The term ‘sustainability’ and ‘sustainable development’ has become a bit of a buzzword over the last few years with everyone from celebrities desperate for some sort of street credit to desperate politicians jumping on the bandwagon in the hopes that it will do their image some good.
Having spent some time in the field, I can say that the issue at hand is far more important than what Green Peace and the likes of 350.org want you to think. Each of these organisations (and the United Nations is just as guilty here) has its own agenda. From politicians who like flying over to COP conferences (can you say carbon emissions?) to NGOs determined to get their specific agenda across, it’s hardly a surprise that we haven’t seen any real change in over the last twenty or thirty years when the movement first began.
Rather, if the planet and humanity is to become truly sustainable there needs to be a change in our mind sets. In RealitySandwich speak, our psyche needs a 360 degree turn around. Sustainability is about a value system and if it is to be truly effective we need to see it in the same way we view important concepts like equality, truth and justice.
Equality has always been an important concept, but who is viewed as equal has evolved over time. At first it was only white men, then women and gradually the African population has also been given equal status. Animals and plants are slowly gaining their status as deserving rights as well. Perhaps the most relevant example is the LGBT movement which has been gaining in popularity. Men, women and transgendered couples have been fighting for the right to get married. Lately they have been winning the battle as well. Much like the suffrage movement of the early 1900s.
We need to change the way we see the planet. Think of it as three circles – the one being nature, the next being society and the final one being the economy. Traditional views of sustainable development have viewed sustainability as the intersection where all three meet (see below). However, according to experts in the field (and with my MA in the field I know what I am talking about), the growing consensus is that it is should be viewed as three layered circles. Nature is primary, followed by society and then comes economy. It makes perfect sense if you think about it. Take away society and we have no basis for an economy, take away nature and everyone ‘kicks the bucket’ to put it bluntly.
Standard version of sustainability where the “three pillars of sustainability” overlap (McKenzie, 2004: 5)
The three pillars of sustainability concentric circles (Adams, 2006:2)
References:
Adams, 2006. The Future of Sustainability: Re-thinking Environment and Development in the Twenty-first Century. [Online], Available: http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/iucn_future_of_sustanability.pdf [2013, July 19]
McKenzie, S. 2004. Social sustainability: towards some definitions. Working Paper No. 27. Magill, South Australia: Hawke Institute, University of South Australia [Online], Available: http://w3.unisa.edu.au/hawkeinstitute/publications/downloads/wp27.pdf [2013, July 19]
Herbst, T. 2013. Towards a Normative Tool for Critically Analysing the Socio-Ecological Impacts of Golf Courses and Estates in the Mossel Bay, George and Knysna Area. Unpublished Thesis.
