Why Living Responsibly Is Important

For many people the term sustainable is just another buzz word that will soon fall from favor. For some of those who hold conservative political views, it is a liberal-socialist conspiracy sponsored by the U.N. to deny individual American property rights. But on-the-ground evidence argues against both views. The National Security Agency, CIA, and the U.S. Defense Department regard sustainability as a critical national security issue. Consequently, the DoD has directed every branch of the military to actively address those concerns. In addition, over the past several decades, local, state, and federal agencies as well as private businesses have worked independently and often together to shape development patterns, identify constraints and opportunities, and create workable plans to assure critical sustainability needs will be addressed and cities will be able to revitalize themselves in ways that are more environmentally, socially, and economically responsible.

The most common definition of sustainable development is “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” That definition was prepared in 1987 by the UN Brundtland Commission and recognizes that continuation of today’s status quo of maximizing economic production and ignoring other critical factors could lead to environmental catastrophe and socioeconomic collapse. The principal insight of the Brundtland Commission was that economic production must be integrated with ecological goals to protect natural environments and equity goals to minimize poverty and injustice. Thus, sustainable development weaves together the three strands of economy, environment, and justice to confront the challenges of out of control growth and unjust social conditions while stabilizing and enhancing the environment on which all life depends.

At first glance, the sustainable development concept seems simple enough. But even people who think sustainability is a good thing do not agree on how it can be transformed into real world actions.

Skeptics like me, who intensely dislike the term sustainable, point out that most advocates for the concept ignore the real and very difficult to resolve conflicts between the three goals: resource conflicts between economic development and environmental protection; property conflicts between social justice and economic development; and economic development conflicts between environmental protection and social justice. They wonder how those conflicts will be resolved in a world where neither species/habitats nor poor people contribute to election campaigns or have seats at the tables where critical political decisions are made. Not to be cynical, but politicians the world over take special care of those who put them in power and slip money into their pockets.

Many activists maintain that the goals of social justice and environment will always be the weak links in the sustainability chain, honored by flowery verbiage but unsupported by meaningful actions. They point out that society has failed in the past to address equality or to protect the environment. And today, millions of political conservatives regard liberty as having far greater moral-ethical value than equality and believe that humans have every reason to exploit nature to the fullest since that is our “God-given” right.

Others, and I count myself in this group, characterize the term as vague rhetoric that can be twisted and molded to meet the needs of powerful groups that hold opposing views of sustainability, such as conservation organizations and natural resource corporations. Still others question inclusion of the environment as a goal of equal standing, demanding to know which environment is indicated: today’s highly damaged, human-modified landscape or some earlier, and presumably more pristine, example? In other words, what is it that gets sustained?

Perhaps one of the sharpest criticisms of sustainability points to the many difficulties of pretending we know what will be important for future generations. After all, did the people living in 1913 know with any certainty the challenges facing people living in 2013? So, how can we say we know what people in 2113 will need to have productive and fulfilling lives? Plus, who knows what marvelous technological innovations lay just over the horizon that could make the lives of future generations easier and more fulfilling than ours. And thus entirely change the meaning of sustainability and making present actions meaningless or, worse, counter-productive.

Despite the many valid criticism of the sustainability concept, we live in a world where species are becoming extinct faster than at any time in recorded history, the warming climate is resulting in drought estimated to last many decades, the oceans are acidifying at truly dizzying rates, and water resources are shrinking while human population is projected to grow to about ten billion by 2100 with concomitant demands on food and energy resources. Therefore, being able to make sure human culture extends into the future has become a challenge people ignore at their peril.

Call it what you wish, only by implementing national policies and enforcing regulations that aggressively address our profligate, consumption-driven way of life that has resulted in widespread pollution (including CO2), sharply reduced natural habitat, and the loss of biodiversity will we have taken steps in the right direction. The time to start those actions was before the turn of the century, but, if we start now and work hard to live responsibly, our Western culture might have a chance of surviving. If we don’t start now, it’s a real crap-shoot.