life precisely as it is today. They are about
the rate of change, and about equity between generations. Many see sustainability
as a continually evolving process.
Examples of definitions? Here’s one from the President’s Council on
Sustainable Development, a panel of leaders from business, science and other
areas established by former president Bill Clinton:
"America’s challenge is to create a life-sustaining Earth, a future
in which prosperity and opportunity increase while life flourishes and pressures
on the oceans, Earth and atmosphere diminish."
Closer to home, Northwest Environment Watch, a not-for-profit research and communication
center based in Seattle, defines sustainability as "an economy and way
of life in which both people and nature flourish, a culture that can last."
The state of
Oregon has a definition:
"Sustainability means using, developing and protecting resources at a rate
and in a manner that enables people to meet their current needs and also provides
that future generations can meet their own needs.
"Sustainability requires simultaneously meeting environmental, economic
and community needs."
That definition is in Executive Order 00-07, signed by Gov. John Kitzhaber in
May of 2000. The order calls for a step-by-step public–private effort that
will help the state "meet the goal of sustainability within one generation—by
2025."
"Imagine, if you will, three overlapping circles—one representing
economic needs, one representing environmental needs and one representing community
social needs," said Kitzhaber in a public address last year titled "Can
We Have It All?"
"The area where the three circles overlap is the area of sustainability,
the area of livability—the area where all the threads of quality of life
come together," added Kitzhaber.
"If we are to ‘have it all’ we must recognize that these three
circles are not separate, unrelated entities. Rather they are the common desires
and aspirations of all Oregonians and we must therefore strive to ensure that
our efforts result in simultaneously meeting environmental, economic and community
needs throughout our state."
In business, this increasingly popular notion of three integrated sustainability
goals is sometimes called the "triple bottom line"—increasing
profits, improving the planet and improving the lives of people.
"Sustainability is at the heart of any business in the 21st century, and
that’s not just big companies that are international," said Dusty
Kidd, vice president for corporate responsibility of Nike, Inc., based in Beaverton.
"Those companies that look at sustainability and try to treat it as a competitive
advantage and a bottom-line issue will see, I think, the more likelihood of
their businesses flourishing," said Kidd.
"Those of us here at Sustainable Northwest have decided it is best to define
sustainability through example," said Martin Goebel, president of the Portland-based
not-for-profit organization, set up in 1994 to promote conservation and stewardship
of natural resources and compatible economic development.
Each year Sustainable Northwest publishes a book called Founders of a
New Northwest documenting the efforts of people and communities the organization
feels are defining sustainability. A statement in each of the books about honorees
reads, in part:
"In recognition of your innovative work to build a sustainable economy
in the Northwest. For refusing to sacrifice the good of the land for the good
of the people or the good of the people for the good of the land—finding
a new path which honors both."
Despite the enthusiasm of some for the term sustainability, others are bothered
by the word.
"I think part of the problem I have is it can mean a variety of things
depending on how you use it, the context," said Terry Witt, executive director
of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, a Salem-based, not-for-profit group that
lobbies for responsible natural resource management.
"When I look at it from a natural resource perspective I use sustainability
as the ability to continue to use a practice for an indefinite period of time.
It’s as broad or narrow as you care to make it. I don’t put the parameter
on it that it has to be a purely natural process. Sustainable forestry, to me,
might mean a rotational kind of management scheme so that the amount of harvest
never outstrips your ability to grow trees. You have a sustainable source of
fiber. That’s kind of how I look at it."
"I’ve always been skeptical of it [the term sustainability],"
said John Charles, environmental policy director for the Cascade Policy Institute
in Portland, a libertarian think tank. "Most definitions don’t mean
anything to me. It’s just not measurable. But defining sustainability has
become a cottage industry for people who are taking in grants.
"I reduce it basically to an economy that over time is able to do more
with less," he added. "Well, the current economy has been becoming
more efficient for well over 50 years. If you’re doing more with less,
that’s probably sustainable."
Others look past definitions.
"Why is it important to have a common definition of sustainability? What
will we gain?" said Denise Lach, a sociology professor at Oregon State
University who is co-director of the university’s Center for Water and
Environmental Sustainability. "I think the arguments over abstract definitions
are masking the real work that’s getting done and needs to get done.
"Sustainability is like love and democracy—multiple meanings, not
always perfectly realized, but always struggled for, at least by most of us.
I think we do agree, basically, on what it is. We disagree when we must make
specific choices in our lives. I think the major questions are: Who does not
want a sustainable society? Why?"
"The word is just a symbol, a key to open the door to a room full of growth
and development issues," said John Van Sickle, a scientist with a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency research laboratory in Corvallis, Ore.
Even if nailing down a widely accepted definition of sustainability is desirable,
perhaps difficulty in doing that at this time is exactly what we should expect.
Some claim the worldwide focus on the term is nothing less than the "toddler
stage" of a major shift in the trajectory of life on the planet.