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?
And these are not just American issues. When he acknowledged the “suffering outside our borders,” stating that we can no longer “consume the world’s resources without regard to effect,” Obama cut to the heart of the matter. Whether by overpopulation, globalization or karma, the slack has been taken out of the system. We as a nation—and a species—are beginning to reap the consequences of our actions and therefore must consider carefully our individual, government and corporate actions in a broader context.
I’m heartened by the depictions of Obama as a thinker, because the equations of sustainability are not simple. They are circular and multi-variable, requiring a methodical and balanced approach. If he ushers in “a new era of responsibility” and we truly lead the world on a sustainable course, the long-term security of our nation will take care of itself.
There are those who claim sustainability is an impossible, utopian dream, and they may be right. But we won’t know if we don’t try. And if we are going to fall short of a goal, let it be the most lofty goal we can set—one that highlights the equal and overlapping importance of the concerns that previously have been divisive.
The term “green” was rightly included this month in the 2009 List of Words to Be Banished from the Queen’s English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness. We must be careful that “sustainable” does not become similarly wasted, because sustainability is the next evolutionary step for humanity. It should be clearly defined for every schoolchild and adult, because—while it is critical to our survival—it takes us beyond survival of the fittest. Or, as Obama put it: “a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.”
++++
Bart King is News Editor of SustainableBusiness.com. This column is available for syndication.
Contact bart@sustainablebusiness.com .
Loading...