Sustainable development was defined by the Brundtland
Commission as "development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs". The natural question that arises is: what
exactly does such a statement mean, and how would we distinguish
a sustainable
society from one that is not? To make the goal a bit more concrete,
we imagine it as having three separate but interconnected values:
environmental quality, social justice, and economic vitality.
These must be balanced appropriately for a community to be
sustainable in the long run.
While sustainability is a noble goal, it can turn into little
more than a moral edict rather than a prescription for specific,
concrete actions. It also can be a rather abstract concept
with little connection to environmental processes. It is necessary,
therefore, to consider some of the specific measures of sustainability
that might be used in assessing proposed developments, lifestyles,
policies, etc. These measures might usefully be divided between
the three core values of environmental quality, social justice
and economic vitality. We take the following to be some of
the central measures of sustainability, each of which can be
enhanced or degraded by material and energy use in society:
Environmental Quality; an environmentally sustainable
society is one that promotes:
- Public health (concentrations of environmental pollutants
leading to an acceptable incidence and/or severity of disease
in the population);
- Ecosystem health (the ability of ecosystems in the region
to provide crucial natural services and to maintain structures
and functions crucial to their wellbeing);
- Reduced concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases (to alleviate the threat of global warming);
- Biodiversity (a rich array of species in the surrounding
countryside);
- Unfragmented ecosystems (significant areas of unbroken
natural landscape);
- Rural landscapes (a mosaic of land uses characteristic
of rural life);
- Preservation of historical attributes (associated with
the treasured past of a city such as Cambridge and Chapel
Hill);
- Quality of and access to green spaces (ability of individuals
to remain connected to natural spaces);
- Maximal re-use of materials (including recycling to ensure
that material and energy flow in the community is a "closed
system");
- Efficient use of resources, including energy, water, etc.
(to ensure that human needs are satisfied with the minimally
required material and energy).
Social Justice; a socially sustainable society is one
that promotes for all individuals:
- Access to public health (including protection against environmentally-related
disease, and access to health care);
- A high quality of life (with that quality spread as justly
as possible within the population);
- Affordable housing (meeting the needs for shelter that
is aesthetically pleasing, safe and healthy);
- Affordable heating and cooling (meeting the need for essential
temperature control that does not compromise the budget for
other needs);
- Social progress (providing opportunities for education,
economic advancement, political participation, etc.);
- Healthy living and working environments (made available
to all citizens regardless of income).
Economic Vitality; an economically sustainable society
is one that promotes:
- High and stable levels of economic growth by industry and
commerce (increasing both profits and the tax base of the
community);
- High and stable levels of employment (increasing household
income);
- High and stable levels of capital needed for investment
in social projects (including projects promoting environmental
quality and social justice).
The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (and hence
its rate of emission) is an important metric of sustainability
since it poses a viable threat to each of the three components
of sustainability: a significant decrease in environmental
quality, the potential for social disruption spread inequitably
around the globe, and economic loss to agriculture, city infrastructures
and developed coastlines.
The central ideas guiding our efforts in environmental sustainability
are (i) that environmental phenomena ultimately may be traced
to the cycling of material and energy across the earth, (ii)
that there are perturbations (or changes) in these cycles by
human activities, and (iii) that these changes can produce
a decrease in the health and well-being of humans and other
species. We believe that all cycles, including that of carbon,
can withstand some degree of change without necessarily producing
adverse effects, built as they are on feedback mechanisms that
compensate for change. Above some level of change, however,
the environmental system can no longer compensate and adverse
effects (e.g. decreases in health or habitats) progressively
appear. As a result, the question is not whether society ought
to be allowed to change these cycles through our activities
(which we believe will be necessary to support our own quality
of life) but rather the degree of change permitted. Sustainability
then refers to a society that produces changes in environmental
processes such as the carbon cycle that result in changes in
health and well-being that are judged tolerable, and that preserve
the ability of future generations to maintain those same levels
of health and well-being. Sustainability doesn't
require having no impact on the environment; it requires a
level of impact that is an acceptable trade-off for the amenities
of both present and future societies. Research at the Institute for the Environment has the goal of identifying the acceptable
level of perturbation to the natural cycles, and the community
designs and policies that will prevent this acceptable perturbation
from being exceeded.
The Carbon Reduction Project at the Institute focuses on reduction
of carbon dioxide emissions as a key component of the strategy
to move North Carolina and the nation towards sustainability. We
believe that policies, community designs and personal choices
that meet this goal for carbon dioxide will have follow-on
effects that influence a wide array of other issues of environment
and sustainability, all of which hinge on the same principles
of optimizing material and energy use, land conservation, etc.
As a result, we focus largely on solutions that can be justified
by a wide range of environmental goals, regardless of whether
climate change is, in the end, proven to be a significant threat
(and we believe it is!). |
What are the causes of sustainability?
Sustainability may be traced ultimately to three aspects of
society, each of which may be targets for policies:
- Infrastructure, or the ways in which material and
energy are used in a community. An example is the transportation
infrastructure of cars and roads.
- Structure, or
the legal, economic, social, etc., systems that govern
decisions and behavior. An example is the set of
laws available to communities in guiding development.
- Superstructure,
or the beliefs held by individuals and institutions in
communities such as Cambridge and Chapel
Hill. An example is the belief that freedom of travel offered
by a car is or is not essential to well-being.
The co-generation facility at UNC-Chapel Hill is an example of a policy choice
that makes sense, environmentally and economically, regardless of whether the
target is reduction of carbon dioxide emissions.
How will future generations find health and well-being?
While we understand how the current generation uses natural
resources (energy, land, etc) to preserve health, well-being
and quality of life, it is not at all clear how future generations
will do this. They may use the same resources we do, or find
entirely new resources to use in ways we cannot even imagine.
Our use of resources today may restrict their ability to use
those same resources in the future, while also providing the
economic growth and technological innovation needed to locate
and use different resources (or use the same resources more
wisely).
Sustainability does not, therefore, require that
we maintain the ability of future generations to lead their
lives as we do. Rather, it requires that we preserve or
enhance their ability to locate effective means to lead
a life of equal quality.
|
