Sustainability 2.0

That's a big question, Richard. But thanks for asking. Yes, I believe it needs to be updated... especially in light of the near collapse of the global economic system. Without a functioning global economic system, we cannot move to a more sustainable future. To the best of my knowledge, "Our Common Future" did not address the core economic issue driving the current near collapse: that the world's economic system is based on the fundamental assumption that we live in a zero-sum, limited resources world. This is no longer true (even though it was true for most of human history). But thanks to developments in science, technology, and the soft sciences of management and organizational development theory, we do now know how to create a world of abundance. Unfortunately, our political and economic systems are still based on a scarcity of resources mental model. The one sustainability oriented thinker who did address this "obsolete economic model" challenge was the last Dr. R. Buckminster Fuller. In "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth" and "Critical Path" (other books as well), he made the case for dealing with this economic model shift... as being the most fundamental change we need to make (especially since it will lead to the elimination of war as an accepted "international development tool"). I have just written two essays on The Huffington Post that get into this core issue... not as thoroughly as Bucky Fuller did, but at least I began to make the case. My starting point is the crisis on Wall Street. And I use the phrase "Capitalism is Dead" to get people's attention. They are the top two essays at my Huffington Post home page, below. I hope they help. Please let me know if you have any questions about anything I wrote. And good luck at the conference! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant

Best regards,
Steve

Steven G. Brant
Founder and Principal
Trimtab Management Systems
303 Park Avenue South, Suite 1413
New York, NY 10010
(646) 221-1933
[email protected]
Skype: stevengbrant
http://www.trimtabmanagementsystems.com
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant

Energy limits, soil fertility, politics, overcrowding, physical geography that impedes the distribution of wealth, disease, and a plethora of other limits tell us that we cannot overcome the Limits to Growth. To suggest that we can continue to grow unabated is irresponsible and nearly criminal. The millions dying of disease, starvation, unrest, and neglect; the tremendous extinction of species; and the physical destruction of natural Places (term intended to be used phenomenologically as well as geographically) are all indications that we need to reduce our collective numbers as well as our individual impact on the ecology of the Earth. Technology can only engage different resources and shift the exploitation of them. It cannot add to our finite planet! The product of knowledge is knowledge; The fruit of understanding is wisdom.

Hendrik Herfst 

Energy limits, loss of soil fertility, politics, overcrowding, the shortage and spoilage of water supply, disease, physical geography that impedes the distribution of wealth, and a plethora of other limits tell us that we cannot overcome the Limits to Growth. To suggest that we can continue to grow unabated is irresponsible and perhaps criminal. The millions dying of disease, starvation, unrest, and neglect; the tremendous extinction of species; and the physical destruction of natural Places (term intended to be used phenomenologically as well as geographically) are all indications that we need to reduce our collective numbers as well as our individual impact on the ecology of the Earth. Technology can only engage different resources and shift the exploitation of them. It cannot add to our finite planet! Considering our future as a common cause is more true than it has ever been. Our challenge is to curtail the power of those who seek more power through the exploitation of resources (including human workers); those who focus on 'development' as economic growth. Sustainability is the key to the continued evolution of a rich and egalitarian culture, the protection of biodiversity, and the preservation of the sacred landscape. I am glad to see that the term 'sustainable development' is being supplanted in educated circles by the term 'Sustainability'. Economic evolution will, of course, be necessary. New means of procuring energy and maintaining wealth, of providing resources for living, education, culture, and health - but NOT for power-mongering - will have to take place. Other than a clarification that development does not mean unbridled exploitation of the Earth's shared resources, I think Our Common Future is becoming more relevant, and more pressing, than ever before. The product of knowledge is knowledge; The fruit of understanding is wisdom.

Hendrik Herfst

Dear Hendrik Herfst,

Thank you for commenting on what I wrote. I understand your concern regarding the LImits of Growth. However, I request you consider the following point. Your logic... that technology "cannot add to our finite planet"... comes from a mental model of how things work that says "The Earth is alone. It is all we have to live on. Therefore, we must not let our numbers get too large for Earth to handle." This "Earth is alone" mental model denies what has always been true: that the Sun feeds energy to the Earth... has been doing so since the beginning... and is one reason why (through photosynthesis) plants are able to grow. (It contributes to other aspects of what happens on Earth too, of course, including the weather.) Where I am coming from (and where all the systems scientists come from) is that the Sun's energy can be captured to a much greater extent than currently exists. We see the potential to capture energy from the Sun in quantities than enable not just plants to grow and the weather to exist but to enable humanity to escape the "limit" imposed by our focus on other resources such as oil and coal. I recognize that to shift your personal mental model to match that of people like myself would be a big thing to do (something I am saying based on the passion I read in your reply to my original email... including your statement that my point of view is "irresponsible and nearly criminal")... but I urge you to consider beginning to go through this reframing process by reading "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth" by Buckminster Fuller. It is a seminal work in the field of shifting what humanity considers its options for the future to be. It is a work of tremendous hope... based on very sound science. I would like you to share the hope that people like myself have.... by seeing the options... the choices humanity has... that we see. This book can be read for free online at the Buckminster Fuller Institute web site here... http://www.bfi.org/node/422 What people like myself see is neither irresponsible nor nearly criminal. It is based on the principle of scientific progress combined with history of cultural evolutionary brought about by the acceptance of innovative solutions to problems previously considered unsolvable. FYI, you can see Tom Friedman, economist Joseph Stiglitz, and journalist Ted Koppel responding to my asking them a question about all this at a public forum in 2006 by watching the YouTube video below. In essence, they recognized that the global challenge we face is not one of scarce resources. It is a challenge of obsolete global political dynamics... the "politics of scarcity", not the "reality of scarcity". There is a HUGE difference between the two. I know you mention politics in your list of things that "tell us we cannot overcome the Limits of Growth", but politics is a human invention. As such, it can change. (It has changed in China, for example... not as much as many of us would like it to, but is has changed a lot.) Politics is not an objective reality over which we have no control. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbdP09pAlV4 And... to take this conversation beyond references to me and things I've read and done.. I invite you to watch the beginning of the landmark series "The Day the Universe Changed" created by the British historian James Burke. First broadcast in the last 1980's, this 10 episode television series detailed a great number of instances when humanity evolved... when humanity acquired the ability to do things previously considered impossible... because new knowledge was introduced to the masses at large. It's an amazing portrayal of a quality that too few people seem to realize that most cultures (unfortunately not all) around the world have. Here's where you can watch the beginning of episode one of that series... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj9OB3Lq-ig Thanks very much for voicing your concern. I hope at least some of what I've written helps you feel more optimistic about the prospects for humanity.

Best regards,
Steve 

I find it significant that so many people are commenting on the definition of sustainable development (meeting the needs of the present etc.) offered in Our Common Future, without including the two caveats to its use. Many of the people I deal with who don?t know of its conditions for use (and who have misused it) have similar positions to those of you who feel the report needs revision. The two conditions are 1) That there are limits to resources and that all development needs to take place within those limits. Many of you have expressed concerns/objections in this context and others that there is no recognition of resource limitation. Our Common Future did make that abundantly clear and put that condition on the use of the definition. 2) The needs of the poor must receive priority, meaning market forces will not provide the poor with the resources they need, particularly in the face of the first condition, a limited supply. What the report left up to those who would implement sustainability is determining what level of need will be met before market forces are allowed to determine the distribution of the rest of the resource. I think it is unfortunate that it was the restating of what sustainable development was that got all the publicity. Two pages before the restating where it was introduced is a much better explanation of what sustainable development is. It was written in the kind of painfully correct English that non English speakers frequently use. It said: What is required is a new approach in which all nations aim at a type of development that integrates production with resource conservation and enhancement, and that links both to the provision for all of an adequate livelihood base and an equitable access to resources. This is what Our Common Future introduced as being sustainable development. I find it a much more specific and tangible definition, although I do paraphrase it for my clients and students. I am not hearing anyone challenge the 6 original problems that Our Common Future identified as being why we needed sustainability. Does anyone have an opinion about them?

An opinion on the Brundtland Commission definition of sustainable development: One of the commonly used items to come from the Brundtland Commission is the definition of sustainable development which puts forward the idea of, "meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs." It is a tired and hackneyed concept tossed about by innumerable speakers and authors but that has no actual foundation in reality. I think that any sustainability movement, environmental scholarship, and the development of sustainability ethic needs to be based on more concrete and meaningful concepts than the vague, wishy-washy, feel-good notion this statement offers. Let me explain. The first part calls for "meeting the needs of the present generation". Without some basis for defining "needs", or at least recognizing the difference between needs versus what are truly just wants and desires, we cannot hope to even begin to address this part of the goal. Strong evidence exists that even the most basic needs (food, water, shelter) are not being met for a sizable portion of people on the planet. According to Harvard economist Juliet Schor, in her article, The New Politics of Consumption, "It is difficult to make an ethical argument that people in the world's richest country need "more" when the disparity of the world's resource use is so vast and that strong evidence exists that we are already consuming beyond the capacity of the earth to provide." And USDA Forest Service employee Douglas MacCleery writes, "Any ethical or moral foundation for ecological sustainability is weak indeed unless there is a corresponding focus on the consumption side of the natural resource equation." I submit that the question should not be about meeting our "needs", however we define them, but rather how we choose to utilize and manage finite and renewable resources within the limits of the environment to make them available. The second part of the statement calls for, "...not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Again, the issue of defining "needs" is apparent, but the statement also implies some capability in our collective wisdom to determine the future. Not only is that unrealistic, but it borders on ridiculous in my opinion. And even if I could predict the future, shouldn't my goal be to improve upon, rather than simply "not compromise" the prospects for future generations? At its very essence, environmental sustainability is first about the capability of ecological systems to provide what is being demanded of them, and to do so these natural systems must be able to function continuously. It is also about minimizing the use of finite resources, re-using such resources and directing their limited use to enhancing the function of renewable systems. The National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry suggests that sustainable management involves, "The suite of plans, policies and actions that seeks to sustain a specified array of environmental benefits at a particular location." (And I would suggest that a specified period of time be added to the idea.) I prefer this definition because it ties the concept of sustainability directly to the capability of the environment at a chosen location to provide a clearly measurable set of environmental benefits and/or services, and it does not even consider some arbitrary notion of needs or demands that the environment is supposed to be able satisfy. We need to frame the discussion in terms of capabilities of the environment (ecosystem functions) to provide, rather than in terms of some level of demands we choose to think should be normal. Natural environmental systems can be studied, evaluated and quantified, and as a result the associated benefits and services they provide can be enhanced, managed and optimized for human welfare, but to learn to live in a sustainable fashion we must first understand the capabilities and limits of natural systems and then understand that we can no longer afford to externalize the costs associated with the loss environmental functions in economic analyses of human endeavors. Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments.

Thomas E. Worthley
Associate Extension Educator
Middlesex County Extension Center
1066 Saybrook Rd.
Haddam, CT 06438-0070
phone: 860-345-5232
fax: 860-345-3357

Steven -

you have said a lot but I really haven't understood what it is you are saying? What is this "abundance" you speak of? I just bought a new book - it is called Abundance and Depletion and the writer makes the case that we need to spend less, buy less, consume less and we will have abundance of community and beauty in the world. That is where I am heading.

Lucille

I wholeheartedly second Steven's comments - we are persisting with frontier economics when the world is smaller, fuller and there are fewer and fewer frontiers. In particular, we need to look at what drives this pathological need to continually grow economies in an increasingly resource constrained world...something to do with debt-based economics and how money comes into circulation, I believe? Firstly, can we please, PLEASE get rid of this: meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs Its been driving me bananas for about 15 years! How do we know how many people there will be in future generations, and what their needs will be? Also, many societies today are not just meeting needs, but also wants - should future generations be allowed to fulfil their wants as well as their needs? Research undertaken by the Global Footprint Network (www.footprintnetwork.org) - which calculates biologically productive space and compares it to human resource demand on that space - reveals our best scenarios are insufficient: moderate UN scenarios still point to 9 billion people using two planets' worth of regenerative capacity by 2050, and even the adoption and implementation of all the official policies put forward thus far falls far short of enabling our species to achieve 'one planet living'. We can't achieve the intent of the Bruntland definition of 'sustainable development' unless we can work out how to measure where the limit is for meeting our wants and needs today so that some remains for humanity in 2050 and beyond. Resource accounting tools like the Ecological Footprint can help put some numbers around this question, but we still need the will to find ways of addressing what those numbers mean. In addition, the term 'sustainable development', often used to infer sustaining the development of industries or other human activities, marginalises the whole issue of maintaining and enhancing the health of ecological systems, and does not address the need to achieve quality of life for everyone on the planet. Sometimes the expression 'sustainable/sustaining growth' (arguably a contradiction in terms) is used, which puts the emphasis on 'growth' and distracts awareness from sustainability. The other concept that needs to be junked is the 'three pillars' or 'three interlocking circles' diagram, representing 'economy', 'society' and 'environment', which implies that the three elements are interdependent. Environment, society and economy are not equal concepts - functionally, the economy is part of society which in turn is part of the biosphere; the economy is a means, not an end in itself. A more appropriate representation would be three concentric circles with economy in the centre, nested within society and ultimately the environment, or biosphere. Conceptually, it is difficult to communicate three simultaneous aims, as it impedes clarity and keeps discussion vague. A useful analogy is that of a football game - if there are three teams on the field, the game becomes confusing. The real challenge is the 'play-off' between societal 'wants', or quality of life goals (an important and legitimate claim), and ecological limits (a thermodynamic necessity). The economy is a means, not an end in itself, and should be viewed as no more than the 'playing field'. We invented the economic and social systems in which we operate, and we can change them so that they better meet the needs of all human beings, so that they enhance our quality of life, and so our demand on nature's goods and services is within the scope of our planet's ability to provide them. Best of luck with participating in the discussion, Richard!

Regards
Sharon

Hi Lucille,

Well, if you just read a book that preaches a "limits of growth" philosophy, I am not surprised that you don't understand what I am saying. This is not a criticism, just a statement that if you just read an entire book then I would not expect my few paragraphs to succeed in counter-balancing all of that information. Having said that, I humbling request that you read "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth" and watch the TV series "The Day the Universe Changed". I gave links to those resources in my last email (not the one below, but the one I wrote after that). If you explore all that I wrote and absorb the fact (including facts related to cultural evolution) in these resources, I think you will change your mind. I wish I was organized around running a workshop on all of this, but I am not at the moment. If I were, I would invite you to spend a few days thinking about how much better our world could be. I truly regret that I cannot offer that now... and am unable to create a similar experience just from email exchanges. But thanks for asking the question. I hope you'll write again after reading Operating Manual...

Best regards,
Steve

Hello, I've been following the 2.0 discussion with great interest...thanks for the thoughtful ideas and sentiments all around. I don't have all that much to contribute other than another plea for folks to go back to one of the most-overlooked visionaries of the 20th century -- Bucky Fuller. Unfortunately, it seems his ideas are still ahead of our time. It is very difficult to encapsulate Fuller's theories of ephemeralization and synergistics in just a few paragraphs, but I think that Steven is trying to say that humans can do much more with much less and have been doing so increasingly for centuries. And this without any concerted effort to do so. This does not necessarily mean having more (although it could mean just that which is where abundance comes in) but being more efficient. If our manufacturing philosophy and processes are creating toxic products designed for landfill, why are we not specifically targeting this, especially when we have the knowledge to tremendously improve these processes? In this light, the "zero-sum" game implicit in many environmental pleas seems somewhat outdated. Of course, we cannot rely upon technological advances to entirely absolve us from the pressing problems of the day. Certainly population pressure, rampant consumerism, misguided financial system and concomitant disparity in social/economic equity -- these all need our immediate attention. However, I believe that we must assent to the fact that, barring complete economic collapse, humanity will not be retreating to a hunter-gather or even agrarian paradigm anytime soon, if ever. Consequently, when we have the means to dramatically improve our materials flow -- recycling is just the beginning, i.e. Cradle to Cradle -- then pragmatically that should be an immediate priority. Fuller deserves a long hard look by anyone truly interested in reinventing those societal institutions which have created (or at the very least, reinforce) the chreode we are desperately clamoring to claw our way out of. Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth is short and sweet and hopeful. Give it a shot. Again, thanks for the discussion on all sides.

"Pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we've been ignorant of their value." - R. Buckminster Fuller

Lawrence S. Grodeska
Internet Communications Coordinator
SF Environment
City and County of San Francisco
11 Grove St. SF, CA 94102
Direct: (415) 355-3733
http://www.SFEnvironment.org

I have just realised that I misread Steven's comments...

"Our Common Future" did not address the core economic issue driving the current near collapse: that the world's economic system is based on the fundamental assumption that we live in a zero-sum, limited resources world. This is no longer true (even though it was true for most of human history). But thanks to developments in science, technology, and the soft sciences of management and organizational development theory, we do now know how to create a world of abundance. Unfortunately, our political and economic systems are still based on a scarcity of resources mental model.


I would argue the exact opposite. Our political and economic systems act as if new resources will always be magically created, and there are no limits. This has been recognised by a growing number of economics students themselves, who commenced this movement in 2000 by petitioning their professors (started in France, then the UK then the US): www.paecon.net www.paecon.net/petitions/Fr-t-petition.htm www.paecon.net/petitions/Camproposal.htm www.paecon.net/petitions/Harvard2.htm This listserv is about Fostering Sustainable Behaviour, so I am not sure if this list is the right venue for such a debate, although the assumptions on which we base much of our activity do fall into the category of behaviour change in a broad sense, but where is the evidence that our political and economic systems are still based on a scarcity of resources model? Where are the OECD economies that are not based on a model of infinite, perpetual growth? I do agree we *can* create a world of abundance - if there are fewer of us, consuming less. Technology has a role to play (and it can also be a double edged sword), but it is not going to 'fix' fundamental flaws in our societal and economic patterns. I do promise to read the Buckminster Fuller article, however I do feel that the response below to Lucille is very patronising. We all have different perspectives and different values; we all need to keep our minds open to different views (including those that conflict with ours) which build on and expand our own understanding, but sometimes they don't change no matter what we read or who wrote it.

S

Thank you Lawrence I was beginning to feel like I had come in half way through a conversation and like Lucille felt Steven had a lot to say but I was not understanding what it was, this was of course because I had not had the benefit that Steve has, of reading Bucky (or the ability to run a workshop on the topic - which alas Steve did come across, unintentionally I am sure, patronizingly - anyway move on we all agree on the fundamentals here ah?). But Lawrence summed it up extremely well and I find that I now agree with Steven (on the whole) and will have a look at Bucky. I would also make a plea here for another tool that of Zero Waste - waste is a human invention and by waste here I mean any wasteful activity as well, which is the broader meaning of zero waste. Recycling alone will not get us out of the mess we are in and at present recycling has been pushed at the expense of reduce and reuse, because of course reduce and reuse make no money for people but by recycling we can continue to consume more and more but feel good because we all put out our plastic bottles for the recycling collection, so the rate of recycling increases but so does the rate of landfilled waste! So lets not get too carried away with technology here, technology is great and can help us but to assume it the whole answer takes a risk on behalf of future generations (again), lets try reducing and reusing first and if we still can't deal with it recycle, using technology alongside to help us out. Anyway all of this is a world away from Richards original question about reviewing Bruntland - so my one word answer to that is "yes" - an bit more substance would be that the world has moved on since 1987, there is a question over needs and wants as a previous correspondent said, so by all means review but lets not forget to act at the same time.

Best Regards
Ian

Ian Challenger
Sustainable Business Analyst
Sustainable Business Group
Cawthron Private Bag 2,
Nelson, New Zealand
+64 3 548 2319 extn 287
Fax + 64 3 546 9464
http://www.cawthron.org.nz

I have to agree - that'sa massive question...and I also agree that one of the main issues to grasp properly now is the thinking around new, more appropriate economic models. For too long the ne-classical economic paradigm has been treated as a science, rather than what it actually is - an idealogy, with massive presumptions such as the belief that growth is fundamentally good, and that the market will self-regulate. I would hope that the developments of the last few weeks have enabled some stuck in that paradigm - although it will still be a minority - to begin to reconsider issues such as closed systems, the exponential function and living within enviro and social limits, But they will need help. I would suggest firstly that you use the potential dim light dawning in some people's minds and the dawning realisation that perhaps the markets will not fix everything, to investigate ways in which economic models can encourage pro-environmental and sustainable behaviour, rather than do precisely the opposite. A good contact for new thinking in what is sometimes referred to as "green economics" is Miriam Kennet, of the Green Economics Institute, working out of Oxford University. Their annual conference is small, highly informed and utterly compelling - try Miriam on [email protected] - their thinking is a breath of fresh air and breaking new ground at an astonishing rate.

Good luck,
Manda

Manda Brookman
Director CoaST:
Cornwall Sustainable Tourism Project
Penstraze Business Centre,
Truro, Cornwall, UK TR4 8HY
p: 01872 562 057
f: 01872 560450
m: 07816 061 780
w: coastproject.co.uk

I had a quick look at the Green Economics Institute website after reading Manda's email - www.greeneconomics.org.uk/ and their next event, Green Economics Retreat later this month at Glastonbury, looks wonderful. Too bad I live on the other side of the world!

Barbara Hammonds
Waste Minimisation Officer