Next Stop: Granola Town!

I write to you today, dear readers, in defense of one of my own beliefs that I feel deserves defense. 

Sustainability is a loaded, confusing and convoluted term that has all but lost significance as the green movement and ethical consumption has been picked up by mainstream marketers and retailers. Nonetheless, I feel that it is an idea worth exploring, and one worth considering drawing into your own practices and routines. The most classic definition of sustainability comes from The Brundtland Report, a paper published in 1987 by the Brundtland Commission, detailing possible solutions and remedies to the increasingly serious environmental conundra we presently find ourselves locked in. In this report, sustainability is defined as the use of resources in such a way that does not diminish the ability of future generations to use those same resources. Basically, it aims for resource consumption to be a zero-sum game. Use stock resources slowly, and frugally, with an eye always on the future, use flow/renewable resources only to the extent that they can recharge themselves, and always be investigating and testing technologies and alternative materials and processes that can reduce the strain placed on both of the preceding categories. Sustainability is based on three fundamental concepts: 1) Equity (both inter- and intra-generational), 2) Futurity, and 3) Valuing the environment. It is the goal of sustainability to allow for continued human life on the planet by instilling in each new generation a respect for the needs of future generations, a sense of environmental stewardship, and a respect for ecological stability, health and futurity for its own sake. 

Unfortunately, as with many contemporary social movements (Globalization being a prime example), sustainability has lost many of its teeth, largely as a result of shoddy definitions and countless permutations and modifications of the terms outlined above. The Brundtland definition, while helpful and broad, is by no means universal. Nations, cities, corporations, communities can create and enforce their own version of sustainability- no standard definition exists across all regions, municipalities, and nations. Unlike globalization, however, which tends to favour economic interests first (a big plus in most societies around the world), sustainability has the added disadvantage of being less about making money, and more about spending it. Sustainable farming, for example, often entails more expensive seeding, tillage and irrigation techniques, translating into high prices for organic and sustainable products in the markets and grocery stores. The farmer pays more, the consumer pays more, all in the interest of making the land pay less. It doesn't take a genius to see why sustainability doesn't fit very comfortably within North American society. It preaches the exact opposite of some very fundamental beliefs that form the basis of our economic systems. 

This has placed sustainability and efforts toward it squarely in the hands of two much-mocked social niches: Upper-class urban professionals with the cash and time to burn on things like organic produce and slow food lifestyles, and un-classed "hippie" types who, by-and-large, reject mass production of food and favour deep ecology, ecocentrism, and other radical environmental doctrines. In both cases, sustainable lifestyles seem well outside the interest range of what we may call the majority. The two groups described above (for sake of ease, we'll call them Yuppies and Hippies), are the target of much derision and scorn, largely because of their belief in the doctrine of sustainability. Yuppies get turned into self-righteous liberals who don't know what it's like to have to work hard for a living, who don't know what it's like to be pressed for time to find something to eat, who don't know what its like going to the grocery store on a budget. Hippies get turned into...almost the same thing actually, but with more dreadlocks, pot, baggy clothing and Phish records. As a result, sustainability tends to get bound up with other environmental issues taken up by these two niches- things like climate change, deforestation, animal rights- all things that people in the majority tend to look upon with a sympathetic, but distracted eye. 

Sustainability thus becomes one of many throw-away issues associated with other things that people tend to not care about, or be skeptical of, like global warming and climate change. This is terribly unfortunate. The reality is that, while sustainability and more "controversial" issues like global warming are indeed related and have significant overlaps, I think It's important to recognize and appreciate sustainability as its own entity, worthy of pursuit in-and-of itself. 

Actions supporting a sustainable lifestyle- cutting back meat consumption, buying things with less packaging, buying local produce, driving your car less and relying more on transit and walking, etc. - are commendable causes for reasons well outside of the global warming "debate" (if it can so be called anymore). Let's look at each of the preceding examples in turn. Cutting back meat consumption is considered a more sustainable lifestyle choice than eating meat several times a week, for example. This is because the industrial production of livestock is incredibly chemical-intensive. Feed lots tend to be drastically over-crowded, concentrating the formidable amounts of waste produced by, among other animals, cows. This can overwhelm the natural assimilative capacity of a piece of land, and cause dangerous chemicals and bacteria to leach into soils and acidify/contaminate them, rendering future agricultural use effectively impossible. Further, these same chemicals and bacteria can very easily wash into nearby rivers or leach into groundwater systems and be carried to populated areas causing residential water contamination, posing on the one hand, a public health risk, and on the other, the possibility of an enormous clean-up and purification effort in the future. Additionally, it's no big secret that cows are capable of producing a mighty stink when they feel so inclined. This unfortunate habit releases huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Fears of climate change aside, I don't think anyone would be opposed to cutting the amount of noxious gases floating around in the air we breathe. As a final note, industrial livestock farms are often located well outside of urban limits, and meat is often imported from overseas. This produce has to travel enormous distances just to reach our supermarkets, consuming, per unit, a huge amount of fuels and energy. Again, climate change aside, if we can save on fuel usage, cut back emissions of any sort, shouldn't we? 

Purchasing things package more efficiently and purchasing local goods is also seen as a wise sustainable choice. Perhaps the most obvious reason this is a good idea is because there's no hiding the fact anymore that we just don't know what to do with all the trash we produce. Landfills are filled, there's an enormous plastic dump in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, hazardous chemicals leach into soils and groundwater as organic and non-organic materials decompose (a process often accompanied by the production of methane. See the previous paragraph for why this sucks).  It seems pretty apparent to me that none of these things are great. Reducing waste has nothing to do with climatic cycles or temperature variation on a global scale, but stands alone as a worthy cause. Associated with this attempt to reduce waste is the attempt to buy as many goods locally as possible. Doing this can help to reduce the amount of packaging needed to transport goods. If you're buying an apple from an orchard 40 minutes by truck form the market, odds are, that apple isn't going to be jostled about as violently as it would if it were being imported from, say, Japan. Thus, we end up using far less packing per unit of consumption because it simply isn't necessary any more. Also, by buying local, you eliminate the need for insane import patterns, and thus reduce the amount of fuel and energy (and in turn, emissions) consumed per unit. As a fun bonus, buying local gives smaller farmers the help many desperately need. Many local-scale farmers run smaller operations than the industrial systems used by the world's largest producers, reducing their overall impact on the land they utilize. These small-scale operations tend to be higher-cost, so buying your produce from them bolsters a local agricultural industry that struggles to compete with globalized production. Get better food, with less packaging, from better producers, with less energy and fuel consumed in transport, and with a smaller impact on the soils being used. QUINTUPLE WIN! Of course, a lot of this depends on larger issues of the decentralization of industry from global hubs and the rethinking of urban and ex-urban spaces, but nonetheless, the ideas hold up. 

Driving less and relying more on public transit and walking is probably the action most people could take tomorrow, if they chose to. In most major metropolitan centers throughout North America, Europe, and Asia, public transit systems are extensive and can be easily accessed from around the city. Places like Vancouver, Montreal and....all of Europe are blanketed with frequent and relatively reliable mass-transit systems. Of course, there are obvious exceptions to this rule. Cities like Atlanta, Mesa/Phoenix and Calgary are absolute urban-planning abominations and, in may areas population densities are too low to make transit lines profitable, forcing many to spend hours in their car per day, frequently only one person to a vehicle. the advantages to using transit are apparent, immediate and personal. Above all, you don't have to pay for gas! I know prices have fallen over the last little while. Nonetheless, I drive a little car that sips rather politely on fuel and every time I fill up, it still costs me 50 some odd dollars- money that I'd much rather spend on something like...you know...food...or rent...those details. Predictably, cutting down on individual driving also vastly reduces emissions created by the combustion of fossil fuels, reduces the amount of crap thrown into land fills (cars, for the record are the stupidest investment ever. Even stupider than computers. You buy it, and as soon you sign the papers, it's next-to-worthless, and as time goes by, it gets less and less efficient, more and more costly, up until a point where it just gets turfed. The whole damn car. That's like throwing out the down payment on a banging new condo). 

That was a lot of blathering on, but I just can't help but pick up on this not-so-subtle resentment of ideas like sustainability because it's basically become so amorphous and nebulous as to be rendered nearly meaningless for the majority. I think it needs to be pursued, regardless of ethical, moral, political or personal scientific persuasions for no reason other than its a good idea that's totally attainable. Small choices made on a grand scale can change the world. I'm not sure if the fact that I actually believe that is stupid or wise, but I believe it nonetheless. 

All the best,

T