Sunday, April 29, 2012

Week One.  What is Sustainability?

I have found trying to get my head around the meanings and interpretations and implications of sustainability somewhat mindboggling. The wealth of information and differing viewpoints is overwhelming.

Reading through the course material there were some key definitions and ideas that stood out for me.

The first model I encountered was the Triple Bottom Line, which explores the interrelationship between social, environmental and economic aspects of sustainability. This definition was from Anna Hughes compilation of definitions of sustainability 

“ The triple bottom line focuses corporations not just on the economic value they add, but also on the environmental and social value they add – and destroy. At its narrowest, the term ‘triple bottom line’ is used as a framework for measuring and reporting corporate performance against economic, social and environmental parameters.” (Elkington, 1980 ) 1.49 Triple Bottom Line: " (Hughes, 2009).

So I began to build a picture of the potential inter-relationships and the implications of these.

Another definition that stood out for me was:
“ Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” Our Common Future, (Brundtland Report), 1987 (Hughes. 2009).

This sat well with my notions of future impact and the need to look forward. It was also expanded upon in the 2nd of the Top 10 Myths about Sustainability 
  • Myth 2: "Sustainability is all about the environment."


The discussion around this explored the original intent of the sustainability movement  “to let poor nations catch up to richer ones in terms of standard of living.” But then moved on to look at the role of the economy and introduced the concept of the biosphere thus creating a more holistic approach to meeting current needs whilst respecting the future (Lemonick, 2009).

The 3rd myth also had a strong connection for me
  • Myth 3:“Sustainable” is a synonym for “green.”


Discussion here explored the concept that “there’s a fair amount of overlap between the terms, “green” usually suggests a preference for the natural over the artificial” but in fact it may be forms of the artificial that can actually enhance sustainable practices. This was particularly challenging for me when sustainability and nuclear power were aligned together (Lemonick, 2009).

So parts of the bigger picture were coming together for me, which was reflection in another of the definitions from Anna Hughes collection:
“ in scientific terms, it means a system state that can endure indefinitely” (AtKisson, 2001) “… has come to mean long-term survival and well-being in general, both for human civilization and the rest of nature” (AtKisson, 2001) 1.40 Sustainability: (Hughes, A. 2009).


This quote led me to a tribute by Alan AtKisson for a prominent sustainability thinker and doer. This helped outline the thinking behind and the process of sustainability and the potential for a sustainable future.

Then I came across the next model of strong sustainability:  looking at the same 3 factors as before but in a different configuration.

Strong sustainability means the preservation of the integrity of all ecological systems in the biosphere.”   (Phase2. nd). 

Strong Sustainability Model

Ayres, van den Bergh & Gowdy (nd) offer a readable paper into the differences between weak and strong sustainability.

If I go back to my definition created prior to this reading:
For me sustainability is all about choice!  The choices we make around the careful and thoughtful use of resources to nurture and maintain ourselves, our environment and support a viable future.

I feel I was on track with this but now have more knowledge behind what those choices involve.

References: 



1 comment:

  1. there are indeed as many definitions as people thinking about sutainability.
    I am very enchanted by the enabling conditions for strong sustainability and think they offer hope and are likely to encounter resistance. Choice and power take a bit of a shaking with them. Difficult for the Rational, western liberal model to deal with.

    ReplyDelete