By Bart King
Let it be clear, when Barack Obama said in his inauguration speech: “We will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age,” he was talking about sustainability.
When he pledged to work with poor nations “to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds,’ he was talking about sustainability.
When he said, “Our economy is badly weakened” and “Our health care is too costly,” he was talking about a lack of sustainability. And of course, when he said, “We will harness the sun and the wind and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories,” that too, is sustainability.
The Internet is littered with critical commentary claiming that sustainability is some vague term on equally poor footing as buzzwords like “green.” Yet, it is clearly definable as an attribute of human actions that promote economic, social and environmental health in the near and long terms. It requires the understanding that these three elements are interconnected and cannot be successfully manipulated as independent entities.
The concept was born during the economic growth following World War II and developed in step with the civil rights and environmental movements of the 1960s. Its academic and popular acceptance grew in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and thus it comes as no surprise that our first post-boomer president embraces the principle as a recipe for “remaking America.” Nonetheless it is a radical break from traditional political approaches in the United States, which have broadly favored either the economy or social programs.
The measures of sustainability do not belong to a single political party or ideology: Are there fewer or more good-paying jobs? Is there more or less crime? Has the air and water quality gotten better or worse? Is industry becoming more or less efficient? Is it easier or harder to find affordable housing?
