Slowing Down to Make a U-Turn

Defining sustainability is similar to defining justice or free will. It’s hard work. Philosophers have bickered for over 2,000 years to define these important concepts, and the results have been disappointing -- lots of books and plenty of academic tenure, but no agreed upon definition. Like justice, we have an intuitive sense of what sustainability means, but as had been demonstrated by the discussion board already, a single, memorable, meaningful definition continues to evade us.

Any journey requires we start from somewhere, and I suggest the World Business Council on Sustainable Development is a good somewhere. In 1992, they introduced and have since championed the concept of eco-efficiency. The three broad objectives of eco-efficiency are as follows:

1. Reducing the consumption of resources: This includes minimizing the use of energy, materials, water and land, enhancing recyclability and product durability, and closing material loops.
2. Reducing the impact on nature: This includes minimizing air emissions, water discharges, waste disposal and the dispersion of toxic substances, as well as fostering the sustainable use of renewable resources.
3. Increasing product or service value: This means providing more benefits to customers through product functionality, flexibility and modularity, providing additional services and focusing on selling the functional needs that customers actually want. This raises the possibility of the customer receiving the same functional need with fewer materials and less resources.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development Eco-Efficiency: Creating more value with less impact. (http://www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/eco_efficiency_creating_more_value.pdf) (2000)

Several criticisms have been lobbed at eco-efficiency. First, critics charge that eco-efficiency fails to address the issue of societal equity, one of the three bottom lines. Second, it is promoting doing less bad instead of doing no bad. That is, producing junk is still bad even if you are using fewer resources to make it. Michael McDonough and Michael Braungart in Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things most forcefully articulated this view. The metaphor often used is that of a car heading in the wrong direction. It doesn’t matter if you slow the car down, because you are still headed in the wrong way.

It is true eco-efficiency doesn’t capture the idea of a fair and just community. Work needs to be done in this area. As for the second argument, the metaphor gives a clue to a response. No one disagrees human society is headed in the wrong direction. But, to turn a car around, what must first happen? The driver has to slow down to make the u-turn. Eco-efficiency is the brake to make that happen.

Eco-efficiency is the beginning point. Obviously, we need to move beyond simply using fewer resources and examine the more challenging issue of human consumption. But, a journey doesn’t start with the 45 step; it begins with the first step.

Given my position so far, are eco-efficiency and sustainability synonymous? Because eco-efficiency is narrowly focused on resource consumption, I would suggest not. Sustainability is a blimp view of the planet and society. I would define it as follows:

Sustainability is acting in balance with nature so that humanity and other life thrive forever.

I am partial to this definition for several reasons. It includes the idea of intergenerational equity – tomorrow is just as important as today. It recognizes that other creatures have the same rights as humans. It is driven by an action verb, and it is by doing that we define ourselves. Finally, it is a positive vision of what is possible.

Will some find this definition problematic? Of course! My hope is that thoughtful people have many, many discussions about the definition of sustainability, because it is only when we argue that we discover what truly matters to us.