Sustainability: Living with the Imperfections
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Sustainability: Living with the Imperfections DAVID EHRENFELD Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551, U.S.A., email [email protected] Newton and Freyfogle (2005, this issue) do a fine job cooperation for the sake of a common good that form of pointing out the origins of the term sustainability moral foundations of every high civilization.” Neverthe- and its serious defects when used as a goal for conser- less, the great majority of those who write about energy vation. Among those defects is the arrogant presumption sustainability think only of technological strategies—the inherent in the implication that it is up to us to manage hydrogen economy, fuel cells, solar power—which are and sustain the planet and that we are capable of doing by themselves utterly inadequate to solve the problem the job. This presumptuousness lends a self-contradictory (Ehrenfeld 2003, 2005). It is unfortunate that the term tone to sustainability because the idea that we can and sustainability so readily lends itself, for reasons clearly ex- should manage everything is what has helped get us and plained by Newton and Freyfogle, to this kind of thinking. the earth in so much trouble in the first place (Ehrenfeld Those who study and practice the conservation of 1981, 2000). This self-contradiction is particularly notice- species and ecosystems do not call on the idea of sus- able in the oxymoronic phrase sustainable development. tainability to justify their work as often as those involved The managerial implications of sustainability are real and with resources such as oil or timber, but there is some should be explored, but because so many good conserva- use of the word. For example, sustainability is sometimes tionists use the term, I think it is also worth some effort mentioned in association with the conservation of for- to try to find its redeeming values as well. est ecosystems (usually in connection with carbon diox- Nowhere are the issues raised by Newton and Freyfogle ide and global climate change) and the conservation and more dramatically illustrated than in the current debate restoration of wetlands (connected to flood management about how to cope with the growing shortage of cheap and the maintenance of ensured supplies of unpolluted energy. The demonstration and details of this shortage fresh water). are beyond the scope of this paper; elsewhere I have Paradoxically, the person most responsible for linking documented the overwhelming evidence that cheap en- the idea of sustainability, if not the word itself, with the ergy is disappearing rapidly (Ehrenfeld 2005), a view put conservation of species is Aldo Leopold. After all, it was forthbypetroleum geologists and environmental scien- Leopold (1949) who coined the brilliant metaphor of tists alike. Sustainability is often invoked in discussions the intelligent watchmaker who saves all the parts. The of energy. Almost always, however, energy sustainability implication of this metaphor is that we should save all is seen as coming about through technological change— species lest our ecosystems, like a watch missing a gear from the development of new energy sources and im- or pin, stop working. The analogy is an imperfect one, as provements in the efficiency of energy generation and Leopold himself surely knew, because the extinction of use—not by moral exertion and change in world view. rare species (or even some common ones) is not likely to Rarely do we hear or read about a need for voluntary (or make ecosystems stop working or, in most cases, to make mandatory) reduction in the frivolous use of energy that them function very differently than before. But this is be- is so widespread in globalized industrial society. There are side the point. The watchmaker metaphor, still used today exceptions, however. In one of the best and most author- to justify species conservation and restoration, is an early itative contemporary books on energy production and equivalent of “sustainability” and as such has many of the consumption, Vaclav Smil (2003) calls for energy conser- imperfections listed by Newton and Freyfogle (Ehrenfeld vation as “part of much broader appeals for moderation 1981). But I do not think that most conservation ecolo- (if sacrifice may seem too strong a term), frugality, and gists need or use utilitarian sustainability to validate their work for themselves or others. Although the criticisms given by Newton and Freyfogle Paper received August 20, 2004; revised manuscript accepted are deserved, I think there is another side to the story. September 22, 2004. As the authors noted, sustainability has many meanings, 33 Conservation Biology, Pages 33–35 Volume 19, No. 1, February 2005 34 Living with Sustainability Ehrenfeld some of them contradictory. This can cause problems, es- tains one of the most devastating and trenchant attacks pecially in contexts where strict definition is called for, on the Brundtland Commission’s Report and the phrase but it can also be an advantage. It allows people to set very sustainable development to be found in the literature. different approaches to conservation within the single, Wackernagel and Rees are regional planners whose in- broadly accepted framework of sustenance and continua- terpretation of “sustainability” has done a great service tion. Thus, there are those for whom sustainability simply to conservation. Rees (2002) has written: “We humans means using energy and materials more efficiently while are unlikely to conserve anything for which we do not searching for new sources of energy that allow us to keep have love and respect, empathy and compassion. Indeed, on doing what we have been doing indefinitely, unhin- it might be argued that for ecological sustainability, we dered by shortages and climate change (Browne 2004). must come to feel in our bones that the violation of na- On the other hand, there are those, such as David Orr ture is a violation of self.” If sustainability can embrace (2002), for whom sustainability means everything from such ideas, perhaps it is not so bad after all. coping with global poverty and militarization to reducing Would we be better off using Leopold’s goal of land hedonism, individualism, and conspicuous consumption health in place of sustainability? The latter is a hybrid of while promoting a spiritual revival of humankind. Sustain- means and goals and does not clarify what is to be sus- ability can serve as an umbrella, sheltering and bringing tained and by whom. Leopold, according to Newton and together in dialogue people with widely divergent views Freyfogle, explained “land health” as “a vibrant, fertile, who nevertheless share some common principles. self-perpetuating community of life that included peo- Ecologists are accustomed to a similar breadth of mean- ple, other life forms, soils, rocks, and waters.” Good, we ing in many of the words they use. Of course, terms such can all accept that. But I submit that the words “land as net primary productivity or logistic growth have fairly health,” without Leopold’s accompanying explanation, precise definitions. But competition, diversity, stability, will not mean those things to most people, certainly community, ecosystem, species, niche, invasive, exotic, not to the majority of concerned citizens—scientists and and many other ecological words and phrases have mul- nonscientists—who are unfamiliar with agrarian philoso- tiple meanings, and their definitions have been subjected phy. They will understand these two words as being ex- to vigorous debate over the years. Far from being a liabil- clusive of human concerns, even though neither Leopold ity, this makes ecology interesting and has done much to nor Newton and Freyfogle (nor I) see land health in that increase the intellectual depth of the field. way. Land health has the potential of being exclusive and My major disagreement with Newton and Freyfogle restricted in its appeal, which is not the case with sustain- concerns their attack on the idea of the “ecological foot- ability. I could define sustainability as “a vibrant, fertile, print,” in which they see sustainability defined in terms self-perpetuating community of life that includes people, of economic values, to the exclusion of moral values and other life forms, soils, rocks, and waters,” and probably concern for nonhuman life. The first comprehensive ex- more people would accept that as a good definition than planation of ecological footprint theory was set forth in they would if it were applied to land health. the book Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human So if we must use a single word or phrase to explain Impact on the Earth,byWackernagel and Rees (1996), a what we are about, perhaps we should keep sustainabil- book that was not cited by Newton and Freyfogle. In his ity, warts and all. Words are funny things—often their preface, Rees clearly states that “the ‘environmental crisis’ connotations are as important as their meanings, as any is less an environmental and technical problem than it is a good political speechwriter knows. For all of its defects, behavioral and social one ....Asociety driven mainly by sustainability has an enduring appeal that cannot be ig- selfish individualism has all the potential for sustainability nored. True, the word has a great deal of wiggle room but of a collection of angry scorpions in a bottle.” Ecological not nearly so much, for example, as Republican or Demo- footprint analysis is predicated on the idea that “humans crat in today’s usage. The danger with this sort of broad, are gifted by the potential for self-awareness and intelli- vague term is that it can embrace people whose methods gent choice, and knowing our circumstances is an invi- and objectives are antithetical to each other. This may be tation to change [emphasis in original text].” the case when sustainable is coupled with development, Iargue that “the recognition of our ignorance” and “the as Wackernagel and Rees ably point out.