Continuing the debate: Natural vs. Sustainable
Martin Goebel addresses the meaning behind the term 'sustainability'.
In the recent op-ed "It's Time to Ditch Sustainability," Spencer Beebe started a much-needed conversation about the term sustainability and challenged us to think about its meaning and practice.
He suggested "natural" as a substitute name for the movement because sustainability has been so co-opted. He may be right — it's oft-co-opted. But I see it differently.
Could it be "sustainability" has been such a big success that it's so co-opted because it's so meaningful? Sustainability already goes by many other phrases — conservation based, low carbon, green, net zero development, triple bottom line, among others — which demonstrates just how many creative ways this movement can speak to the wide array of people who must, or want, to be part of the change.
Right now, "natural" is the subject of much mis-information, controversy and debate. Industry leaders like Ben and Jerry recently took "all natural" off all packaging because it is increasingly confusing and meaningless to consumers.
What if Walmart, Costco, Burgerville or the State of Oregon refused to carry any product that was not certifiably sustainable? These organizations and many more are moving in that direction because it has become the most powerful framework for positive change for businesses, people and communities. As un-joyful as "sustainability" sounds, it's captured hearts and minds and unleashed innovation and many good new products and whole new industries.
The only way to reach the end goal is from the bottom up and top down, from inside out and outside in — with each individual, organization, business, or community doing its part wherever they best fit and have most leverage. Not recognizing that — and encouraging it — is to leave out many change agents and early adopters that are eager to jump on, or advance, the sustainability cause.
Much innovation begins at home, locally, as Beebe asserts. But to suggest that many waste time trying to change governments and large corporations doesn't recognize that we live in a multifaceted, inter-related world. After all, most of the Pacific Northwest is owned by the federal government; most rural communities would be forgotten if we did not try to change federal agencies. Local action can, and should, inform and spur national and global forces, indeed bottom up rather than top down is the ideal way change happens. But we must never stop trying to influence and transform traditional institutions and outdated dogma that impedes widespread sustainable progress.
Sometimes the progression happens slowly, but it's happening. And veterans like Beebe must continue to nurture evolution and ask tough questions. Let's not forget that for many, such as the students at Portland's Jefferson High School who only recently formed a Sustainability Club, the idea is new.
So, we don't really need to worry much about co-optation. A global movement is afoot by whatever name we call it. It will eventually cause the free riders and superficial copycats to get caught, fess up, and do it over – better and better – or go away.
The real question is not what we call it but how we move ever more aggressively forward. Education, leadership and compelling examples, at all levels, are the real keys. It starts with education about the way systems work and about the consequences, intended and unintended, of our individual and collective actions. The innovation cycle is we learn, we act, we learn more, we adapt.
Mankind is indeed compelled to find ways to transform the way we live with all other creatures on this Planet. Unfortunately, those ways are not coming "naturally" to most of us. If they did we might not be facing the profound planetary challenges that are upon us.
These are just a few points worthy of debate. Because Portland and Oregon are often seen as sustainability leaders, this is a great conversation for us to carry on. I welcome others' ideas and feedback.
