What is sustainability anyway?

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian

September 5, 2003 - 2:00pm EDT

Sustainability—the ability to meet our needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs—has become a catchphrase of the progressive sector.† But in a world where populations continue to rise, the health of natural habitats are increasingly threatened,† and economic inequalities grow, what will it take for the human race to not just survive, but thrive?

Join Worldwatch Senior Editor Thomas Prugh and Staff Researcher Erik Assadourian to discuss their recent World Watch article, What Is Sustainability Anyway?

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to this week's Worldwatch Live online discussion. Worldwatch Senior Editor Thomas Prugh, and Worldwatch Staff Researcher Erik Assadourian join us today to discuss their recent World Watch magazine article "What is Sustainability Anyway?" Welcome, Tom and Erik.

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : Thanks, Steve, it's great to have the chance to talk about this issue.

NYC, NY: Despite the great efforts of well-thinking people regarding sustainability, we rarely hear beauty and attractive public space mentioned as part of sustainablilty yet isn't that why Italy and France attract so many tourist dollars each year? In the Renaissance, durability and glory were partners, resulting in works we can enjoy today. Where have aesthetics gone? Architecture seems to concentrate on height and new materials rather than on public enjoyment and utility. Please address this issue. Why has culture been avoided as part of a sustainable society?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : This is pretty far beyond any personal expertise of mine, but while I agree with you that beauty and attractive public space ought to be part of a sustainable culture, reasonable people may differ on how to achieve them. The attractive European public spaces you seem to have in mind were often, if Iím not mistaken, the result of private patronageórich donors such as the Medicis in Italy, who had the good sense to hire the best artists in Europe. We believe that sustainability requires a shift in the balance between private and public wealth and consumption, that is, toward the latter, which might include public art and architecture. How to manage that spending, of course, would involve politics, and political decisions about art tend to be hit or miss. Learning how to manage increased public cultural spending would be part of the education into citizenship of all people living in a sustainable society that more heavily stressed equity and community than we do now.
--Tom Prugh

Montevideo: What do you thing about the "actually" US government strategy for the environmental Organisations and the posibilitties for the sustainability and the effects in Latin America?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : If I understand your question correctly, my answer would be "not much." President Bushís stance toward the environment is overtly hostile on almost every front, and his uses of the governmentís own environmental regulatory machinery, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, reflect that hostility. The relaxation of new source review standards for polluting factories and power plants is only the most recent domestic example. Internationally, of course, the Bush administrationís snubbing of the Kyoto Protocol, which, for all its flaws, represents a global admission of the dangers inherent in climate change, is a disgrace. Given that a simple idea like improving environmental protection is not even on the administrationís radar screen, the odds of getting policymakers to seriously consider a more sophisticated idea like sustainability are long, and seem unlikely to improve until we can convince more people of the importance of these ideas, or can bring about a "regime change" at the next elections. I'm sorry to say I have little sense of how these issues play out in Latin America. But I would guess that positive U.S. leadership would go a long way toward raising their profile there.
--Tom Prugh

New York, New York: Does sustainability also imply environmental compatibility. Some energy sources may be sustainable, but if they contribute to poisoning the atmosphere or raising the global body temperature, then what good are they in the long-term?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : By definition sustainability implies environmental compatibility. Relying on energy sources that pollute the atmosphere, create toxic byproducts that last millennia, or change the climate simply isnít sustainable. Naturally, we are still discovering the problems of our industrialization and are dependent on these technologies (and vested interests have a lot of reasons to maintain this dependence). Most people would not be willing to give up electricity, nor could they even if they wanted to (we saw what happened to the Northeastern U.S. when a region's electricity is turned off) so weíre going to have to transition (as fast as we can do so without major disruption) to a system that still satisfies human needs but does so in a way that doesnít promise to weaken the health of current or future generations of humans or Earth's resilience.

--Erik

DOUGLAS, ARIZONA: What are some existing conflicts between countries or regions over resources? Who has the resources, developing countries or developed countries? How might these disputes be resolved if the situation were reversed? what could developing countries do to even the odds?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : There are many conflicts between countries or regions over resources. Some are violentómilitary conflict over diamonds in Africa for exampleówhile others are diplomaticógrowing water conflicts around the world. Even states within the same country compete when resources are limited: look at water drawn from the Colorado River. If you are interested in learning more about the links between resources and conflicts, I would point you to the work of Worldwatch researcher, Michael Renner, who recently published a paper on this topic, as well as his World Watch magazine article looking at how oil played into the decisions of the Bush administration to invade Iraq. You can find more about these at the Worldwatch website.

--Erik

Tokyo, Japan: Isn't it a contradictory notion ? At a preparatory phase of WSSD, I tried to clarify what could be Sustainable Development. I contemplated for months, discussed with NGO volunteers and bureaucrats, and came to the conclusion that SD is a contradictory notion, which could exist only in words or on paper but can never exist in reality. Most of the people disagree with me. They say if poverty is eradicated, the environment would become better. Or, alternative technology and/or new energy source could solve the global environmental issues. But I was not convinced. With the current world population and the way of life, it seems to me that we will see a catastrophy within a generation. Questions are: How do you think ? How should we live ?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : If by your question you mean to suggest that sustainability and development are contradictory, I have two answers. The first is that, as development is normally defined (i.e., as economic growth), yes, they are in contradiction. The first principle of sustainability is that perpetual economic growthóespecially to the extent that it involves the use of more resources to make more stuffóis impossible. The global economy nests inside the global ecosystem. At some point the benefits of having more stuff are outweighed by the loss of benefits caused by the depletion of resources and other natural capital. As Herman Daly and others have pointed out, we may already have reached or passed that point; that is, growth may already have become uneconomic.

The second answer is, no, theyíre not in contradictionóif you take development to mean improving (rather than enlarging). There is enormous scope for improving the efficiency with which economic activity satisfies human wants and needs. Because resources have been (or seemed) so abundant for so long, we have barely begun to explore ways to get more use and value out of them. This is fortunate, because there are radical inequities in the global distribution of wealth. Nearly 1.2 billion people live on less than $1 a day. Those people, and hundreds of millions of others only marginally better off, need economic growth to lift them out of the wretched poverty in which they are mired. Because growth not capped by human design will be capped by nature, the lucky rich need to make room for the growth required to alleviate poverty elsewhere. This notion wonít warm the heart of anyone itching to rush out and buy a Hummer. But as we wrote in the article, abundant research suggests that beyond a certain point having more stuff doesnít make you happier anyway. Decent food, clothing, shelter, education, and health care demonstrably improve human wellbeing. But the consumer society of the rich, developed world is a treadmill. Its promiseóthat the next pair of shoes or designer jeans, or a new Lexus, or a bigger house, will make us contentóis a mirage. So, to answer your last question, one possibility is to escape the desert of material excess and its mirages, and aim for sufficiency. This wonít be easy, but people who succeed will thereby be liberated to focus on more important things, while freeing up environmental "space" for those who would truly benefit from economic growth.
--Tom Prugh

Edison, NJ: Do you feel that it is possible to achieve sustainable communities that have successfully incorporated environmental equity goals?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : Not only possible, but necessary. We believe that any meaningful definition of sustainability must extend beyond mere survival to include human thriving. Itís pretty clear that inequityóin wealth, income, and access to the worldís resourcesóis widespread and increasing, and that it kills millions, threatens the survival of hundreds of millions, and prevents billions from truly thriving. Our vision of sustainable communities incorporates greater equity as a keystone.
--Tom Prugh

Bilbao: Do you think the cocnept of sustainability still refers to an ideological position? The abuse of the word it¥s playing the role of deconstructing the inner meaning of the concept as a central idea of the green political thought and, somehow, a new paradigm (in the sense Kuhn) confronting the old ideas. To sum up, do you think sustainability has lost the power to generate new ideas?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : Sustainability, and its littermate term sustainable development, have certainly been misused, but I donít think they have lost all meaning as a result. In fact, they seem to be serving as a banner for rallying support for a variety of progressive causes that are all related in their focus on human wellbeing and thriving. As for its power to generate new ideas, I would argue that since notions of what is sustainable are political by their very nature, and that politics always presupposes evolving views, then one generationís vision of sustainability will inevitably differ from anotherísóthat is, there will always be new ideas about it.
--Tom Prugh

Cedar Rapids, Iowa: There are many questions to ask, such as: Why is it not obvious that fossil fuels must be replaced by renewable energy sources ? As they are causing severe changes in the Earth's Atmosphere, not just CO2 changes, thermal changes and other trace gases must be considered too. Additionally the quantity of available fossil fuels, such as Oil and Natural Gas, will become severely limited very soon, regardless of the statements by those who may disagree. There are viable alternatives that can establish a very strong and stable long-term future economy, significantly different from todays chaos. When are people going to realize that most existing structures and the transportation mechanisms, one to annother, will not be sustainable in the very near future ?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : We agree with you that it is obvious that fossil fuels must be replaced, as we mentioned in the concluding paragraphs of our article. This and other technical solutions to the problems of sustainability are pretty clear, it seems to us. The political means to raise support for and implement them are less clear, which is why the main challenges of sustainability are political and economic rather than technical.
--Tom Prugh

Barcelona - Catalonia: What do you think about the use of sustainability indicators? can sustainability be measured? Which are, in your view, the limits and potentialities of these tools?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : The emergence of sustainability indicators is a very promising and hopeful development. Itís long been known that gross domestic product (GDP) is hopelessly flawed and misleading as a measure of how well off we are. Alternative measures that more comprehensively capture the multiple dimensions of wellbeing are desperately needed. Researchers have responded with several thoughtful and continually evolving and improving measures, such as the Ecological Footprint and the suite of indicators developed by Robert Prescott-Allen. Indicators have been developed for use at many different scales, from the community to the globe as a whole. All can be criticized on one or more grounds, but there is a strong impulse to improve these assessments and as the years go by we will see better and better ones developed. One difficult but critical challenge is to devise reasonable means to aggregate smaller-scale measures in a way that allows some sense of the scale of global human demands on the ecosystem relative to the capacity of that ecosystem. Using the Ecological Footprint methodology, itís been estimated that our growing demands exceeded the Earthís capacity by 1980 or so. Even if that estimate is subject to revision, it is surely a wake-up call.
--Tom Prugh

Brogo, NSW Australia: The question "what is sustainability anyway" caught my eye. For many years I have listened to the plea for sustainability and much commentary about how to reduce our footprint, however I have yet to see a definition of sustainability. So I offer you mine, "when 90% of an individual's or community's consumables (energy, water, food, infrastructure, etc) come from a radius of 20km from where they live, then they will not only be truly sustainable but they will be at peace with the world". I also offer one more little gem "Sustainability will be achieved by a cultural change, not by technology." The thing is we already have the technology to live sustainability and very comfortably as well, I know as I have achieved more than half of my 90% target, but there is little desire anywhere to make the cultural changes necessary to utilise the existing technology for sustainability. So after all of that my question is: Do you think more would be achieved if all the people involved in the "sustainability industry" stopped fighting governments and industry for what are just 10% gains started concentrating on achieving for their own lives the 90% target I spoke of earlier"?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis. Of course improving your own consumption habits will be essential to reducing environmental and social impact. But choosing to consume only locally will not achieve this. Nor would we be able to get many of the new necessitiesócomputers for exampleóthat are helping build the environmental movement and encourage the worldís peoples to adopt a sustainable model. The key will be to not consume things that provide no benefit or directly harm people (either the consumers or others). Our fossil fuel addiction must be treated as quickly as possible. And we must use energy more efficientlyósomething that will depend not just on consumers, but manufacturers of appliances, homebuilders, governments, and the utilities. Sustainability is a systemic changeówhich will demand a systemic and holistic response. Consumer habits will be a part of this, but just a part. The largest changes will come from the largest players: targeting corporations and governments, who have the power to make vast change, may seem slower and less effective but each victory means a huge change (Rainforest Action by demanding Home Depot to phase out old growth has made a much larger difference than it could have asking people--who often cannot know--to not buy old growth products).

But of course, these are not either-or ; itís going to take both. But if you only have 5 hours a week to commit to greening the world, think as big as you can. Instead of using all of that time on a small scale projectówork to organize your community to demand that your local government provide household efficiency assessments, build wind turbines, or create a new energy tax that will help fund the building of new parks or schools.

--Erik

Tulsa, Oklahoma: Is it too late? I have always used the analogy of a fish aquarium as a metaphorical model for the earths dynamic system, some call giai. Anyone who has ever had an aquarium knows that the balance has its ranges of tolerance. It can accommodate a finite level of swings (abuses) before it suddenly dives into inhabitability. Our reefs are dying. I notice, I think, that our trees are dying in our area at an faster than normal rate, have we reached or crossed the tipping point? I am working hard to start a diversified community sustained agricultural concern in my city. Most of what I find myself doing is educating the masses about our global food and trade crisis. This should be at the forefront of our concern, yet it is never on the evening news. What can be done to change this?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : We only have one Earthóno escaping to another worldóso we take care of it or we live on it in a reduced form. The collapse of Easter Islandís ecosystem didnít mean that everyone died, but it did mean increased suffering, a less complex society, and most probably a lower quality of life for those that survived. Surely the same will happen if we donít make some changes (Iím not trying to come across as a "doom and gloom" environmentalist, Iím just being realistic). Our inability to provide for the needs of 1 billion people while another billion consume incredibly unhealthily (1.1 billion people smoke, 1 billion are overweight) leads to at least a fifth of total annual deaths, probably many more. So the longer we wait to change course, the more suffering we will endureóespecially if we degrade the environment beyond its ability to heal itself. But if we come together and prioritize these changes (as individuals, communities, businesses, countries, and as a global society) we may be able to move beyond these times to a more sustainable one.

--Erik

Jodhpur, Raj., INDIA: In defining the sustainibility, please make sure to take into account the already present great inequality in the power usage in developed- and the developing countries in the world. What if every person in the world were to consume the same amount of energy as used per capita in USA or in other advanced countries? Can we ever generate that kind of energy without seriously polluting our environment? Will that be desirable for the future generations? If not,what should then be the optimum level of energy consumption by each person on this earth? The need to maintain high standards of living (by greater usage of energy) in the USA has led its government to engage in wars in Kuwait and in Iraq. Could this become a regular event in world affairs every decade or so? I think these questions have to be squarely faced by the mankind, and the earlier the better.

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : In our article we tried to address this point directly, making equity one of the four key elements of sustainability. About a billion people are chronically undernourished. More than a billion lack access to clean water. Considering the wealth of the world, this is morally unacceptable. The biggest challenge in the next decades is not only filling these basic needs, but reducing the waste inherent in our current consumption patternsóand by waste I mean use of resources for no actual benefit. For example: the average European citizen consumes 53 tons of materials each yearófor a high quality of life. The average American consumes 80 tons to achieve a similar standard of living. Clearly most of this 27 extra tons is unnecessaryóbut is putting a huge strain on the worldís environment. We must prioritize not only becoming more efficient consumers but creating the infrastructure that will support the best consumption choices. 1 billion people today are overweight (yes, as many as are underweight). This epidemic has been driven not just by a increasingly sedentary lifestyle, but by the growing poor dietary choices that much of the world makes. Sometimes, this can be explained simply because candy, cola, and chocolate tastes good, but a lot of the sugar and unhealthy fats we eat are hidden in the growing amount of packaged foods we eat. Not to mention the $40 billion of food advertising that encourages people around the world to enjoy another [calorie dense, nutritionally devoid] bag of chips. The recent adoption of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control points to an exciting futureóone where the worldís governments come together and agree to put the health of their citizens over the profit of a few powerful industries. This treaty has the potential to slowly wean humanity off of a drug that annually kills 5 million people. We must continue to, in the paraphrased words of the World Health Organization, make the healthy choices easy.

--Erik

Oakland CA: I see a time in the near future when "sustainability" becomes meaningless and we engage in the discussion more in reference to the particular situation or the needs of the affected entity (corporation, city, nation). This moves away from misunderstandings around the SD language toward specifics of energy, water, social justice. Is there a danger of loosing the systemic approach inherent in the overall concept of SD?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : As we noted in the piece, the terms sustainability and sustainable development have certainly been put to many uses, and not always with pure hearts. But I don't think it's becoming meaningless, and in fact I hope our article and like-minded writing will help reclaim the term and invest it with the meaning it deserves. As for the level of focus, you're quite right that the general principles of sustainability will translate into specific practices that can be applied by individuals, households, firms, nonprofits, governments and other organizations to their own unique circumstances. But I personally think the general idea of sustainability, if you take it all in, requires you to reframe your ideas about human life on Earth and is thus immensely valuable.
--Tom Prugh

San Luis Obispo, CA: Please respond to Wilfred Beckerman's statement that: "sustainable development is morally unacceptable and totally impracticle." Thanks.

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : I haven't read Dr. Beckerman's work, but if he has made the claim you cite in your question, I'd simply say he's got it backwards. Sustainability, at least in its simplest form, will be imposed upon us by natural limits if we don't achieve it in some other form we might prefer. Since nature's imposition of her limits is likely to be harsh and unpredictable, and result in needless misery and/or the deaths of many people, I'd argue that pursuing sustainability is morally mandatory. As for its practicality, I think we've already addressed that issue above: the main challenges are political, not technical.
--Tom Prugh

Williamsburg, VA: In a conversation with my sister-in-law, a well-educated lady in her 50s, I said the word sustainability. She had a vague notion that perhaps she'd heard it, but asked me what it meant. This is an example of the fact that the notion of living sustainably is a fringe concept, not yet a part of our popular culture. Are there any plans to go "Madison Avenue" with the idea that we must begin curbing our unsustainable activities? I know this cost lots and has been tried in some small ways, but I believe that in order to make real gains we have to get the concept into popular culture. Is anyone trying to do this? Ad Jammers and Take Back Your Time Day are two examples of worming the simple living message into popular culture. Politicans only do what the people ask them to do so that they can get reelected. The people, the working class, need to "get it" and ask for political change.

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : A great question! There are plansóat many different levels. You mention Adbustersóthey are trying to take back the mental environment in a way that attempts to take marketing on head to head. Itís a noble effort and I enjoy discovering successful ìculture jamsî as I walk around DC. However, culturejammers are terribly outgunned. The advertising industry spends almost a half trillion dollars each year (and this doesnít include subtler marketing and public relations work that doesnít get registered). Thatís not to say we shouldnít continue this. It is helping to shift the culture in the long-term away from commercialism. But this needs to be combined with other strategies. For the past 2000 years, religions have been warning of the dangers of materialism. While there voice is quieter now on this topic, some groups are starting to get louder and either encourage smarter choices or paths that are less consumer-centric. UNEP is also trying to work directly with the advertising industry to encourage them to get corporations to advertise their contributions to sustainability. This may be playing with fire, but the hope is that corporations will recognize the importance of sustainability plays for a growing number of consumers (which if they adopt this advertising strategy theyíll help to foster). They will then start to feel a need to changeóat least when NGOís and their shareholders demand accountability, which I am glad to say is happening more and more. A final note, another important way to spread the idea of sustainabilityóat least the one that we can all affordómay be through education. Unlike advertising, this can be implemented for free (minus the time it takes to organize schools, daycare centers, communities, parks, and/or religious groups to adopt some of the lessons). Plus, these initiatives have a positive side effect, they help to build community, an essential element in working towards the creation of a sustainable society.

--Erik

Glen Ellyn, Illinois: I am very interested in pursuing the implementation of sustainable practices as a career after college. What fields of study are best suited to furthuring my knowledge about this broad subject matter?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : You may get a unique answer from me, but thatís partly because my background is in social psychology, religious studies, and anthropology (perhaps not the most common disciplines for an environmental researcher). But these disciplines brought me to see the environmental crisis more as a symptom of societal choices and structure. It also has allowed me the opportunity to examine what drives social change (whether driven by the environmental and health communities, or corporations and marketing agencies). Of course, understanding issues of development and environmental science are also vitally important. But we can never know everything (some ancient philosophers even suggest the more we learn the less we know). So, Iíd say that all fields are relevant and worth studying. With the need for people working towards sustainability so huge, all disciplines will contribute to the discussion. So instead of choosing the right discipline, allow your interests to drive your choices, and this will bring you down the path that not only will help the movement, but continue to ìsustainî you throughout your careerówhether that means agriculture, business, law, or psychology.

--Erik

New York, NY: Have there been any attempts at establishing a standard definition of sustainability within the context of business? Do you think defined standards/ regulation would be an asset or detriment?

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : One of the points we made in the article was that the term sustainability can easily co-opted. Just as the mining company that is dumping waste directly into rivers can call itself the Sustainable Development Program Ltd., standards can be simply be "greenwashing." The old saying holds true: if the fox builds the henhouse, there is a good chance there will be a few holes. But then again good standardsócreated by the people who are meant to benefit by them (and mediated by NGOís, international agencies, and industry (if they prove interested in really addressing the sustainability issue)) will be essential to creating a sustainable economy. The UN Global Compact may prove to be a key step in helping to create a recognized standard on corporate social responsibility. And there are hundreds (literally) of other sustainability/responsibility schemes currently in play, many of which are helping at least regionally to shift corporate practices. As long as there is full accountability and transparency standards will surely prove helpful. Without these components, they can dissolve into simple windowdressing.

--Erik

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thanks for joining us today, Tom and Erik. Thank you as well to all of our participants.

Thomas Prugh and Erik Assadourian : Thanks Steve. It was a pleasure to talk with everyone today.

--Tom and Erik