On the train to cosmological heat death there is no sustainable definition of sustainability! :)
But in more local time I'd suggest it does retain importance particularly when there are competing notions. It is only with a concept of sustainable energy, for example, that "clean energy" voodoo can be examined for what it is. Clean coal is 30% more mountains turned into overburden; clean natural gas is flaming faucets, contaminated drinking water, and competition for solar energy; clean nuclear (?!), what a discursive achievement! It seems the definitional challenges arise when there are tradeoffs. I'm researching conflicts between solar energy farms and endangered desert tortoises and kit foxes for example. But I'd suggest there are many things so obviously unsustainable that all the talk of definitional tensions are overblown. You'd find few critics challenging your definition of sustainability if you weigh in on the current debate about whether putting a straw into the second largest pool of carbon on Earth is a sustainable use of our atmosphere (keystone xl, which I hear now is the largest US environmental civil disobedience in the 21st century). The definitional challenges seem to revolve around intragenerational, intergenerational, and ecological equity. Ultimately these are questions about what/who to value (or who does the valuing). These may be impossible to reach consensus on (or should it be majority rules!). Operationally, it seems the biggest challenge is avoiding all of the sustainability greenwash (alot!); how to make "sustainable purchasing" the same or less than buying nothing at all. The uptake of notions about sustainability in industry suggests it warrants attention/revisiting/defining. It'd be a shame if the world business council for sustainable development set the bar; we could end up with sustainable industry by arbitrage. And rest assured, there will be no equity addressed in that version. In courses, I've compared definitions of sustainable development from the Brundtland Report, Herman Daly, and Leslie Sklair to give a broad overview (its not sustainability per se, but it raises similar issues). You could also bring in the forest services' sustained yield to interrogate. Cheers, Dustin Dustin Mulvaney, Ph.D. Science, Technology, and Society Postdoctoral Scholar Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management University of California, Berkeley Mobile: 831 247 3896 Skype: dustinmulvaney http://nature.berkeley.edu/~mulvaney Starting January 2012: Assistant Professor of Sustainable Energy Resources Department of Environmental Studies San Jose State University On Aug 30, 2011, at 10:05 PM, John M. Meyer wrote: > Of course, the problem is not that sustainability "cannot" be defined, it's > that there are too many definitions and no one agreed-upon one. Among the > other terms that fit in this category (and have for many more years than > sustainability): freedom, justice, democracy. > > Despite the lack of agreement, I wouldn't want to "retire" any of these. > Perhaps more to the point, their conceptual power would make it impossible. > > John Meyer > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Hirsch, Leonard <[email protected]> wrote: > From an instrumental position, it is the different meanings that make it > meaningless. Might as well talk about what you want for gefliffle.* Once > you start making policy requests based on a concept, you have to have more > consistency. So we now have sustainable growth, sustainable coal, > sustainable nuclear. > > A concept that cannot be defined in 27 years needs to be retired. > > Len > > PS: I am the sustainability officer in my agency. > > *A made up word some used in some philosophy of science discussion in the > 1970s meaning endless conceptual debates. Don’t believe it ever got > published. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change > the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has” Margaret Mead > > Leonard P. Hirsch, Senior Policy Advisor > Smithsonian Institution > 1100 Jefferson Drive SW #3123 > PO Box 37012, Q-3123 MRC 705 > Washington, DC 20013-7012 > > 1.202.633.4788 > 1.202.312.2888 fax > [email protected] > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Beth DeSombre > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 12:35 PM > To: Ronnie D Lipschutz > Cc: [email protected]; GEP-Ed List > > Subject: Re: [gep-ed] seeking definitions of sustainability > > > > "Ronnie D Lipschutz" <[email protected]> writes: > If you look over the courses linked to our Sustainability > Engineering and Ecological Design curriculum > (http://seed.soe.ucsc.edu/), you may find some useful > material. I try not to get too bogged down in > definitionalism, since that can go on forever... > > Our whole point in starting with definitions is to point out that a) there > are many different ways to define this concept; b) any definition by > necessity prioritizes some things and excludes others, and so c) we're not > going to use a definition for our course, but instead talk about the kinds of > things we want to mean when we're collectively talking about sustainability, > > Beth > > > > -- > John M. Meyer, Professor > Department of Politics > Humboldt State University > Arcata, CA 95521 USA > > (ph): 707.826.4497 > (fax): 707.826.4496 > [email protected] > users.humboldt.edu/john.m.meyer > >
