The Future: 10 Challenges for Sustainability

Growing concerns about climate-change pollutants, the widening gap between the rich and the poor, resource shortages, and the world’s gamut of ecological problems have placed new pressures on sustainists. Creating a sustainable society that thrives within its biophysical limits is no longer seen as a distant and utopian objective; it’s now an urgent matter that, if neglected or mismanaged, will bring devastating consequences for the planet and the human economy that lives off of it. The increased political attention, institutional support, and financial commitment to the cause of sustainability means heightened expectations for immediate, tangible results. The public doesn’t want idle chatter; it wants workable solutions to very real problems. Can sustainists seize the moment and lead the transition to the sustainable future? The quest to create a sustainable society faces a host of obstacles, and many pressing questions remain unanswered: How can the entrenched political and corporate interests that perpetuate unsustainability be overcome? How can society willingly transform itself? Where will the money and political will come from to coordinate the transition? Will this sustainable society be “industrialized” or “post-industrial,” “globalized” or “localized”? Will the changes be top–down, bottom–up, or both? By charting the growth and development of sustainability since 1700, this book has not meant to imply that ecotopia is an inevitable end point. Even optimists concede that it’s quite possible that the task is too tall, that industrial society could drive itself straight into the ground, that collapse is a real threat, and that the Industrial Revolution was the first phase of humanity’s protracted extinction event. If sustainability does succeed in undoing the many harms that have caused our ecological predicament, it will only do so with the broad support of the public and through a cooperative effort to adapt and transform. At the risk of bombast, it will have to change the course of human history, and that’s no easy task. This book ends with a discussion of 10 challenges faced by the sustainability movement.

Sustainability Today: 2000–Present

We might not live in a sustainable age, but we’re living in the age of sustainability. The movement has gained a level of prominence in recent years that is difficult to dispute. The scholarly fields associated with sustainability have expanded dramatically; new tools and methods have appeared that help define, measure, and assess sustainability; and a broad range of organizations and communities have embraced the principles of sustainable living. Sustainability, in fact, has gone from marginal ecological idea to mainstream movement in a surprisingly short amount of time. We now see sustainability publicized at the supermarket, on university campuses, at the aquarium, in corporate headquarters, in government ministries, and in countless other places. A growing number of universities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and corporations in the Western world possess an “office of sustainability”— replete with sustainability plans and guidebooks—but none have an “office of green radicalism” or an “office of the status quo.” In a sense, this environmental discourse has won out over rival conceptions of humanity’s relationship to the natural world. This chapter is an attempt to sketch out the different ways in which sustainability has gained a foothold in contemporary society. It is not meant to suggest that our world is sustainable. On the contrary, many barriers and entrenched interests have kept our world rather unsustainable, and Mathis Wackernagel has even argued that, since the 1990s, we have exceeded the Earth’s capacity to sustain us; we are now living in a state of global overshoot. The goal here, rather, is to show the ways in which our society has constructively responded to our ecological crisis—to demonstrate the growth and elaboration of the sustainability movement and describe some of the successes it has achieved in counteracting our bad habits. As the philosophy of sustainability has developed, so too has it expanded its scope. If we recall from earlier chapters, the concept of sustainability began in the eighteenth century as a method of managing forests, and by the 1960s and 1970s it had become a reaction to industrialism and the trend toward ecological overshoot.

Eco-Nomics

The environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s overshadows a second, less heralded intellectual development that took place at the exact same time: the birth of “ecological economics.” A cluster of nonconforming economists in this period drew on the fledgling science of ecology to rethink many of the assumptions of neoclassical economics, with its “growthmania,” general indifference toward pollution and ecosystem destruction, and dogmatic belief that “tastes and preferences” are innate in humans rather than culturally shaped. What emerged was a new school of thought that integrated ecological concerns into an essentially capitalist economic framework. These iconoclasts brought together the dual nature of the Greek word “oikos” (literally: household), which is the etymological root of both “economics” and “ecology.” They asserted that the human “household” could not exist without a healthy and functional natural environment. This has become the essential insight of economic sustainability—the second “E” of sustainability: that the world needs economic systems that exist harmoniously with nature (and which promote social equality and justice). Those who practice the economics of sustainability in the present day— William E. Rees, Mathis Wackernagel, Peter Victor, Tim Jackson, Richard Heinberg, and many others—are the heirs of these early critics who challenged the hegemony of business-as-usual economics. First-wave ecological economics shares the readability of the classic environmental works discussed in the previous chapter. The main authors associated with ecological economics—E. J. Mishan, E. F. Schumacher, Kenneth Boulding, Howard T. Odum, Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Herman Daly, Amory Lovins, and the members of the shadowy-sounding Club of Rome—went out of their way to write nontechnical books that were meant to appeal to the average-educated reader. Collectively, these authors ask deep and penetrating philosophical questions: What is the point of endless economic growth? What are the environmental costs of a wasteful and fossil-fuel-addicted consumer society? What is the best way to measure the well-being of a society? What is the role of economics in ensuring that human society remains within its ecological limits and avoids overshoot and collapse? How can nature, society, and the economy be studied as a single system?

From Concept to Movement

A self-defined sustainability movement crystallized between the late 1970s and the 1990s. No longer was sustainability merely a concept or set of ideas. There was now a set of organizations—the Worldwatch Institute, the Rocky Mountain Institute, the United Nations (UN ), and so on—that promoted something called “sustainability” and a growing number of individuals who sought to “live sustainably.” Scholars began to describe in vivid detail what a sustainable society might look like and discussed in no uncertain terms the unsustainability of modern industrial society. In 1975, a conference was held near Houston, Texas, on “how a modern society might be organized to provide a good life for its citizens without requiring ever-increasing population growth, energy resource use, and physical output.” A stream of books between 1976 and 1981 drew on cutting-edge science and ecological economics to sketch out the “qualitative components of a sustainable society.” In the 1980s, sustainability became the centerpiece of international agreements; a strategy objective for at least some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), businesses, and governments and a philosophy of balance and durability with a wide range of applications. It found its greatest champion in the United Nations though, which recast sustainability as “sustainable development” and integrated its principles into international accords. Sustainability had thus become part of a political agenda and a clearly articulated ecological philosophy, and a plethora of frameworks, systems, and models were developed as a means of studying, measuring, and advancing its central tenets. This is the period, for instance, in which the three Es appeared as the basic model for sustainability. By the 1990s, sustainists had begun implementing principles of sustainability into economic analyses, planning commissions (on all governmental levels), the energy sector, education, agriculture, housing, transportation, business operations, and many other domains. The media picked up on the term, too, and sustainability became, by the end of the century, a buzzword meant to signify anything associated with green values. This chapter offers a brief overview of the formation, triumphs, and challenges of the sustainability movement at the end of the twentieth century.

The Industrial Revolution and Its Discontents

The stock narrative of the Industrial Revolution (ca. 1760–late 1800s) is one of moral and economic progress. Indeed, economic progress is cast as moral progress. The story tends to go something like this: inventors, economists, and statesmen in Western Europe dreamed up a new industrialized world. Fueled by the optimism and scientific know-how of the Enlightenment, a series of heroic men—James Watt, Adam Smith, William Huskisson, and so on— fought back against the stultifying effects of regulated economies, irrational laws and customs, and a traditional guild structure that quashed innovation. By the mid-nineteenth century, they had managed to implement a laissez-faire (“free”) economy that ran on new machines and was centered around modern factories and an urban working class. It was a long and difficult process, but this revolution eventually brought Europeans to a new plateau of civilization. In the end, Europeans lived in a new world based on wage labor, easy mobility, and the consumption of sparkling products. Europe had rescued itself from the pre-industrial misery that had hampered humankind since the dawn of time. Cheap and abundant fossil fuel powered the trains and other steam engines that drove humankind into this brave new future. Later, around the time that Europeans decided that colonial slavery wasn’t such a good idea, they exported this revolution to other parts of the world, so that everyone could participate in freedom and industrialized modernity. They did this, in part, by “opening up markets” in primitive agrarian societies. The net result has been increased human happiness, wealth, and productivity—the attainment of our true potential as a species! Sadly, this saccharine story still sweetens our societal self-image. Indeed, it is deeply ingrained in the collective identity of the industrialized world. The narrative has gotten more complex but remains a la base a triumphalist story.

Eco-Warriors: The Environmental Movement and the Growth of Ecological Wisdom, 1960s–1970s

One of the marks that distinguishes sustainability from classic environmentalism is the former’s cheery optimism. Indeed, reading side by side the 2005 guidebook Green Living—a fairly typical how-to for sustainable living—with, say, Paul Ehrlich’s doleful Population Bomb (1968) offers a case study in contrast. Green Living is constructive and buoyant whereas Population Bomb is frenzied and cynical. Yet it’s striking how much Green Living takes its inspiration not only from Ehrlich but from other titans of mid-century environmentalism—albeit with a noticeable shift in tone. Paul and Anne Ehrlich are cited approvingly in the opening pages of the book. The epigraph comes from the still-very-active David Suzuki. There are also references to the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, which, of course, is named after the esteemed Aldo Leopold. But gone is the gloomy tone, replaced instead by a heartening “You can do it!” attitude. This brief observation illustrates how much the modern sustainability movement owes to the critics, intellectuals, and protestors of the 1960s and 1970s who raised awareness about environmental problems, advocated for social justice, and defended the rights of the oppressed. While the three Es of sustainability were rarely paired in the 1960s and 1970s, many of the basic concepts that shaped sustainability were clearly articulated before the 1980s. This chapter should not be taken as a comprehensive look at the environmental movement, about which there is reams more to say. Instead, it will examine in general terms some of the disparate sources that contributed to the holism of sustainability. Particular emphasis will be laid on the key ideas, associations, and scholars who developed the environmental movement and the success that environmentalists had in getting politicians, economists, and the public at large to think in ecological terms—a singular achievement that continues to inform the world of sustainability. It is important to note that the reason that this book jumps from the late nineteenth century to the 1960s is not because the era of the two world wars has nothing to do with the history of sustainability.

Loath This Growth: Sources of Sustainability in the Early Modern World

This chapter begins in the period that historians of Europe and the Atlantic world call “early modernity” (seventeenth and eighteenth centuries). It could have begun in the Middle Ages, with the hunting reserves and protected forests established by European rulers in Venice and elsewhere. It could start with an analysis of indigenous societies, from Easter Island to the Maya, that failed to live sustainably and eventually collapsed. It could even begin in antiquity, with Pliny the Elder and his encyclopedic Natural History that tells us so much about Roman conceptions of the natural world. But we begin in the early modern period because of the clear linkages between the modern sustainability movement of the twenty-first century and the consciousness and practices that developed in early modernity. After all, the concept of “sustainability” was given a name in the early eighteenth century by a Saxon bureaucrat who coined the term “Nachhaltigkeit” to describe the practice of harvesting timber continuously from the same forest. Indeed, sustained yield forestry took shape at this time not only in Western Europe but also in Japan, around other parts of Asia, and on colonial islands in both the West and East Indies. The practice of exploiting forests sustainably was but one indication of an incipient awareness about the value of living within biophysical limits and the need to counteract resource overconsumption. Many documents that survive from this period demonstrate that it was possible to have at least a rudimentary idea about the complex relationship between social well-being, the economy, and the natural world. That is, the “systems thinking” of sustainability—the method of studying complex, interrelated systems—clearly has roots that stretch back to this largely pre-industrialized world. In 1700, the global population of homo sapiens was somewhere between 600 million and 650 million. Beijing might have approached a population of 1 million, which would have constituted a megacity at the time, but most “cities” had fewer than 50,000 inhabitants.

Introduction

As hard as it might be to believe, the world once made do without the words “sustainable” and “sustainability.” Today they’re nearly ubiquitous. At the grocery store we shop for “sustainable foods” that were produced, of course, from “sustainable agriculture”; ministries of natural resources in many parts of the world strive for “sustainable yields” in forestry; the United Nations (UN ) has long touted “sustainable development” as a strategy for global stability; and woe be the city dweller who doesn’t aim for a “sustainable lifestyle.” Sustainability first emerged as an explicit social, environmental, and economic ideal in the late 1970s and 1980s. By the 1990s, it had become a familiar term in the world of policy wonkery—President Bill Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development, for instance— but the embrace wasn’t universal. Bill McKibben, perhaps the most prominent environmentalist of the past 30 years, wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times in 1996 in which he dismissed sustainability as a “buzzless buzzword” that was “born partly in an effort to obfuscate” and which would never catch on in mainstream society. In McKibben’s view, sustainability “never made the leap to lingo”— and never would. “It’s time to figure out why, and then figure out something else.” (McKibben preferred the term “maturity.”) Many others have since accused “sustainability” and “sustainable development” of being superficial terms that mask ongoing environmental degradation and facilitate business-as-usual economic growth. Those are debatable points that will be discussed in this book. But one thing is clear: McKibben was quite wrong about the quick decline of “sustainability.” One way to demonstrate this growing interest is to look at book titles that bear the word “sustainable” or “sustainability.” It’s difficult to find books published before 1976 that employ these words as titles or even as keywords. Indeed, as Figure 1 shows, no book in the English language used either term in the title before 1970. But since 1980 there has been an explosion of books and articles that not only use those words as titles but also deal with the many facets of sustainability.