By
Jennifer Au
February 21, 2008
Don’t get me wrong.
I have nothing against sustainability, but I don’t believe it should be our ultimate goal. Sustainability is being advertised everywhere as if it were the next great Italian purse company. More and more the message is being shoved down our throats — through billboards filled with wind turbines in fields of wheat and a clear blue sky, or posters telling us that bringing our own coffee cups every morning is “sexy.”
It’s great that we are using our time and materials to advertise something that is potentially good for the future of the planet, but we should slow down before this “sustainability campaign” gets out of hand.
In light of all the environmental philosophies being plastered on the walls of the city, I seriously doubt that anyone has ever stopped and really thought about the idea of sustainability. If they did, they would know that nowhere in this casual definition of sustainability is the idea of protecting of the environment.
Apparently, we can trash the environment so long as we sustain resources for the future generation’s lifestyle. How should we feel about sustainability now? Should we go ahead with it still or should we start over? Conspicuous consumption was a good thing for the economic movement, but is conspicuous sustainability a good one for the environmental movement?
It’s important to have a sustainable society where energy is renewable, and that we give back as we take, but protecting the environment should come first.
“Green” buildings are great, but we shouldn’t be building them in places that serve as habitats that endangered species rely on to live and survive. Organic produce is awesome, but we shouldn’t be chopping down the rain forest so that we can grow cotton for our clothes, or palm trees for our palm oil needs (most of which is used for cooking).
Renewable energy is a wonderful and money-saving idea. At the same time, we shouldn’t be using certain renewable energies, such as hyrdropower, because it interrupts the life cycle of fish and thus throws off the biodiversity balance of certain ecosystems. The list could go on for many “sustainable solutions” to our “environmental problems.”
Sustainability is great, but how we sustain is more important. I suggest that before everyone takes part in this sustainability craze that we all take the time to stop and think about where it is taking us, what could become of it and how we can improve it.
4 Comments
#1 David Green
on February 20, 2008 at 10:25 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
The author appears not to truly understand the principles that underly sustainability. True sustainability doesn't allow us to trash the environment, as she claims it does.
Green buildings (i.e. LEED, Build It Green) have siting criteria that must be met before the building can be considered "green" -- you can't build a LEED building on a wetland housing endangered species. Nearly all organic produce is grown on existing farmland that has been converted from conventional to organic agriculture -- surely a positive, sustainable step. And nobody in the sustainability community advocates building more giant hydropower dams, for the very reasons she lists.
True sustainability should be our ultimate goal. We should strive to live in harmony with the environment, to minimize disruptive impact, and preserve our ever-diminishing natural capital. This writer's misguided attack should not be on true sustainability, but rather on false sustainability, aka "greenwashing".
Greenwashing is a tactic employed by many companies and individuals in an effort to capitalize on public goodwill towards things that are "green", and corresponding lack of knowledge about what truly is "green". If there is a phenomenon worthy of attack, it is greenwashing.
An example of greenwashing is when paper companies claim that their products are "green" because they use renewable resources, while at the same time dump chlorinated effluent into rivers and belch dioxins into the air as a side effect of processing; or when plastics companies claim that their products are "green" because they don't cut down trees, yet depend on oil extraction, production, and refining, all of which have deleterious consequences to the environment.
This author's ignorant attack on sustainability is unfortunate -- let's hope she does some reading and learns about greenwashing soon before publishing any more garbage.
#2 Environment Major
on February 21, 2008 at 12:07 a.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
David, please look up sustainability in the dictionary. Also please read Gifford Pinchot's works because they make up the basis of sustainability.
Thank you.
#3 Brambles
on February 21, 2008 at 12:27 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Thank you, The Daily, for yet another article fraught with misconceptions and nativity of the topic presented.
#4 man, this is a piece a sh*t
on February 22, 2008 at 9:31 p.m.(Location Unknown | Unverified Name)
Your paper absolutely sucks. I do not know who would read this sh*t. The author is so f*ckin ignorant. Luckily, shes only working for the daily. Take that pic off, your ugly.
Post a comment