Beyond Sustainability: Communicating a New Environmental Movement

Editorial

Clara Changxin Fang

focused on the preservation of nature at the exclu-sion of human welfare. Ted Nordaus and Michael Shellenberger’s 2004 essay, “The Death of Envi-ronmentalism” caused controversy by stating that “environmentalism is today more about protect-ing a supposed thing—the environment—than advancing the worldview articulated by Sierra Club founder John Muir, who nearly a century ago observed, ‘When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.’”2 Sustainability, as opposed to envi-ronmentalism, is considered a more inviting and inclusive term because it implies the connection between the environment and the welfare of soci-eties that depend on the environment.

This sounds like an admirable objective, except that its usage is so watered down it conveys no urgency about the problem or the intensity with which we should address it. Sustainability is a minimum requirement, not an aspiration. The Oxford English Dictionary defines sustainable as “able to be maintained at a certain rate or level.” It is related to sustenance, “the maintaining of some-one or something in life or existence.” When we sustain a medical patient, we don’t mean to heal him; we mean to keep him alive. When we say we want to sustain an institution’s finances, it doesn’t mean to grow it; it means to keep it from falling into debt. How long can people be sustained on polluted air? A long time. They could live for de-cades with asthma and eventually die from lung cancer, but they are sustained in the meanwhile. How long can the planet sustain global warming? Forever. Fifty percent of the world’s species may become extinct, but there will be enough to sus-tain life on earth no matter what we do.

Sustainability implies that the goal is to maintain the status quo. But has it been established that the status quo is good? Many countries have sus-tainable development as their goal. Development could refer to progress in knowledge, happiness, or social equity, but in most cases, sustainable development refers to economic growth. And who benefits from that growth? Even if it can be

Sustainability is a

minimum requirement,

not an aspiration.

Sustainability has been the favored term used by the environmental movement today to describe the goal of pursuing development within the limits of nature’s ability to replenish itself. However, the term lacks the aspirational quality needed to convey the urgency of the problem. At best, the term implies a minimal requirement for the survival of the human species, and at worst, it is used to greenwash busi-ness as usual. The environmental movement needs to reconsider its strategy of appealing to people’s self-interest and the need for economic efficiency and instead use words that appeal to our intrinsic values.

As a sustainability coordinator at a university, I am often asked what is it that I do. I say that I help the institution reduce waste and conserve re-sources such as energy and water. But to tell the truth, I myself am not even sure what the word sustainability means from a practical perspective. Everything is sustainable these days—sustain-able tourism, sustainable agriculture, sustain-able business, and sustainable development. Yet despite its ubiquity, sustainability has become a catch phrase known only to insiders. The widely cited 1987 definition of sustainable development from the Brundtland Commission, “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,”1 sounds wise but does little practically in terms of defining or inspiring actions. What kind of needs? Whose needs? For the most part in our society, everything is needed, future generations be damned. Sustainability doesn’t evoke anything about why it might be good to give up some of those needs.

So how did sustainability come to be used so much? Environmentalism was born out of the conservation movement, where individuals like John Muir and Aldo Leopold advocated the pres-ervation of wild lands in opposition to develop-ment and industrialization. But in the late twen-tieth century, traditional environmentalism was perceived as elitist and narrow—a movement

186 Sustainability MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • Vol. 6 No. 4 • August 2013 • DOI: 10.1089/sus.2013.9859

Clara Changxin Fang

sustained indefinitely, growth alone does not lead to knowledge, happiness, or social equity.

Michael Heiman in his essay “Education for Sus-tainable Development: Addressing the Oxymo-ron” writes, “We cannot change our relationship with nature until we change the social relations of production, as the same system that exploits na-ture also exploits human labor.”3 Individual waste and consumption are problems, but the bigger problem remains the system of production that necessitates waste and imposes a lifestyle of high energy consumption upon consumers who have no choice but to pay for it.

It is true that the environmental movement needs to go beyond protecting the environment alone. As we have learned, technical solutions, such as energy-efficient light bulbs and hybrid cars, do not fundamentally change the capitalistic impera-tive for growth that currently drives the global economy and global ecological destruction. The way out of this system calls for nothing less than a revolution in human relations, the way that the American revolution changed the way govern-ments related to the people. The birth of modern democracy was a systemic change that had noth-ing to do with making the existing system at the time more sustainable. We need another revolu-tion, one in which the power of the employer over the employee, of the rich over the poor, of man over nature, are overturned.

In George Orwell’s essay, “Politics and the Eng-lish Language,” he advises writers to never use a Latinate word if a plain Anglo-Saxon one will do.4

Orwell was convinced that people who couch their ideas in flowery, Latinate language are trying to hide something. I’m afraid that sustainability has become that Latinate word used to justify our exploitation of nature rather than our champion-ing of it. It has become that technical, abstract word used to describe anything that does less harm to the environment while still maintaining business as usual. As a motivational word, it has no resonance. You will never hear sustainability in a poem. It will never appear in a pop song. It is not poetic and certainly not inspirational.

If we try to save the environment by appealing to people’s self-interest, we will not get very far. Imagine the heroes of the civil rights movement using logic and cost-benefit analysis to argue their cause. These battles can only be won through the heart, by appealing to what is most noble and self-sacrificing within us. The environmental

movement needs words that are inspiring and aspirational. Words such as environmental, responsibility, and stewardship imply that our duty is not just to maintain ourselves; we also have a moral responsibility toward the rest of creation. They appeal to our sense of spirituality and com-passion. Words such as environmental justice or eco-fairness appeal to our values of equality and fairness, because ultimately, protecting the environment is about protecting people’s access to clean water, clean air, and fresh food. No group has the right to take these fundamental things away from another group in the name of profit, convenience, or sustainable development. When the environmental movement can draw upon humanitarian values of fairness, justice, compas-sion, and community instead of values of efficien-cy and self-preservation, then we are on the right track to building a movement with broad appeal.

References

1. Brundtland Commission. Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. Published as Annex to General Assemblydocument A/42/427.2. Nordaus T, and Shellenberger M. The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post Environmental World. June 16, 2010. http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/the_death_of_envi-ronmentalism (last accessed 7/5/13).3. Heiman M. “Education for Sustainable Devel-opment: Addressing the Oxymoron,” April 2013. http://meridian.aag.org/callforpapers/program/AbstractDetail.cfm?AbstractID=49107 (last ac-cessed).4. Orwell G. “Politics and the English Language.” Horizon, London, 1946.

Clara Fang is a writer, artist, and sustainability professional. She has worked in the Office of Sus-tainability at Yale University, Swarthmore College, City of Albany (New York), and Towson University, where she is currently sustainability manager. Ms. Fang earned a master of environmental manage-ment from the Yale School of Forestry and Environ-mental Studies where she was the recipient of the John and Barbara Yellott Award and a US Garden Club scholarship. In addition, she holds a BA from Smith College and an MFA in creative writing from University of Utah. Her poems and essays have been published widely in literary journals and can be read on her blog residenceonearth.net.

Sustainability has

become that Latinate

word used to justify our

exploitation of nature

rather than our

championing of it. It has

become that technical,

abstract word used to

describe anything that

does less harm to the

environment while still

maintaining business

as usual.

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • Vol. 6 No. 4 • August 2013 • DOI: 10.1089/sus.2013.9859 Sustainability 187