[author's note: This post originally appeared 2 March 2009 titled "Thoughtful sustainability curriculum." It has been modified slightly in response to my disgust that the term 'sustainability' is being used ad naseum. For an alternate perspective on this, read "Sustainability ad naseum," originally posted 11 September 2008.]

As preface/context, I am pursuing dual undergraduate degrees at Arizona State University: Urban & Metropolitan Studies (UMS) through the School of Public Affairs and Sustainability through the School of Sustainability.  Being in the fifth semester of my UMS studies and in my second for Sustainability studies, I am taking the introductory classes to the latter.  And while the curriculum for Sustainability is what I thought it would be and that I understand the importance of such a program, there are just a couple of concerns I have.

Something that we are taught in these introductory classes on sustainability is that true sustainability is the intersection of environmental protection, social equity, and economic justice.  If I may borrow from ASU’s Global Institute of Sustainability (GIOS, the parent organization of the School of Sustainability), a sustainable society

considers the interconnectedness of environmental, economic, and social systems; reconciles the planet’s environmental needs with development needs over the long term; and avoids irreversible commitments that constrain future generations. (from here)

Being a UMS major, I have taken a lot of classes rooted in policy analysis.  From those classes (and also from being a student of history), long-term policy changes are best achieved through incremental policy shifts.  In other words, it is not wise to disregard previous policy and enact a new set of policies.  This sets any institution up for serious failure.  While troubling times do call for widespread measures, the rule of thumb is to change present policy in an incremental fashion.  This might be the result of society’s teaching that we should look upon extreme movements with a cautious eye and critical analysis.  The simple cultural clues that we get in our early years – don’t go too far from mommy and daddy, ignore the person on the street yelling that “the end is near”, and so on – teach us to ignore (and quite possibly tune out) extreme points of view.

I am prepared to argue that this is why programs such as Greenpeace and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) might be looked upon with widespread cultural disdain.  These programs have adopted a wildly different policy agenda for (in their words) saving the planet.  For instance, PETA advocates for everyone to go vegan: one step above and beyond simple vegetarianism.  To live a vegan lifestyle means to eliminate everything produced by animals.  Generally, these products are more expensive than their non-vegan counterparts, and so those who find that basic food for survival is too expensive could not adopt this lifestyle.  While it might protect the environment, it is not economically just.

It seems like sustainability is the current buzz word.  But I fear that people automatically associate sustainability with liberal tree-hugging hippies.  I believe that the reality of sustainability and the genuine need for sustainability education is far from this perception.  As a disclaimer to both my introductory courses in Sustainability this semester, the instructors conceded that there is not a wide literature on the field.  With that justification, I fear that I am getting a perception that my instructors teaching this curriculum are adopting that mantra (sustainability=save solely the environment).  Using their School’s (GIOS’s) definition of sustainability (see above), there is a definite disconnect.

The first real acceptance of the importance of sustainability was back in 1987 when the Brundtland Commission (formally World Commission on Environment and Development) of the United Nations released their report, Our Common Future, and said (about sustainable development):

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.

I bring this up to show that the idea of sustainability is relatively new.  The textbooks for both my introductory classes to the concept are from the disparate areas of sustainability: environment, economy, and society.  But the emphasis seems to be on the first of those areas.  The PETA agenda example I listed above just targets one of those disparate areas (environment).

Let me be clear that I am not dismissing that we need to change our current habits of consumption. I am arguing that the best way to do this is in an incremental manner.  Take the customary New Year’s Resolutions that people make.  Most resolutions proposed are on a large scale: stop smoking, lose 30 pounds, or do some other behavioral change.  Most of those resolutions do not make it through the end of January.  I bring this up because this is an argument that we are creatures of habit.  We do things with the best of intentions but we fade back into our prior habits.  I fear that true sustainability, if its associated polices are not adopted in an incremental fashion, will be looked upon as a fleeting fancy and nothing will happen.

As I was discussing with one of my colleagues, there are a lot of incremental changes that individuals can make to affect the course of this planet and adopt sustainable living.  If everyone switched out one incandescent light bulb and replaced it with one compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL).  The micro change that this would bring would be massive on the macro scale.  All being equal, however, it is still an incremental change.

If an institution is going to be sustainable in all three uses of the definition, then it should just be sustainable and not talk about it. It should not talk up how ‘environmentally friendly’ it is but use the term ’sustainable’ to talk about it. If we were going to promote environmentally friendly practices, sometimes the way it’s been done is the best way to do it.

-Edward Jensen