The divide between environmental and economic sustainability
When students at Bishop’s hear the word ‘sustainability,’ ‘environmental’ or ‘green’ seem to be implied at the same time. But does sustainability really put the needs of the environment first, or do economic and social needs take priority?
This question is important to everyone who hears the word sustainable because there are at least four different aspects of the word, which makes it ambiguous. For example, sustainability could be viewed from a human, social, economic or environmental perspective. It is easy to fuse one or two of these types together and have them mean very different things.
On one hand, the economic definition of sustainability is to use or consume something that has monetary value over a period of time and still have enough when that demand slows down. A major problem with this perspective is that intangible, intergenerational and common resources like air cannot have a monetary value associated with them.
On the other hand, an environmental definition of sustainability would be to protect natural resources such as land, water and air so that humans can co-exist with the environment without overstepping an ecosystem’s regenerative limits. Other resources could include fish or anything else that we harvest. In order to protect these resources, a reduction in consumption is usually a solution to be considered.
It is easy to confuse environmental and economic sustainability because both focus on reducing or managing consumption of resources. Therefore another question is raised when people hear about products or projects that are labeled as sustainable: “Is the product or project reducing consumption to save money or to preserve the environment?”
This question can be raised when we hear about reducing the amount of electricity that we consume every day. Some would attribute this example to environmental sustainability because by using less electricity, a coal or gas power plant would have less demand to create power, and therefore create fewer emissions in the air.
But on the other hand, the same situation could be viewed when thinking about economics. If a coal or gas power plant is unprofitable and citizens reduce their energy consumption, the power plants could sell off the extra energy to other areas instead of reducing production, and still be considered sustainable. This is because, as mentioned earlier, as long as a company or resource is profitable over time, it is regarded as sustainable.
This is the biggest problem with the use of the term ‘sustainability.’ A company, government or organization could be saying that a certain project or action is sustainable under the pretext that people will immediately think that it is a ‘green’ or environmental movement. Instead, they put the economic needs of the project or action before the environment.
Therefore when you hear the term sustainable, make sure to ask yourself a few questions about the meaning behind the word, and think about which context it is being used in. After all, the environment itself isn’t the only thing that is being taken for granted.
