Sustainability Revisited
What is “sustainability?”
“Sustainability requires the
simultaneous reconciliation of
three imperatives:
• The ecological imperative is to
stay within the biophysical
carrying capacity of the planet,
• the economic imperative is to
provide an adequate material
standard of living to all, and
• the social imperative is to
provide systems of governance
that propagate the values that
people want to live by.” (p. 381)
(John Robinson, “Squaring the Circle? Some Thoughts on
the Idea of Sustainable Development,” Ecological
Economics 48 (2004):369-84,
at:doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.017 )
Our societies are not organized for sustainability
•
•
•
•
Our living & working patterns are very resource-intensive
We take high consumption levels as a “right”
We fail to include the full costs of stuff in the price of stuff
We tend not to be concerned about either distribution or
unfair impacts of consumption
• We strongly resist any efforts to modify production &
consumption patterns
What kinds of operationalizing concepts do
we need to think about sustainability?
• The tendency is to think in
terms of fixed concepts that
can be tweaked
• For example: “Limits to
growth” implies resource
constraints, pollution space,
population size
• But “limits” may be contingent
on other factors, e.g., needs &
wants; technological options;
social organization; spatial
configurations; history &
practices
• People are habit-driven, behave
according to set patterns, &
dislike changing them
Patterns of behavior & social interaction—
habitus--can be formalized or not
• “Habitus” fosters
continuity & certainty
• It reproduces the
social order of things
• It patterns our needs,
desires & relations
• It shapes our hopes &
expectations
• But habitus is also
fluid and malleable
What we do and consume is not simply a
matter of individual choice
• We each have sociallygenerated expectations
• These are fostered in the
family, schools, by media,
peer pressure, advertising
• We come to expect a
certain “living standard”
• This tends to encourage
high levels of
consumption
• Maintaining living
standard requires rapid
turnover of goods
Much of the current sustainability discourse is driven by a
focus on technological change (“weak” ecological
modernization)
• Innovation in discrete hardware can
generate first entrant monopoly
returns until others can produce
• Well-off consumers can gain status by
being early purchasers (when product
is still quite costly)
• Changes oriented toward sociotechnical system may contribute
more to sustainability, but at lower
returns
• Example of utility home energy
conservation programs
–
–
–
–
Conservation is low-tech, low cost
with high energy savings
It is cheaper to reduce consumption
than to build new supply
But utilities only increase profits by
selling more product
And it is difficult to internalize
“negawatts” into rate base
Sustainability requires that we think about
the following
• How do changes happen in
collective worldviews and
practices?
• What are the connections
between micro- and macrolevels in terms of fostering
such changes?
• What role does technological
innovation play in fostering
such changes?
• How can we get the
economics “right?”
• Is it possible to “normalize”
sustainable practices and
behaviors?
We have to transform social practices: action,
meanings, things, consequences
• The “sustainability problem”
arises in the context of everyday
practices
• Practices tend to be “habitual”
rather than “deliberate” or
wholly conscious
• These meet needs, provide
services, get us “through the
day,” and are very social
• How do such practices change?
Can we explain or imagine
changing practices?
• What are the drivers of such
changes?
• Is it politically possible to do
this?
Transforming the Treadmill
Moving toward the steady-state
• Gradually reduce flows of
materials & money via
targeted (dis)incentives
• Value reduced consumption
through education
• Impose responsibilities on
producers & capital
• Tax pollution & waste to
subsidize reductions
• Deal with global equity
issues in a serious manner