sign in sign up
<<
Home , Greenwashing, Sustainability

Green versus From Semantics to Enlightenment

By Ernest J. Yanarella,1 Richard S. Levine,2 and Robert W. Lancaster3

Abstract and sustainability and abets it; in the book’s subtitle and text, he dubs the needed sustainability transfor- The sustainability movement from the grassroots mation as a “green .” His critique in most to the global level has been both enriched and hob- respects is right on the money. Pointing to the pro- “In the green bled by the many different versions of sustainability liferation of books and popular magazine articles articulated in scholarly and popular writings, town espousing the many ways of going green, Friedman revolution we’re hall forums, and international conferences. The scolds: “In the green revolution we’re having, every- having, everyone’s latest expression of this cacophony is evidenced one’s a winner, nobody has to give up anything … That’s not a revolution. That’s a party. We’re having in the emergence of “green-talk” and the growing 1 a winner, nobody substitution of varieties of “greenness” for sustain- a .” What really separates a “green party” has to give up ability and in everyday and from a genuine sustainability revolution? And what media parlance. This critical essay seeks to accom- light do these two terms shed on the other grada- anything … That’s plish two things: draw out the differences between tions on the to sustainability con- the green label and sustainability, and situate this tinuum that have entered the global sustainability

not a revolution. debate within a hierarchical sustainability rubric debate? That’s a party.” that allows us to meaningfully offer gradations on the sustainability continuum. In so doing, we seek First things first: how can we overcome the confu- sion between the terms green and sustainability? Friedman to illuminate the stakes involved in this conceptual debate and provide clarity about what these putative Although they are often used interchangeably, these variations on sustainability imply for both theory two concepts mean different things (Table 1). Green is typically associated with individual products and and practice. In an age of mounting finite 2 scarcities, rapid change, and continuing processes that seek to “pick the low-hanging ” global growth, combined with the grow- that is available in seemingly abundant supply in a ing clamor for Western-style economic development, country like ours where remains a scandal in the sustainability movement is not going to go away. many realms of commerce and industry and where Sadly, the meaning of sustainability and sustainable profligacy continues to be a proud and thoughtless development remains highly contested and subject to feature of consumer . Landfills throughout ongoing and fierce dispute. This state of affairs is evi- America continue to swell even though the mantra denced by the growing shift away from the language of reduce, reuse, and recycle is intoned in television of sustainability and its variants to the increasingly commercials and on elementary school blackboards. popular, and easier to swallow, term green. Green practices are ideologically safe practices that do not fundamentally disturb the driving forces of Keywords: sustainability, green, green washing, and corporate profit-making. environmentalism, By contrast, sustainability is tied to whole , of Green vs. Sustainability: How which individual consumer products and other com- mercial materials are a part. Its imperative breaks They Differ and Why It Matters through the ideological veil of mass production and consumerist without end, calling for In his latest book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why a cultural change in the definition of human need We Need a Green Revolution—and How It Can Re- and the renovation of our competitive individualist new America, Times columnist Thomas orientation to other individuals and toward posses- Friedman both criticizes the confusion over green sions.3 1Department of Political , 2School of , University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. Going green distinguishes itself from sustainability 3Department of Political Science, Kentucky State University, in that conceptually it balances precariously on one Frankfort, Kentucky. leg ( or economic vitality) of

296 SUSTAINABILITY MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 2 NO. 5 • OCTOBER 2009 • DOI: 10.1089/SUS.2009.9838

Yanerella 2.5.indd 1 10/25/09 11:23 AM Table 1. Green vs. Sustainability: A Typology of Differences

Dimensions Green Sustainable

Relation to Only one leg All three legs (environment health, sustainability tripod (environmental improvement) vitality, )

Focus Individual components Interplay of individual components and whole

Tactics/strategy Tactical application of activities Strategic discovery of the proper that involve “picking low-hanging fruit”; scale that will make successive promoting individual changes and steps and actions easier reforms to make world less unsustainable and less costly by designing and implementing a sustainable, self-balancing system

Political orientation Conventional, “pragmatic realist,” reformist Innovative, visionary, revolutionary (“going to the roots”)

Scale Individual devices, products, indicators, region as the level at which human practices, as most tractable and social disequilibriums and ecological level for greening insults can be dynamically rebalanced

Risks or excesses Utopian fantasizing or top-down authoritarian policy action

Definition of success Infinite of incremental Reduction of improvements to a city region’s fair -share

4

the sustainability tripod (economic vitality, envi- social, and urban processes to achieve a dynamic, ronmental health, and social equity), while sustain- virtuous, and balanced relationship with . ability rests securely on all three legs of that tripod As we have argued elsewhere,10 these sustainable, (or the “,” another sustainabil- balance-seeking processes never fully attain a static ity metaphor). The vocabulary of greenness allows end-state precisely because human life and social the environmental activist to focus on a narrower activities are always throwing up new destabiliz- agenda for change while leaving in abeyance the ing challenges, which in turn must be tackled and When green-talk more politically sensitive and upsetting social equity brought into balance with the larger system. Thus leg. Even putative sustainability city programs pro- green evokes small incremental improvements in and green practice moted in U.S. and Canadian (e.g., Sustainable social practices, modern , and human are promoted by Chattanooga5 and Canada’s Hamilton-Wentworth habitats, while sustainability implies a revolution Vision 2020 program6) pay only lip service to poli- in organizing our personal and collective lives and fundamentally cies addressing equity and fairness. Sustainability, inhabiting the planet. unsustainable at the very least, is built upon a core meaning that makes the pursuit of all three legs necessary and Like sustainability, green can take on ideologi- companies or other compelling. cal expression. When green-talk and green prac- tice are promoted by fundamentally unsustainable uncaring institutions, Green is popular and easy to do, as Friedman shows, companies or other uncaring institutions, they because it connotes quick and inexpensive steps to easily congeal into a deceptive ideology known they easily congeal make the world less unsustainable by deployment as “greenwashing.”11 Whether it be “revolutionary into a deceptive of tactics that reduce the environmental impact of research to save the planet” advertised by power- human activity, agricultural and industrial produc- ful oil companies12 or “clean ” trumpeted by ideology known as tion, and our . But the enemy— the coal industry,13 the underlying ideological con- unsustainability as a set of social, cultural, and ceit of the jingles is intentional; their purpose is to “greenwashing.” economic systems and practices—is never directly perpetuate the trends and practices that are leading confronted. Instead, 100 simple palliatives, 12 easy the United States and the world to an ecological prec- practices, six quick and inexpensive ideas are sent ipice. Naturally, sustainability, too, risks falling into into the battlefield without hope or consideration ideological excess. When sustainability is separated that they will really vanquish the adversary. 7-9 from campaigns of public understanding and ac- tive political involvement or detached from people, Sustainability, on the other hand, is radical (in the communities, and their , it can become proverbial sense of “going to the roots”) and implies a blueprint for authoritarian, top-down policy undertaking the necessary changes in our economic, action.

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 2 NO. 5 • OCTOBER 2009 • DOI: 10.1089/SUS.2009.9838 SUSTAINABILITY 297

Yanerella 2.5.indd 2 10/25/09 11:23 AM Table 2. A Sustainability Rubric

Level Characteristic/Presupposition

0. Environmentalism Bifurcates wilderness and built environment and identifies wilderness as “environment” Understands the relationship between economic growth and environment as matters of balance or repair Perceives economic-environmental rebalancing or mitigation through government regulation and bureaucratically man- dated standards or mechanisms; involves purchase of credits

1. Smart growth Rejects no-growth and controlled growth while seeking smart alternatives to Recognizes the need to curb economic growth and commercial/residential growth Advances palliatives to alleviate adverse consequences of uncontrolled growth intended to elevate overall Pursues adoption of smart planning through neo-traditional neighborhood design; high-density downtown commercial and residential construction; mixed-use, high-density corridors congenial to mass transit and ; PDR and TDR agreements

Focuses on only one of three legs of sustainability tripod Focuses on individual devices, products, indicators, practices, buildings 2. Green products, techniques, practices, Engages in “pick the low-hanging fruit” practice—i.e., individual changes and reforms that make world less unsustainable Orients itself within the political realm as conventional, “pragmatic realist,” and reformist policies and actions Defines success in terms of indefinite progress through incremental improvements

3. Weak sustainability Embraces rhetoric of definition of sustainable development Identifies sustainability as a never-ending pathway pursued through sustainability indicators marking progress toward an ambiguous, unarticulated goal Insofar as the goal of sustainability is operationalized, it is treated in terms of the three-legged table metaphor: economic well-being, environmental health, and social equity

Retains the practice in policy making of separating economic “development” (growth) and through practices intended to mitigate the negative consequences of the former upon the latter

4. Transitional Through adoption of LEED certification standards, promotes a whole- approach to sustainability by recognizing sustainability performance in five areas: sustainable site development, savings, efficiency, materials selection, indoor Pursues economic growth (deemed necessary) through urban growth and planning mechanisms that seek to combine good urban design underwritten by eco-sustainability subsidies negotiated with land developers to incorporate into build- ings, neighborhood projects, sustainability-oriented design, and other practices Negotiates revenue sharing and other policy practices within a regional framework that mitigates sprawl tendencies from towns and cities adjacent to the urban growth boundary; teaches surrounding communities the benefits of moderate sustainability 5. Strong sustainability Understands that growth (quantitative increase) is not equivalent to development (qualitative improvement) Works from the five operating principles of sustainability Recognizes the basic unit and minimum scale of sustainability as the city region Conceives of sustainability as a local, informed, balance-seeking process, operating within its sustainable area budget, and by so doing, exports no negative imbalances beyond its budgeted territory or into the future, thus opening spaces of possibility and opportunity Seeks to generate local/regional sustainability policy making metaphorically around the model of a sustainability game involving multiple scenario building as the driving process for generating sustainable solutions to urban development, , site selection, etc.

6. Existentially realized Forges an urban regime (or controlled growth coalition) organized around a local policy agenda embracing strong strong sustainability sustainability and its political requirements Establishes agricultural partnerland employing sustainability-guided farm practices to provide essential to community While trading for critical non-locally producible and products, effectively decouples from globalizing processes that would colonize the locale and integrate it into dependent commercial relations Institutionalizes a planning system that includes a stockholder-driven and collaborative multi-scenario building process that feeds into and complements representative democratic institutions (discursive democracy and representative democracy)

298 SUSTAINABILITY MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 2 NO. 5 • OCTOBER 2009 • DOI: 10.1089/SUS.2009.9838

Yanerella 2.5.indd 3 10/25/09 11:23 AM A major difference between green and sustain- ing around the globe. The means for performing this ability stems from the scale and scope of these task involves rubrics, a practice that has grown pop- policies and practices. Not only does green typically ular within education and student assessment.15,16 operate on only one leg, or dimension, of sustainabil- Rubrics are designed by assessment specialists to ity, it overwhelmingly focuses on individual prod- evaluate the degree of success in learning a particular ucts (more or idea, developing an individual or collaborative stu- ; more energy-efficient windows, refrig- dent project, or presenting a student-taught learn- erators, heaters) or on a single facet (higher mileage, ing unit. A rubric is composed of an enumeration of less-polluting automobiles) while leaving relatively different levels of understanding, or competence in intact the larger systems within which these prod- apprehending, a concept, theory, or practice. In ucts are embedded. Certainly, greener cars, more some cases, understanding or competence is not environmentally benign pesticides, and more ener- only indicated by categorizing on a hierarchical scale gy-conserving windows are good things, or at least but by assigning points to signify the success level. In better than their predecessors. such instances, each category or level describes the criteria needed to attain the score at each level. But the advantage of sustainability resides in its emphasis on the combination of green products, the Sustainability’s attractiveness—and now its even sustainability-oriented processes that manufactured more-favored, supposed synonym, green—is them, and the recyclable components with which largely based on the fact that its vagueness is both they were constructed. As William McDonough and its greatest strength and its most evident weak- Michael Braungart demonstrate in Cradle to Cradle: ness. As a result, sustainability programs often Remaking the Way We Make Things, sustainability engender confusion and sagging popular sup- has the advantage over green products and practices port because, over the long run, understanding in that such products are integrated into the larger of sustainability’s core meaning and its essential system of sustainable production processes and their practices remains obscure. In taking a page from materials or modules are not merely recycled, but educational assessment specialists, the sustainabil- “upcycled” (i.e., the natural and technical nutrients ity rubric in Table 2 starts at ground level with a of products are converted without waste into the set of defining criteria of environmentalism (Level raw materials for other green products or the com- 0) and moves from smart growth (Level 1), green ponents for other products).14 In this sense, green products (Level 2), and weak sustainability (Level products and processes are, at best, a subset of wider 3) to moderate or transitional sustainability (Level sustainable building, farming, or manufacturing 4) and finally to strong sustainability (Level 5) and Certainly, greener cars, existentially realized strong sustainability (Level 6). processes, but not the reverse. more environmentally The differences between green and sustainability, The placement of environmentalism at ground level, benign pesticides, then, are not a matter of “mere semantics.” Activists or the lowest plateau in the sustainability spectrum, organizing for sustainability in the streets, around acknowledges its role as a forebear of sustainability and more energy- the neighborhoods, or on campuses must under- while underscoring that it is not truly an expression stand these differences and recognize when agencies of sustainability. The origins of environmentalism in conserving windows and organizations are advancing mildly progres- the United States have been well detailed in many 17–20 are good things, or at sive and reformist green agendas and when they are historical and theoretical writings, and this back- pressing for genuinely sustainable ones. They also ground is presumed in the listed characteristics and least better than their must heed the adages that the good is sometimes the presuppositions. The inclusion of environmental- predecessors. enemy of the better, and that picking the low-hang- ism in this rubric is important because some sim- ing fruit in the name of sustainability is often merely plistic and poorly founded versions of sustainability postponing the larger and more formidable task of continue to import assumptions; confronting and revolutionizing the controlling sys- for instance, the presumption that the relationship tems of energy, food production, water, transporta- between economic growth and the environment are tion, and construction. matters of balancing one against the other or the extraction of funding via government taxation to institute policies of environmental repair or recla- Beyond a “Green Party”: mation necessitated by the “negative ” of The Foundations of a economic growth. Sustainability Rubric Smart growth is incorporated into this rubric as the next point on the continuum. While the late Differentiating between green and sustainability ’80s and early ’90s were the high tide of the smart provides an excellent opportunity for engaging in growth movement, there is growing recognition, a more expansive undertaking—locating green and especially among elite circles, that the plights of sustainability within a wider continuum that has many North American cities, and the consequent informed sustainability discussion and policy mak- decline of center cities, are tied to the fiscal crises

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 2 NO. 5 • OCTOBER 2009 • DOI: 10.1089/SUS.2009.9838 SUSTAINABILITY 299

Yanerella 2.5.indd 4 10/25/09 11:23 AM of the ’80s21,22 Although it remains popular in some city region is the basic unit of sustainability and its parts of the country today, smart growth was a dumb minimal scale, as we have originally proposed.28,29 sustainable strategy because it tried to graft elements Strong sustainability opts for a strategy in which sus- of neo-traditional and other smart planning onto a tainability and economic development are fully inte- continued, but moderated, urban or metropolitan grated from the beginning. The strong sustainability growth strategy. The resulting formula was meant to definition surpasses meliorist and tendentious defi- transcend the contradictions of an economic policy nitions: “a local, informed, balance-seeking process, that accepted indefinite pursuit of local economic operating within a sustainable area budget, and by development (i.e., growth) and a planning approach so doing exports no negative imbalances beyond its that sought to overlay smart urban design, transpor- budgeted territory or into the future.”30 This implicit tation, and town-and-country alternatives to urban distinction between weak and strong sustainability sprawl and suburbanization. Its inability to over- departs from other ways in which these two terms come this central predicament exposes its shortcom- have been framed. Within the field of econom- ings and elitist moorings. ics, for instance, the distinction between weak and strong sustainability turns on the substitutability or We enter the more familiar, but contested linguistic nonsubstitutability of for other kinds terrain of sustainability with the placement of green of capital.31 But to our minds, strong sustainability movement and weak sustainability in the rubric. underlines two critical elements: the proper scale While green-talk emerged well after weak sustain- for sustainability work; and the holistic, systemic, ability, and is in some sense its predecessor and and synergistic character of strong sustainability. When LEED practices its later incarnation, it is a less-articulated, not an are combined with improved, version of weak sustainability, and is Finally, at the end of the sustainability spectrum placed below weak sustainability in the rubric. is existentially realized strong sustainability. This urban planning Weak sustainability has its genesis in the Brundt- category explores strong sustainability as a condition land Commission report, with its minimalist, but and the political means for realizing it. The presump- and design and widely embraced definition of sustainable devel- tion is that politics is the ineluctable field of struggle underwritten by opment: “development that meets the needs of the upon which strong sustainability will be fought and present without compromising the ability of future won. Because, as we believe, the appropriate scale eco-sustainability generations to meet their own needs.”23 Weak sus- of sustainability is the city region, the aspiration to

tainability also helped trigger the operationaliza- bring strong sustainability to the everyday world is subsidies negotiated tion of sustainability with the three-legged tripod and must ultimately be bound up in the campaign by land developers, metaphor. But it remains mired in the latent envi- to forge an urban regime or controlled growth ronmentalist assumption that separates economic coalition.32–36 These bodies of literature and theory they can make development (growth) and environmental sustain- have only now begun to be integrated into the study impressive strides ability through practices intended to ameliorate the of urban sustainability37 and much spadework is negative consequences of the former upon the latter. needed.38 toward strong Transitional sustainability is the category most The promise of the integration of sustainability sustainability. closely identified with the current rage for LEED theorizing and urban regime and growth coalition (Leadership in Energy and ) 24,25 analysis is the exposure of social obstacles to insti- certification standards and practices. Transi- tutionalizing sustainability at various levels of gov- tional sustainability promotes a whole-building ernance. At the same time, the partial successes and approach by recognizing the importance of per- advances by urban sustainability programs and proj- formance measures in five key areas. Its virtue is ects taking place around the world are culminating at once its bane in that its focus is at a scale (i.e., a in a new synthesis of theory and practice that will single building) at which sustainability cannot be mutually nourish both. realized. When LEED practices are combined with urban planning and design and underwritten by eco- sustainability subsidies negotiated by land develop- Conclusion ers, they can make impressive strides toward strong sustainability (the Vancouver model being the most This essay seeks to overcome some of the- mud illustrious example26,27). Still, transitional sustain- dled thinking and vague conceptualizing that have ability risks two temptations: promoting a narrow clouded the strenuous and even valiant efforts made agenda fixated on a single building as the terrain to bring sustainability to the world. As has been for surrogate sustainability, or reverting to a top- argued, only a strong sustainability framework of down technocratic approach, whose advances can understanding and practice can meet the looming be quickly erased by changes in political outlook threats to local and global and enrich the and urban at the local/municipal level. human and social hosts (human beings and com- munities) whose lives and fortunes depend upon With strong sustainability, it is understood that the ecological health, robustness, and well-being growth (quantitative increase) is not equivalent to of those more encompassing natural processes. development (qualitative improvement) and that the Behind the linguistic caviling, conceptual debates,

300 SUSTAINABILITY MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 2 NO. 5 • OCTOBER 2009 • DOI: 10.1089/SUS.2009.9838

Yanerella 2.5.indd 5 10/25/09 11:23 AM and policy controversies over going green and 14. McDonough W, and Braungart M. Cradle to achieving sustainable cities are real and vital stakes Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things. that hang in the balance—not the least of which, our North Point Press, San Francisco, 2002. lives, those of our progeny, and our life-giving planet depend upon it. 15. Stevens DD, and Levi A. Introduction To Ru- brics: An Assessment Tool to Save Grading Time, Convey Effective Feedback and Promote Student References Learning. Stylus Publishing, Herndon, VA, 2004. 1. Friedman, T. Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We 16. Nixon JA, Phifer SJ, Taggert GL, and Wood M. Need a Green Revolution—and How It Can Re- Rubrics: A Handbook for Construction and Use. new America. Farrar, Straus, New York, 2008. Technomic Publishing, Lancaster, PA, 1998. 2. Yanarella EJ, and Levine, RS. Don’t pick the 17. Hays SP. Conservation and the Gospel of Effi- low-hanging fruit! Counterintuitive policy ad- ciency: The Progressive . vice for achieving sustainability. Sustainability Atheneum Books, New York, 1969. 1(4):256−261. 18. Schnaiberg A. The Environment: From Surplus 3. Daly HE, and Cobb, JB, Jr. For the Common to Scarcity. Oxford University Press, New York, Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Commu- 1980. nity, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future. Beacon Press, , 1994. 19. Nash R. Wilderness and the American Mind. Yale University Press, New Haven, 2001. 4. Munasinghe M, and Cruz W. Economywide Policies and the Environment: Lessons from Ex- 20. Bryner GC: Gaia’s Wager: Environmental Move- perience. World Bank Environment, paper no. ments and the Challenge of Sustainability. Row- 10. The World Bank, Washington, DC, 1995, pp. man & Littlefield, New York, 2001. 8−9. 21. Shaw JS, and Utt RD. A Guide to Smart Growth: 5. Bartling H, and Ferris D. Chattanooga: is this Shattering Myths, Providing Solutions. Heritage sustainable? PS 776 Seminar. Last accessed Aug Foundation, Washington, DC, 2001. 10, 2009: http://www.uky.edu/Classes/PS/776/ 22. Barnett J, Benfield FK, Famer P, Poticha, S, Yaro Projects/chattanooga/chattnga.html R, and Carbonell A. Smart Growth in a Chang- 6. Yanarella EJ: Local sustainability programmes ing World. American Planning Association, in comparative perspective: Canada and the Washington, DC, 2007. USA. Local Environ 1999;4:209−223. 23. World Commission on 7. McDilda DG. 365 Ways to Live Green: Your Ev- Environment and Development. Our Common eryday Guide to Saving the Planet. Adams Me- Future, (The Brundtland Commission Report). dia, New York, 2008. Oxford University Press, New York, 1987, p. 43. 8. Uliano S. Gorgeously Green: 8 Simple Steps to 24. Yudelson J. A−Z: Understanding an Earth-friendly Life. Harper Paperbacks, New the Language of Green Building. New York, 2008. Publishers, Gabriola Island, Canada, 2007. 9. Bach D, and Rossner H. Go Green, Live Rich: 50 25. Kibert CJ. Sustainable Construction: Green Simple Ways to Save the Earth and Get Rich Try- Building Design and Delivery. John Wiley, New ing. Broadway Books, New York, 2008. York, 2007. 10. Yanarella EJ, and Levine RS. Five Operating 26. Punter J. The Vancouver Achievement: Urban Principles of Sustainability. Center for Sustain- Planning and Design. able Cities, Lexington, KY, 1992. Press, Seattle, WA, 2004. 11. Greer J, and Bruno K. Greenwash: The Real- 27. Berelowitz L. Dream City: Vancouver and the ity Behind Corporate Environmentalism. Apex Global Imagination. Douglas & McIntyre, Van- Press, New York, 1997. couver, 2005. 12. Exxon Mobil. Save the tiger fund (brochure). 28. Yanarella EJ, and Levine RS. The sustainable cit- Last accessed August 10, 2009: http://exxonmo- ies manifesto: pre text, text, and post text. Built bil.com/Corporate/Files/Corporate/STF_bro- Environ 1992;18:301−313. chure.pdf 29. Roseland M. Toward Sustainable Communities: 13. American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity Resources for Citizens and Their Governments. (website). Last accessed August 10, 2009: http:// New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, Can- www.cleancoalusa.org/ ada, 2005.

. MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 2 NO. 5 • OCTOBER 2009 • DOI: 10.1089/SUS.2009.9838 SUSTAINABILITY 301

Yanerella 2.5.indd 6 10/25/09 11:23 AM 30. Dumreicher H, Levine RS, Yanarella EJ, and 36. Domhoff GW. Power at the local level: growth Radmard T. Generating models of urban sus- coalition theory. Who Rules American Web- tainability: Vienna’s Westbahnhof sustain- site–April 2005. Last accessed August 10, 2009: able hill town. In: Achieving Sustainable Urban http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/lo- Form, Williams K, Burton E, and Jenks M (eds). cal/growth_coalition_theory.html E & FN Spon (Routledge), New York, 2000, pp. 288−298, esp. 290−293. 37. Portney K. Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment, and 31. Neumeyer E. Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Quality of Life in American Cities. The MIT Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, 1999, pp. 29−41. 38. Yanarella EJ, and Lancaster RW. Getting from Here to There: The Politics of Urban Sustain- 32. Stone CN. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, ability in North America, ms in preparation. 1946−1988. University of Kansas Press, - rence, KS, 1989. 33. Stone, CN. Looking back to look forward: re- Address correspondence to: flections on urban regime analysis. Urb Aff Rev Ernest J. Yanarella, Ph.D. 2005;40:309−341. Department of Political Science 34. Molotch HL. The city as a growth machine: to- University of Kentucky ward a political economy of place. Am Soc Rev 1659 Patterson Office Tower 1976;30:309−332. 101 Main Building Lexington, KY 40506 35. Logan JR, and Molotch HL. Urban Fortunes. University of California Press, Berkeley, 2007. Email: [email protected]

302 SUSTAINABILITY MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC. • VOL. 2 NO. 5 • OCTOBER 2009 • DOI: 10.1089/SUS.2009.9838

Yanerella 2.5.indd 7 10/25/09 11:23 AM