Sustainability Is Dead
By: Rozali Telbis
Tags: Policy, Climate Action, Activism, Climate, Politics

10 years after conservationist Rachel Carson laid down the foundation for the environmental movement, the concept of ‘sustainability’ started entering the mainstream, first appearing in the 1972 book, Limits to Growth. In the book, the authors looked at a study conducted by a team of MIT researchers who examined the implications of worldwide growth using computer modelling. The researchers found that the global ‘system of nature’ cannot support a growing population, even with the help of advanced technology.

According to the book’s authors, the solution to sustaining a growing population was to impose limits on the way we live our lives, i.e. to live sustainably.

A Turning Point in the Environmental Movement

These findings, while not surprising today, were groundbreaking at the time, and they inspired nations around the world to take action. That same year, the United Nations convened the first ever Earth Summit in Sweden, reflecting a turning point in the environmental movement. At the summit, world leaders discussed international environmental issues for the first time — and for the first time, the concept of ‘sustainable development’ was introduced as a way to address global climate issues. The summit would later set the stage for future summits — and agreements — including the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and a slew of other conferences and initiatives led by global leaders.

Unfortunately, we soon learned that climate change efforts were not mitigated from these decades-long conferences, summits, and agreements. Indeed, quite the opposite, efforts to undermine climate action have been propagated by the very same leaders who participate in these conferences. Throughout all this, neoliberal dogma firmly ingratiated itself in Western societies, putting profits ahead of people and the planet.

Sustainability is Akin To Baby Steps

While the concept of sustainability may have had sincere origins, it has quickly dominated environmental discourse, and it is now used ad nauseam by governments, environmental groups, and companies, among other entities, to sell products and buy votes. The word continues to climb in popularity, and even more amid the pandemic, despite having all but lost its meaning since the 70s. Its popularity reflects a new downward trend in the environmental movement, in which baby step solutions are more readily accepted than a whole-of-society approach.

While some meagre solutions are better than nothing at all, many falsely come to believe that sustainability is the panacea to thwart climate change, because it is so often sold to us as such. Examples abound.

Consider TIME Magazine’s sustainability issue. In it, TIME includes an A-to-Z guide of sustainable actions, some of which include: turning off the lights when you leave a room; buying eggs in cardboard cartons; reusing gift wrap; recycling junk mail; and buying plastic-free laundry pods. The entire issue is filled with baby step solutions that seem like sensible actions, but they are nowhere near what the authors in Limits to Growth meant by ‘living within your means’. We are well past the point of simply reducing our red meat intake to save the planet. At this point, a systems change is desperately needed.

The Neo-Environmentalist Takeover

To borrow former-environmental activist Paul Kingsnorth’s term, the latest iteration of environmentalism can be described as ‘neo-environmentalism’ — a movement that is now largely ego-centric in nature, and that breaks away from its previous iteration of being ecologically-centred.

Neo-environmentalists lack the fundamental understanding that all planetary life is interconnected — and that Nature is not something we can save by simply extracting and parceling out into designated areas. Neo-environmentalists advocate for sustainable baby steps, like recycling your junk mail, as a way to justify living beyond your means but they refuse to make greater lifestyle changes. Some even use it as an excuse to consume more simply because a product is labeled as sustainable. Sustainability is part of this new environmental movement that in many ways attracts Western middle to upper class people who spend so long analyzing Nature, they’re too busy to actually appreciate it for its intrinsic worth.

Many self-proclaimed environmentalists today function within the confines of the system — the same system culpable for pillaging the environment (i.e. Nature) as something that is separate to them, as something to be used and protected only in small, disparate pockets. For example, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was recently lauded for increasing the number of marine protected areas (MPAs) — he was even rewarded with the National Geographic Planetary Leadership Award for his efforts. But in the same year, he re-doubled his support for costly, environmentally disastrous, and unnecessary pipelines like Trans Mountain and Keystone XL.

The Canadian government’s approach is to delay, delay, and delay some more, and when they finally do take action, they do the bare minimum to temporarily ward off criticism. This response is not uncommon for Canada, nor is it uncommon for other nations around the world. When leaders are rewarded for climate hypocrisy, how can we then expect individuals to take responsibility — to not only take baby sustainable steps, but to actually live within our means and change the way we consume?

A Call To Be Stewards, Not Exploiters of The Land

1970s-era environmentalism was simple: it was about being a steward of the land, and that meant taking on the responsibility to take care of the planet — not to be puppet masters and exploit, experiment, and pillage the planet to our own ends.

The environmental movement has been co-opted by capitalism; as a result, its messaging has been diluted to capitulate to the status quo. Of course, I’m not putting all the responsibility on the movement itself; many environmentalists are forced to make concessions under capitalism, and have since lost control of how this sustainability rhetoric has been co-opted by profit-hungry capitalists.

Since the publication of Limits to Growth, sustainability efforts have been upended. Simply being sustainable, according to today’s definition of the word, within the parameters of today’s environmentalism will still result in the inevitable collapse of ecosystems. Instead of seeking out ways to sustain our current lifestyles, we need to completely rethink the way we live our lives — a shift in consciousness is required. But if the pandemic wasn’t able to spur us to take action, then I’m not holding my breath.