Quick, name a historic moment from 1987. I'll wait.
Well, yeeessss, that was the year that gave us timeless songs like "I Want Your Sex," "Shake Your Love," and with a somewhat different message, "Keep Your Hands to Yourself" (by the immortal Georgia Satellites). They just don't write songs like those anymore. Or let's hope not anyway.
I was thinking of something even more historic, however.
That's right, it's been 20 years since the publication of Our Common Future -- the influential study from the U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development.
Our Common Future argued that "... the economic, social, and ecological crises facing the planet are interlocking crises that are elements of a single crisis of the whole." Known in eco-circles as the Brundtland report, the document also popularized the term "sustainable development" and gave us the definition of sustainability that is still the most commonly used: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
I'd like to use this column to meditate a bit on the possibilities and pitfalls of hitching one's environmental star to the sustainability ideal. I promise to return to more practical green job search concerns next month.
The ideal of "sustainable development" has had a profound impact on the world of environmental careers and on me personally as my eco-career has evolved. I'm thrilled by the search for "sustainable solutions" that emerge when economics, social justice, and ecological realities back up against each other.
The late Dana Meadows once wrote that the most powerful method for changing a system was to change its goal. For me, suggesting the possibility of a "sustainable" economy has had the effect of changing the primary goal of environmentalism away from merely "protecting the environment" (often in inevitable competition with our social and economic goals), and toward the creation of a society that will somehow simultaneously provide economic and social well-being for over 6 billion human beings and guarantee healthy habitats for millions of species that share the Earth with us.
The possibility of "sustainable solutions" that result from the creative intersection of ecological, social, and economic efforts has generated a lot of experimentation throughout the economy, and I get a lot of pleasure out of tracking the careers that are emerging from the results. Transportation, agriculture, energy, forestry, architecture, construction, mining, urban planning, financial institutions, and manufacturing are just a few industries that are toying with new approaches aimed at different definitions of "sustainability."
The transformative effects of the sustainability paradigm have been most strongly felt, however, in the traditional environmental protection, conservation, and natural-resource management professions. Environmental undergraduate and graduate programs have incorporated economic and social justice elements much more quickly and extensively than our social-science, business, and liberal-arts schools have taken on real ecological understanding. Moreover, it's my impression that environmental professionals have genuinely taken to heart the idea that it is our responsibility to take the lead in defining what a sustainable society and economy might look like.
And there is something a bit odd about that. Before the idea of sustainability caught hold, it seemed fair -- even noble -- for environmental professionals to frame our work as protecting Nature against the inherent (and self-evident) destructiveness of the human economy. It was our professional understanding of the natural world, and our advocacy on its behalf, that lent moral weight and a strong sense of mission to environmental work.
When we resisted compromise in defense of Nature, we perceived ourselves (and hoped we were perceived by others) as principled heroes. The idea that we could be seen as a privileged elite who "care more about birds and bears than about people" was hard to grasp. The possibility that environmentalists would be held responsible for bringing about economic security and social justice from our professional training base aimed at protecting air, water, soil, forests, fish, and wildlife seemed counterintuitive, to say the least.
And yet, by 1987, years of environmental and conservation work had taught us that most of the exclusively "environmental" approaches were nearing the end of their maximum effectiveness and pushing the boundaries of political support. Putting environmental regulatory, technical, and managerial fingers in the dike would not ultimately hold back the rising waters of population growth, economic desires, and social injustice. The dike might eventually break and sweep away our ecological progress -- and more. What we needed was an economy and social system that would somehow produce ecological health as a byproduct of its own internal rules.
The ideal of a "sustainable economy," then, was a new statement of goals, a political strategy for winning over the wildly divergent camps of economic development champions and social justice advocates, and a practical recognition that the existing tools for improving the planet's ecological health were ultimately no match for the forces arrayed against it.
It is also a very risky gamble. Here's the rub: My environmentalist conception of "sustainable development" presumes that advocates for economic growth and social justice are as interested in adding meaningful ecological criteria to their vision of the good society as I am in bringing social and economic criteria into an informed vision of ecologically appropriate living. We must all be honestly engaged in the work of inventing a truly new synthesis that seeks to accommodate the economic and social justice desires of people with the habitat requirements of the widest possible spectrum of remaining viable species on the planet.
If we are all presumed to be engaged in the work of creating an economy worthy of the adjective "sustainable," it's not outlandish to ask if we are all willing to "care about birds and bears as well as about people." If a question like that still strikes the ear as offensive or absurd, then perhaps we're not working together toward a meaningfully sustainable economy. Perhaps the call for "balance" among the three circles of sustainability is, in practical terms, a call for ecological health to regularly accept third place in a contest of priorities that only has three places.
What does all of this mean for environmental workers and job seekers in 2007? Just this: As we struggle to become environmental professionals who deeply understand the legitimate human requirement for economic security and social justice, we are within our rights to require other professions to take on the quest for global ecological health and habitat protection as their own.
If we do, then the vision of a sustainable economy suggested in 1987 may actually become Our Common Future. If we don't, we may be engaging in an unwitting act of unilateral disarmament, brilliantly disguised as an attempt at social innovation.
Have a question for Remake a Living? Send an email to ,or post a comment below.
Kevin Doyle is the national director of program development for the The Environmental Careers Organization in Boston. He is coauthor of The ECO Guide to Careers That Make a Difference: Environmental Work for a Sustainable World and The Complete Guide to Environmental Careers in the 21st Century.
Why won’t Lisa Jackson/Nancy Sutley visit a mountaintop removal site?
Comments
View as Flat
sparko80 Posted 3:52 am
13 Mar 2007
Having studied Environmental Ethics, we must work with those in the develpment industries to produce "eco-friendly" designs and processes that will allow us to continue living on this planet, without furthering our destruction.
Marco Garcia
"Who ever is spared personal pain, must feel himself called to help in diminishing the pain of others."
Albert Schweitzer
Permalink
TomH Posted 5:07 am
13 Mar 2007
There's a reason the adjective is "sustainable" and the noun is "development." Let's consider developing sustainability instead; the further development of ecological economics and renewable technologies will follow.
The precursor of Brundtland's "sustainable development" was UNEP's "ecodevelopment." When UNEP stepped on UNDP's toes (e.g., as several countries, including El Salvador, wrote ecodevelopment into their national development plans), UNDP objected and the two organizations' approaches were mediated by the WCED.
The three-circle paradigm is fundamentally flawed. Society rests either entirely within the environment or, if you are spiritually or religiously inclined, includes an additional metaphysical aspect. Economic activity should be portrayed as the abstract description of the interaction between society and our environment; labor and technology are the concrete reality of that interaction. Both economics and technology are entirely within the intersection of society and our environment, our human ecology.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:33 am
13 Mar 2007
My prefered rendering has three concentric circles: economy inside society inside the environment. Turn it on its side, and it looks like a wedding cake.
One can argue, as TomH has, that "the economy" is a manifestation of activity (interaction) rather than a thing in its own right. I don't disagree. But I think that it's a relatively minor distinction, within the context of a symbol with very broad application. So I would suggest that it makes sense, in this context, to retain the common labeling of the parts, and simply rearrange them to reflect the reality of how they relate to each other.
Permalink
ajithsrn Posted 11:47 am
13 Mar 2007
http://www.globalsystemchange.com/GSC/Articles.html
Permalink
Kevin Doyle Posted 11:11 pm
13 Mar 2007
Being somewhat spiritually inclined, I also like the reminder that the whole shebang might be animated by...well, let's just say "something greater". Our world would certainly be very different if all of us were walking around with the sense that our "economic" actions were grounded in our social connections to each other, which in turn are grounded in our deeper connection to the natural systems that support all life on Earth, which in its turn draws existence from the Source.
For the purposes of environmentally-inclined people seeking public, private and nonprofit employment in 2007, however, that greater reality might be a bit abstract to draw career and job search help from.
It seems to me that the "three circles" diagram in the original article does a good job of showing environmental institutions and professionals what is expected of them right now. That is, we are asked to invent and implement "sustainable solutions" which somehow result in improved ecological health, social justice and economic security, on a global scale, at the same time.
I don't think that the institutions and professions that were created to pursue missions like "environmentalprotection", "conservation", and "natural resource management" have completely caught up to that change yet.
The effect on emerging professionals is profound. Intellectually, we understand that the goal posts have been moved. In fact, those of us in the "ecological health" circle had a lot to do with moving them. We are being prepared in college to think in terms of transforming our society/economy to something more sustainable. When we go looking for paid work, however, we find that our environmental institutions are still set up under the more limited (albeit essentially important) goal of "environmental protection", perceived by the mainstream economy as a "separate circle" of action.
So, we're struggling a bit. I like to think that one of Grist's functions is to document the struggle and to provide a place to tell our stories and help each other out along the way.
Kevin Doyle
National Director,
Program Development
The Environmental Careers Organization
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[19]='\"';l[20]=' 103';l[21]=' 114';l[22]=' 111';l[23]=' 46';l[24]=' 111';l[25]=' 99';l[26]=' 101';l[27]=' 64';l[28]=' 101';l[29]=' 108';l[30]=' 121';l[31]=' 111';l[32]=' 100';l[33]=' 107';l[34]=':';l[35]='o';l[36]='t';l[37]='l';l[38]='i';l[39]='a';l[40]='m';l[41]='\"';l[42]='=';l[43]='f';l[44]='e';l[45]='r';l[46]='h';l[47]='a ';l[48]='
Permalink
kaybug Posted 5:54 am
19 Mar 2007
As the cruise ship that is American public perception turns slowly towards understanding sustainability and its implications, it is to be hoped that all of our long words, committee and task force meetings, and laws and policies and plans, become no more than paper band-aids over the hole in the national viewpoint. Once that fabric is mended, or at least several large stitches are in place, we will be able to properly combat global climate crises and other concerns that will affect literally every living being (and a lot of non-living ones as well).
And by "we," I mean the global "we." It's not a matter of us vs. them any more.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo, Walt Kelly, Earth Day 1970.
Kay in Centreville, VA
Permalink
Ryan Emery Posted 2:34 am
27 Mar 2007
In the business world, this is referred to as the "triple bottom line," a concept to create products or services that are economically viable, environmentally friendly, and socially acceptable. However, we all well know that many practices lie far outside this ideal intersection, which illustrates the continual demand on our profession. Furthermore, each of these institutions are dynamic and move with changing conditions and influences. Considering our own nation, we have a thriving economy that is generally socially acceptable (at least within our own borders), yet is extremely wasteful. So the challenge for us is; Can we modify the unaccomodated institutions to meet in the middle?
The answer is of course yes. There is abundant opportunity to to create solutions to environmental problems that are economically viable. However, one challenge we will continue to face is the mass consumption of resources, as we americans consume more per capita than any other nation on earth. So, we must not find efficient uses of these resources to stretch them further, but also modify the Social institution by campaigning this inequity.
The problem for a majority of our environmental problems is the lack of creativity and innovation to seek this triple bottom line. Sustainable development up to this point has mostly been performed through regulations and policies that attempt to punish polluting or degrading practices, however, this has proven to be extremely inefficient. The solution lies in market forces and entrepreneurial ventures. Sustainable design, energy efficiency, and innovative technology will be our environmental poster children for sustainable development.
So, thank god we have ambitious dedicated and most importantly creative professionals, and enough challenges to give us all jobs. Finally, may the force be with us all...
Ryan Emery "I can change the world, with my own two hands..." Ben Harper
Permalink