What Does “Sustainable” Mean?

Can the Planet Continue To Support U.S. Levels of Consumption?

Posted on Apr 23 by Martin Holladay, GBA Advisor

The average per-capita use of all forms of energy is 2,000 watts continuous. Energy use ranges widely by region, however; while Africans and Bangladeshis use less than 500 watts per capita, Americans average 12,000 watts.

In the U.S. and Canada, many residential builders use the word “sustainable” as a synonym for “green.” We hear about sustainable development, sustainable homes, and sustainable building products.

Now that the word “sustainable” has become ubiquitous — even at the GreenBuildingAdvisor Web site, where a new $736,000 home on the coast of Maine is described as a “sustainable spec house” — it’s time to take a step back and consider the word’s history.

Originally, It Applied to Forestry Practices
In 1713, a German author, Hans Carl von Calowitz, used the phrase “nachhaltende Nutzung” (sustainable use) to describe forestry practices that limit woodcutting to the forest’s average annual growth. Many historians consider this to be the first use of “sustainable” in its modern meaning.

Later, regulators proposed limiting catches of marine fish to levels which could be maintained over the long term, a system referred to as “sustainable fisheries management.” In the management of forests and fisheries, debate continues over the methods used to determine sustainable harvests. However, use of the term “sustainable” in these contexts is easily understood.

Is the U.S. Lifestyle “Sustainable”?
Foresters generally agree that one cord of firewood per acre per year can be sustainably harvested from a Vermont hardwood forest. However, it’s much trickier to determine whether the practices leading to the construction of $736,00 spec houses in Maine are “sustainable.” How many $736,000 spec houses can be “sustainably” built per year in coastal Maine? After a thousand years of “sustainable” spec-house construction, what will coastal Maine look like? (If scientists’ predictions of rising ocean levels prove accurate, cynics might note that the problem of $736,00 spec-house development in coastal areas is self-correcting.)

For those of us living in North America, it’s easy to lose perspective when considering an appropriate definition for a “sustainable” lifestyle. About one-third of the world’s population eats fewer calories than necessary for health, defecates outdoors, and has no access to clean drinking water, electricity, or a telephone. At the same time, about 80% of the world’s resources are consumed by 20% of the world’s population. (Yup, that means us.)

As Himalayan glaciers shrink and huge chunks of Antarctic ice crash into the ocean, Americans continue to consume a disproportionate share of the earth’s resources. Our lifestyle clearly threatens the stability of the planet’s climate. We already have too many cars, too many televisions, too many swimming pools, and too many houses.

The 2,000-Watt Society
Some European environmentalists are acutely aware of the shameful contrast in resource use between rich and poor countries. For example, a group in Switzerland has calculated that the current level of worldwide energy use amounts to 2,000 watts per capita, equivalent to twenty 100-watt bulbs, burning continuously. In the U.S., per capita energy use is about 12,000 watts — six times the world average. In Bangladesh and sub-Saharan Africa, the figure is well under 500 watts.

Swiss environmentalists have founded the “2,000-Watt Society,” a non-profit group founded on the moral principle of global equity and dedicated to reducing European energy use to 2,000 watts per capita. This goal has been adopted at the highest levels of Swiss government. Among those embracing the 2,000-watt-per-capita goal is Walter Steinmann, the director of the Swiss Federal Office of Energy — roughly analogous to the U.S. Department of Energy.

Of course, the 2,000-watt goal is itself open to criticism. The main problem with the goal is that current levels of worldwide energy use are clearly unsustainable. But at least the Swiss have considered global equity when making their calculations.

Imagining a “Sustainable” House
Considering the twin crises of Third-World poverty and global warming, who knows what a “sustainable” house would look like? If the house measures 400 square feet and includes cold running water, a single light bulb, and a toilet, it would be a huge step up the ladder for much of the world’s population. Unfortunately, achieving that goal would probably strain global resources to the breaking point.

I don’t believe that every American needs to live in a shack out of solidarity with the world’s poor. But it’s important to be honest. Our lifestyle is clearly unsustainable. As long as we’re moving in the right direction — that is, beginning to lessen the adverse environmental impacts of our lifestyle choices — there isn’t any shame in living an unsustainable lifestyle. But as we struggle to move toward a new future of improved global equity and environmental balance, let’s avoid the temptation to pat ourselves on the back.

Every time I hear a North American builder use the word “sustainable,” I cringe. As typically used, the word is self-serving, self-congratulatory, and deeply insulting to the world’s poor. So unless we’re talking about forestry or fisheries, let’s avoid using the word altogether.

Tags: development, global equity, global warming, poverty, Sustainability, sustainable

Image Credits:

2,000-Watt Society

Apr 23, 2009
1:02 PM EDT

Sustainable does mean more than it did, but does not = green
by John Schutt

Thank you for this article. It is really important to separate the green from the greenwash as we proceed down a path of improving our planet. Otherwise, we won't improve it! Can we find sustainability within an opulent western lifestyle? I think we can, but it will require a broad social movement, with people from all walks of life buying into the idea that sustainable is not bad for us, that we do not have to have less to be sustainable. (Actually, we will end up having less, but we won't mind because we will have chosen to have less.)

Keep up the good work.

Apr 23, 2009
4:19 PM EDT

"Sustainable" is not a high goal to aim for
by Carl Seville, GBA Advisor

I heard Michael Braungart (William McDonough's partner)speak a few years ago and he asked the question: What would you say if someone asked you how your marriage was doing? Would you want to answer "sustainable?" He hoped that we viewed our personal relationships as somewhat more than sustainable. His suggestion was that we should aim for a regenerative lifestyle, one that actually adds value to the planet. Simply aiming for sustainability doesn't improve the situation, it only aims to not make it any worse.

Apr 24, 2009
4:02 AM EDT

Good point, Carl
by Martin Holladay, GBA Advisor

Carl,
Perhaps it is a reflection of our society that the idea of a "sustainable" economy is seen as an admirable goal as well as a nearly impossible dream. We take it for granted that environmental degradation is a given. To imagine methods of agriculture and commerce that are stable and that don't harm the planet — methods of agriculture and commerce that could continue for centuries — is almost inconceivable, since every generation sees shrinking forests, fewer fish, more extinctions, and more sprawl.

The organic gardening movement founded by J.I. Rodale promoted a 1911 book as one of the movement's early Bibles; the book was Farmers of Forty Centuries by F.H. King. In the book, King described how Chinese farmers collected every scrap of organic matter around their homes and farms, in order to build the fertility of the soil. These methods supported an agricultural system that produced dependable yields on the same plots of land — 40 centuries of continuous agriculture.

"Sustainable" may be a low bar in a marriage, but if we ever got to the point where our agriculture, fish harvesting, woodlot management, industrial production, and residential construction methods were truly sustainable, I think we would all shout "hallelujah."

Apr 25, 2009
5:42 PM EDT

German forestry
by Daniel Morrison, GBA Advisor

So how are those German forests working out?

Apr 26, 2009
5:40 AM EDT

Could be better, could be worse
by Martin Holladay, GBA Advisor

I'm no expert on German forestry, but here's some information:

"Germany also has significant lumber production. Almost one-third of Germany's total land area, especially in the south, is forested. German forests produce nearly 40 million cubic meters of timber every year, satisfying two-thirds of domestic demand. However, Germany has to import most of its hardwood.

"There has been growing concern for decades about environmental damage to Germany's forests. By the 1970s, trees were losing their needles or leaves and were growing less full than in the past (see The Environment, ch. 3). A number of laws and regulations have attempted to stem this phenomenon, which the Germans call Waldsterben (death of the forest). The Forest Preservation and Forestry Promotion Act was passed in West Germany in 1975 to prevent destructive and wasteful timber policies. It now applies to all of Germany. Under the act, forest owners must return cut areas to their original condition, converting forests into timber farms in which the cut trees are replaced by seedlings. This policy works better for pine than for other timber. However, despite legislation and the great attention paid to the forests, no lasting solution has yet been found. As a result of the decades of ecological damage, many German forests, including the highland Black Forest in the southwest, are badly depleted."
http://www.photius.com/countries/germany/economy/germany_economy_forestr...

Why do you ask?

Apr 26, 2009
8:02 PM EDT

It was a retorical question
by Daniel Morrison, GBA Advisor

Ironically, the couple of instances where 'sustainable' is most accurately used (forestry and fisheries) is still inaccurate. The concept is there, but the reality isn't. European forests are tree farms (which are very different from actual forests).

And fisheries aren't in such great shape either. Why else did I used to see fishing boats from Maine in Southeast Alaska chasing fish? Cheaper fuel?

Apr 26, 2009
9:16 PM EDT

Precisely
by Martin Holladay, GBA Advisor

Dan,
I agree. Your point is well taken; all the more reason to doubt that it makes sense to use the word when describing new-home development in the U.S.

However, the word has a meaning. There may be few places on earth where sustainable forestry is practiced, but one can imagine sustainable firewood harvesting. When it comes to determining the levels of permissible harvesting, ecologists will differ. But the word is a good one, and the principle is worth striving for. Our behavior, however, is mostly far from the goal.

Dec 14, 2009
10:03 PM EST

Sustainable in the US means...
by Mark W. Kinsey

money for someone folks and the hands being extended with their palms up is nothing short of amazing. It is a money grab that although i wholeheartedly agree is a worthy cause and strived for will not be achieved in my life time (I'm 51). This is a means to a political ends which says you have polluted the world and we want your money because we don't have any. Keep watching with open eyes and finely tuned ears because the scarey people are coming.........

Jan 21, 2010
1:28 PM EST

Paranoia and Prejudice
by Robert Riversong

Mark Kinsey's gratuituous remark about "the scarey people" is reprehensible. This is similar to the Minutemen accusing the Mexicans made desperate by our imposition of "Free Trade" of stealing our jobs, or Pat Robertson's blaming the Haitians for their misery (caused by Western imperialism), or the global warming deniers calling the climate change movement a "money grab" on the part of the less developed nations, rather than the attempt at ecological and economic equity that it is. The poor nations didn't create the problems we're facing but are the first to suffer the consequences. Hence we - the penultimate money grabbers of the world - owe an enormous debt to those we've exploited for our pecuniary gain and false comfort and to the earth itself as well as future generations whom we've robbed of any chance of the good life.

Jan 21, 2010
1:36 PM EST

Now, back to the article...
by Robert Riversong

Good article, Martin, but for one comment: "there isn’t any shame in living an unsustainable lifestyle."

A sustainable culture maintains its ethical standards by shame - a self-imposed loss of esteem when one does wrong and harms the community. A dysfunctional society, like ours, maintains its (often perverse) ethical standards by guilt (other-imposed denigration), coercion, isolation and punishment.

If we do not feel deeply ashamed of the way we live at the expense of both the natural and the human world, there is no possibility of real change. The perception, among the politically correct, that change has to feel good in order to make it possible, is based on a Madison Avenue salesmanship approach to life - it sells if it's sexy.

Post new comment

Our Blogs

About the Author

Martin Holladay has worked as a plumbing wholesale counterperson, roofer, remodeler, and builder. He built his first passive solar house in northern Vermont in 1974, and has lived off the grid since 1975. In 1980, Holladay bought his first photovoltaic(PV) Generation of electricity directly from sunlight. A photovoltaic cell has no moving parts; electrons are energized by sunlight and result in current flow. module, which is still producing electricity after 29 years of service. Read more...