The First Tenet of Sustainability
As I noted last time it was the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland of Norway, that provided the classic definition for “sustainability”. Elegant in its simplicity, it states, “meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
Contrary to my own belief, the book well-articulated that the word “sustainability” is not quite as soft or “fuzzy” as many of us would-be practitioners might have thought. Let’s say it does not carry with it the same uncertainty associated with terms such as “hard-core pornography”. (Got your attention, huh?) Some may recall Justice Potter Stewart in 1964 noted about that term, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced … but I know it when I see it.” Well, we have to do a lot better than that for sustainability.
Surprisingly, the first tenet of sustainability according to Brundtland appears to require “a political system that secures effective citizen participation in decision making.” While not to overly dwell on this point, this can have a number of meanings. Too often the participation is limited to groups who are often referred to as “stakeholders” and many times individuals who do not represent groups are conveniently excluded. When it comes to “sustainability,” we are all stakeholders whether we represent a group or not. Maybe some of you have felt excluded or that your input was not fairly considered. We need to become better listeners in a world where the distractions are immense and where individuals and their sometimes different ideas seem to count for less. I mean when you consider that there has only one statue I can recall commemorating a committee, (The Burghers of Calais by Rodin) maybe it is time to consider that “groupthink” that may exclude outliers may not always offer the best solutions. Consider too, that in general, a great many of NESEA core ideas have been the outliers until relatively recent times.
The Brundtland Commission continues to detail in numerous places not merely the “narrow notion of physical sustainability” personified by green buildings and installing solar panels but also, more importantly, what other changes must take place in society including changes in the legal field to make us “sustainable”. At one point it says:
“National and international law has traditionally lagged behind events…; and “there is an urgent need:… to establish and apply new norms for state and interstate behavior to achieve sustainable development…”
It more than implies that changes in principles and values are required not only in government but in governance issues at all levels, in all forms of organizations within our culture including civil society which includes groups like Lion’s Clubs, Kiwanis and even professional organizations — like NESEA. Oddly enough, one think tank that has very well articulated some of the other principles is not a renewable energy organization but the Natural Hazards Center in Boulder, CO. Aside from the participatory process discussed above, which they saw as central hub of a wheel to all the other principles, they likened the spokes of the wheel in their diagram to include:
- Social & Intergenerational Equity
- Environmental Quality
- Quality of Life
- Economic Vitality
Brundtland goes into these as well as a number of other areas to provide a more complete tapestry of understanding. In future blogs we will examine some of these before we get into the other areas of sustainability including some more closely associated with what NESEA members try their best to accomplish on a day to day basis.





Joel,
Thanks for this one.
Your definition is precisely right: “meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
Many here seem to think about this on environmental terms only. But it is no coincidence that the words ecology and economy share the same greek root, oikos, or home.
The current economic crisis is highlighting more than ever before the serious threats created by a lack of understanding of sustainability. Specifically, the lack of sustainability embedded in the structure of the financial securities system is a major threat to all the other systems that a modern society depends on.
Our financial system has not been operating in a remotely sustainable manner for several decades. And our government is now borrowing and spending at completely irresponsible levels to prop up a financial system built on securitization and avoided accountability. The federal government’s recent economic endeavors are completely unsustainable.
The financial institutions that our government is most trying to sustain are neither sustainable, healthy or competitive. In fact they seriously distort and disrupt the functioning of healthy markets. They should not be considered too big to fail, but rather too big to exist.
Like the natural selection of ecology, a critical part of a healthy economy is truly competitive markets. We don’t need to restore the markets for complex incomprehensible and unaccountable financial securities. Indeed we need the opposite – new rules that restore the health and diversity of the financial system that has been disrupted by a cancerous invasion of securitization.
Sustainability advocates should be out in front of the effort to restore a truly sustainable financial system in which feedback mechanisms are clear and effective, like in any healthy natural system.
Fred
Thank you, Fred,
I really appreciate your feedback on this and your connecting ecology and economy in the thoughtful way that you did. I find you, in some ways, on much the same page as Paul Hawken of Smith and Hawken who later wrote one of the best books I have read on what we need to do to aid the planet recover –”The Ecology of Commerce”. He is known for having said in that book it was big business that got us into this [environmental degradation] and it will be big business that will get us out of it. I think we’re beginning to see some of that but I am unsure how deep it is as yet.
Maybe the current economic situation has brought about some real cultural changes that will further drive sustainability points home. While we have had our differences on economics over the years I like to think our solid support of certain common goals is far stronger and is what keeps this meaningful and constructive dialogue going.
We are in a difficult situation and it was a long time coming. I don’t see a quick solution and it may lead to some really unexpected and more permanent cultural changes. Let’s just hope they are for the good.
Best,
Joel Gordes