How do we develop, improve, and modernize our societies without ruining the Earth?
I believe that this is the most important challenge facing our generation. The nature of society has changed dramatically over the past hundred years with the development and implementation of new technologies and ideologies to the point that our society as we know it now would be almost unrecognizable to someone from two hundred years ago, and even more so to our ancestors dating back to the time of Christ. And yet, some of our tendencies and behaviors have remained unchanged. Over the past millenniums, we as humans have consistently used the natural resources of Earth in an aggressive and extensive way. Our impact on the planet started first with the development of agriculture, then rapid growth of the human population as well as industrialization, and more recently with phenomenon such as waste, pollution, and suburban sprawl. We are drastically changing the surface of our planet, which would not be problematic but for the fact that we are more rapidly than ever ruining the Earth.
This is the premise behind the buzz about sustainability. Make no mistake, sustainability is a broad concept, and is often thrown around in political circles as a simple, well-defined goal that we should work to. While sustainability certainly is the goal, a truly meaningful and effective discourse on the subject requires breaking down the broad concept into smaller areas and then even smaller sections. At that point, we can begin to identify real solutions and accomplish the gradual movement toward a more sustainable future.
Sustainability is often closely associated with environmental concerns. People think of sustainability and they think of “going green” with more green space, clean energy, and less waste. These things are all components of sustainability, but we should think of sustainability as harmony between three different dimensions of our world. These dimensions are environmental, economic, and social. The environment deals with the natural world—things like biodiversity, our water supply, and climate. The social aspect consists of our culture, lifestyle, and health. The economic part of sustainability pertains to businesses, employment, and resources, among others. Once we find a harmony between the environmental world, our economic world, and our social world, we have reached sustainability. The diagram below illustrates this.
In this Venn diagram, we normally subsist in the areas where two circles overlap. These areas are equitable, bearable, and viable. These areas are not truly sustainable because in these areas, the circle that is not included is usually severely harmed by this status. Take, for example, a pollution control law. This fits under the bearable category, because it protects the environment and also protects the health of people. However, these regulations limit economic possibilities. Actions that are only fit in one of the circles are unpopular or extreme, and thus are rare. Examining issues on sustainability in this way can reveal fascinating perspectives.
Consider Marcellus shale drilling in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This is a hot button issue because there is dispute over where it might fall on the sustainability diagram. We know that this form of drilling is economical—indeed, it is often highly lucrative. However, the social and environmental affects are less certain. Many people claim that drilling is good for small communities in that it provides employment and brings new wealth to poor, decaying towns. In this way, it is good socially. Some people claim that the drilling does no significant harm to the environment—not considering the burning of fossil fuels in the form of natural gas. If these arguments were correct, then Marcellus shale drilling would be a relatively sustainable practice. However, some people claim that the drilling is catastrophically harmful to the environment and pollutes drinking water. Some people would also argue that out of state drilling companies with their large, heavy machinery and unfamiliar employees are damaging already fragile communities. From these perspectives, the drilling is only economical and is the furthest thing from sustainable. The uncertainty about the consequences of drilling makes this topic a highly debatable issue.
Understanding sustainability as the harmony of three dimensions—environment, social, and economic—gives us an idea of what sustainability means. Breaking it down into these components makes us think that perhaps achieving sustainability is actually quite simple. Well, it’s not. The basic problem behind achieving sustainability is limited, and dwindling, resources, and a rapidly growing population, along with an increase in consumption. The earth only has so much matter—it only has a limited amount of soil, water, air, minerals, and fossil fuels. We are using these resources at a faster rate than they are being replenished. Sometime, we will run out. The problem is compounded by a rapid growth in population and the increased use of resources by nations like China and India. China is approaching the level of unsustainability that the United States thrives on. Despite having the most “green technology” in the world and the capital to invest in sustainable practices, the lifestyle we as Americans enjoy is the least sustainable lifestyle in the world. By some estimates, if every human being lived like Americans, we would need two and a half Earths. We drive more, eat more, and use more than anyone else on the planet. Ironically, we are also the ones in the position to make the world a more sustainable place.
Just as we cannot fully enjoy life and without a healthy body, society cannot prosper and improve without a healthy home. Earth is that home. Without a healthy Earth, efforts to improve our situation and solve problems would be in vain. While the health of our planet is at an all time low, we are at an all time high in the potential we have to achieve a more sustainable society. In this blog, I hope to explore more specifically the changes possible, the efforts being made, and more on the ideas behind sustainability. The solution to the problem, “How do we develop, improve, and modernize our societies without ruining the Earth?” comes through sustainable development, and is up to us to achieve this ideal.
I like how you went into more detail about what sustainability really means, not just all the genetic go-green stuff. It’s always been my belief that in order to truly improve environmental conditions we have to first achieve a change in people’s minds about it. Yes, everyone likes the idea of protecting the Earth and maybe tries to recycle every once in a while, but we really have to get the mindset that saving the Earth isn’t a maybe, but a must. We need to sacrifice the luxury Range Rovers for a more environmentally friendly, less flashy car. But that won’t happen until people have a genuine care in the future of the planet. How to achieve this will probably be a lot harder than putting a blue bin next to every trash can.
I just thought it would be interesting to bring up that my brother is an engineer that worked with companies that drilled into the Marcellus Shale. He assured all of us that it really is the safest form of fuel harvesting and that cases where the environment has suffered have been extremely rare and the company always makes the effort to restore it, as well as donating to environmental funds to help improve the land around them.
The world needs more Aarons and Sams!
It’s sad how ignorant people are when it comes to sustainability and environment. I’m not a complete know it all, far from it actually, but I know enough that my impact matters. People can’t just wait until the dangers of the environment are too large to ignore. We need to control it now before the damage is irreversible. I do agree that America does have to lead the way. I think we’re taking the right steps though: even if they are small. All around campus we see recycling bins. I spend a good minute trying to figure out which bin my yogurt containers needs to go into. In Maryland, there’s a plastic bag tax implemented to deter consumers from discarding their bags into the waters. I have definitely noticed that there is a spike in awareness about the environment: especially our generation. Hopefully by the time our generation has control over policies, we can rejuvenate the environment and balance our consumption.
Aaron, I really enjoyed your blog post. I too am posting about the environment, focusing on the current condition, discussion of need for reform, and emerging technology.
What strikes me most about your post is the magnitude of our unsustainability; I have heard the multiple earths example as well. The issue is apparent: we can’t continue ignoring the rising levels of pollution, such as the “plastic ocean” currently developing in five separate areas in the Pacific. Like you said, we need a balance.
In my E-design class, we learned of a sustainability ideal known as “cradle to cradle”, where products are planned to be reusable/recyclable after their primary use, either being repaired and sent back out or broken down into safe materials. Another focus is on the production of these eco-materials, which would fit in the bearable category in the diagram. As more eco-friendly products come on to the market and production methods are altered, we can improve the sustainability bit by bit.
Another aspect is the development of green tech, which, also given time, will become affordable, but needs to be economically viable. The trouble is, concepts like a hydrogen economy need extensive testing outside of probability examples, but to be used in industry, need to be used extensively. Some companies are unwilling to risk the concepts. However, as I’ll write about in my next blog, there are attempts to manufacture eco-friendly equipment, automobiles, and household appliances, and produce energy through alternative means.
That said, politics always plays a part, as do the social issues you draw up. The fracking example hits close to home. It is important that the local community voice its concerns, but as Carl Sagan once put it, “Who speaks for the earth?”
That said, I look forward to reading more of your posts and would be up for cross-blog discussion.