What is "sustainability?"

To me it's security and independence for me, my family, my community, and nation. It's having something left to pass along to my children and children's children.

Sustainability....hmmmm....sounds like the very definition of the word "conservative". :)

Well put Seth. I would hope that the definition does directly translate for people as you state it, and I'm interested to see what ideas come out of this group on that level.

Hi Greg! Wondered if I'd find you here! One could say it also sounds like conservation. I thought this line in the Sustainability entry in Wikipedia rather handy:

"integration of environmental, social and economic goals in policies and activities"

Great to hear from you too, Julia.

My point was to suggest that conservativism at its core is the desire for sustainability which is why it is instinctively apprehensive of radical change.

I would hope that in the shifting sands of cultural change those who seek a sustainable future and those who instinctively live sustainably could find more common ground.

One of the key values to sustainable living is seeking rewards in things other than material; such as family, neighborhood, and nature. In that spirit, I have been rummaging around to dig up data for an article on the simple backyard pond.

I have noticed that in all the new developments, the most sought after lots and the most valued views are ones that look out on the obligatory backyard ponds. These ponds have become a major producer of wildlife in urban areas, and have been largely responsible for bringing back such species as the bald eagle, and geese to the urban landscape.

Now the pond is a small thing, but in many ways a large thing because it is an area where values merge. No matter what ones political or cultural persuasion there is common ground in this little piece of nature that has great potential to draw our views together.

It's about responsibility and awareness: examining how our actions and choices have an effect on others, on those who will inhabit this world in future and on the world itself. Looking at the interconnectedness of everyone and everything seems to be a big part.

If you accept the oft-quoted statistic that we here in the US comprise 5% of the world's population but consume 25% of the world's resources, then you must quickly conclude that this situation is not tenable over the long term. Our current situation is not sustainable. Either the world will eventually run out of resources to sell us, or other people in the world will want what we have and decide to take it, one way or another.

For the last 225 years or so, we have been able to get along by making more, taking more, buying more, but we are quickly reaching a point at which we will have to deal with living with less. The only alternative is to apply our famous American ingenuity toward inventing solutions that are truly sustainable. Either we will begin to figure out "win-win" solutions for many of the problems that we share with the rest of the world, or the world will start becoming a pretty ugly place, and fairly soon.

I think we need to be a little careful about consumption and materialism. In the words of V. S. Naipal. "I'm rather tolerant of materialism; the poor need it."

My prior statement about finding satisfaction in things non-material has a caveat. Toward the later half of the last century, much of our consumption has been shifting to things non-material, toward things intellectual. Julia's love for her keyboard is very much in this spirit.

I look at my monthly bills and find that I spend more for things digital than I do for things based on fossil fuel such as natural gas and auto products.

Any interesting question is "what is the sustainability cost of what I am consuming?"

In all reality the sustainability cost of a video game is about as much as the transportation cost of organic vegetables.

Sustainability is leaving the world a better place then when you entered it. Sustainability is a willingness to give up a comfort or convenience so as not to consume more than you give back.
Sustainability is taking care of what you have.
Sustainability is seeing the abundance around you, so you don't need to take from somewhere else.
Sustainability is doing for yourself, rather than expect that it be done for you.
Sustainability is planning for future needs, and not just fulfilling present wants.

And, no Greg Schiller, sustainability is being a Conservationist - One that practices or advocates conservation, especially of natural resources. Or, perhaps an environmentalistt, who typically have conservationist views.
A Conservative - is one who favors traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
These traditional view may or may not involve conserving resources. This certainly is not how we are currently operating as a country. What we need is change, which is more in line with being a Liberal - Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
It is true that Teddy Roosevelt, a political conservative was also a conservationist. But, I don't think we can say that the current generation of conservatives are conservationists.

Gary, I was not confusing conservationism with conservativism. I was speaking quite plainly about conservativism.

Conservativism does not oppose change it opposes poorly thought out radical change and is wary of change to the extent that few new ideas are good ideas. The best explanation of this was articulated by Saul Bellow when he said of Midwesterners "Ideas usually begin on the coasts, by the time they get here they are threadbare and we can see right through them".

As for favoring "traditional views", I would say that "traditionally" people in the United States have been less material than they are now.

I am sure we can both agree that the challenge here is not to get into an "us vs. them", "we are better than you" contest but to look at ways in which various political cultural and social groups can share and accentuate the better aspects of their positions to achieve sustainability.

Greg, the problem with your analogy is that conservative political minds tend to favor economic systems that make sustainability impossible, such as leaving all decisions about energy production and consumption up to the market. If we accept the very real proposition that our current American way of living is unsustainable, we can't wait for the market to make its gradual shift in order to acheive these goals. If we continue to believe that every American can and should live in a 5000 square foot house in the suburbs, drive large SUVs and eat lots of fast food, we aren't going to make enough progress to actually achieve sustainability.

Christopher,

One needs to appreciate that the market will follow the will of consumers. Change consumer taste and you will change the market.

My greatest criticism of the liberal and progressive mindset is that it is all too willing to rely on short-cuts rather than pursuing fundamental change. For instance, let's look at two fundamental changes of culture: the civil rights movement and Roe v. Wade. The civil rights struggle was a grass-roots campaign that enlisted churches, social groups, civil organizations, unions, and media around the nation to build support for civil rights. The result was the well-documented "Liberal Consensus" of the 1960's. On the other hand we had a handful of lawyers who approached the Supreme Court to change the laws on abortion resulting in a lack of resolution on the issue 30 years later.

The lesson to be drawn is to focus on changing the heart and minds of culture rather than changing the law or instituting regulation.

Look at the quandary we are in, one side of the popular culture is upsizing to SUV's and Hummers while the other is typing on the internet about "sustainability". Do you honestly believe that a minority can outlaw SUV's and Hummers?

A big part of the inability to change hearts and minds is the tendency that we are engaged in right here which is to gravitate to the opposition of culture wars rather than to seek common ground. The sustainability movement has to learn to embrace suburbia and suburban values in order to affect change. As of the 2000 census political power shifted to the suburbs; that is where the battleground now lies. Nothing significant is going to happen if liberal puritans and urban hipsters with nose piercing waste their time and energy by alienating others then lecturing them on how to live

There seems to be this apriori assumption that if something is a "liberal" idea that it is a "good" idea and a sustainable idea. Ideas simply do not work that way. Often what is good in one sense is bad in another.

For instance, nothing has had a greater impact on the level of consumption, housing patterns and energy use than the women's movement. This is not to say that integrating women into the workplace was a "bad" idea, rather it is to say that good ideas may have fatal negative impacts.

Looking at tables of Motor Gasoline consumption, as well as consumption of all other forms of energy in the United States, one notices a dramatic upward trend through the 1950's and 1960's an era where women were moving into the workforce. Do not be confused between the rise of the radical women's' movement and the actual integration of women into the workforce the former lagged well behind the later.

As women began moving into the workforce they required a means of transportation,. cars. This led to a doubling of gasoline consumption during the very era in which the mpg of cars was also on the rise.

Two earner families, two car families drove up the cost of and size of housing brought about an explosion of appliance buying and logically led to urban sprawling with the trend in the 70's, 80's and 90's toward larger lots further away from the urban center.

Again, this is not to argue against working women but to directly refute the notion that "liberal" ideas and cultural initiatives are "sustainable" ideas. Change is a wonderful thing but it always comes at a price and often that price is completely counter-intuitive.

I want to take issue with one thing Gary said, " Sustainability is a willingness to give up a comfort or convenience so as not to consume more than you give back."

Linking sustainability to sacrifice will limit its appeal, and is frequently unnecessary. Consider two families in two very different houses. The Smiths have a drafty old house with poor insulation. They keep the thermostat at 62 degrees to save energy, but their gas bill is still $300/month. The Joneses live in a superinsulated house. They keep the thermostat at 70 degrees all winter, but their gas bill is only $40/month.

Obviously the Joneses are living more sustainably where natural gas consumption is concerned, and they're more comfortable as well. Good design can create similar outcomes in many areas if people would just make it a priority.

Exactly Steve,

If one were to compare a modern suburban house to the typical house in an urban area, the suburban house would win hands-down. The typical suburban home is made primarily out of concrete, gypsun, and glass (insulation being mostly glass). What wood there is, is mostly chipboard made of fairly small fast-growing trees. Toss in a little vinyl siding and asphalt shingles....and not much of a dent has been made on the environment.

Probably where the suburbs fall down the most is that they are still very much built around the car, but that is changing. Tastes in the burbs and burgs have changed faster than popular cultures perceptions of them have changed.

Around the Twin Cities, suburban bus lines have exploded in use in the last two decades bringing about the interesting phenomena of the "reverse commute". Years ago I used ot live in Chaska at the end of the 53J bus line. When I got on the bus in the morning, it was parked alll alone at the end of a vacant parking lot. Now when the bus pulls up there is a full parking lot but the bus itself is full of commuters coming out from the city to work in the light industry that has sprung up along the bus line.

Sustainability.

We should sustain the rates at which we fund education, the investment we make in our children.

We should sustain the innovative spirit of America in technology, science and the arts.

We should sustain our beliefs and morals to create and promote a safe working and living environment for all our residents and the members of the world.

Thanks so much Julia and Everyone Else Who Has Responded,
I'm delighted to see such a lively discussion about sustainability, something that's been very near and dear to my heart since 1983 when I helped to co-found the International Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture (now the Alliance for Sustainability (see www.allianceforsustainability.net).

I feel sustainability is one of the most exciting and engaging topics in the world and is something that can be embraced by Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Independents and the Fed Up. It offers the possibility for turning things around and transforming life on the planet in a positive way.

I think there are many excellent definitions of sustainability (see my article on Historical Roots and Definitions of Sustainability), each one with their own essence. I helped develop one of the definitions, which says that to be sustainable, a society must be ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just and humane (meaning to embody our highest values, how we treat people, animal and all life).

One of the most powerful tools I've ever discovered for making people aware about sustainability is the Natural Step Framework, which was developed in Sweden in 1989. It is being widely used by a wide variety of small and large business, government, cities, states, communities, farmers, academic and religious institutions, and a variety of nonprofits to save money, improve performance and become environmentally and socially responsible.

I have posted several short articles which describe the Natural Step Framework, including one on the how it addresses how we can meet the basic needs of every person on the planet. I have the privilege of leading presentations and seminars on Sustainability and the Natural Step Framework (also posted) and would be pleased to share more with you about how this tool can help your family, workplace, organization or community become sustainable. When I see how people change their lives I have hope and believe we can create the world of our dreams.

I find it encouraging that the president's latest domestic policy agenda is to advance alternative fuels and encourage conservation. His statements concerning an "addiction to oil" represent quite a turn-around for an "oil-man".

Hs critics have charged that he is not throwing money at the problem, which I suppose is the role of critics, but his statements will in the long run change of trajectory of our reliance on oil.

The Barons are at Court
How an Unheralded Supreme Court Case Could Turn You into a Serf.


The United States Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, has declared that it is legal to claim utility patents on plants. The December 10, 2001 ruling states that the Plant Patent Act (PPA) of 1930 and the Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970 (PVPA) are so broad that they can cover any type of plant that is "new, distinct, uniform, and stable." No exclusivity is granted to genetically modified plants. In fact, companies such as the plaintiff in this case, Pioneer Hy-Bred, can claim utility patent on any seed it breeds, making it illegal not just for you to propagate and sell that seed, but even for a farmer to save seeds from the previous season to plant next season.
In your own garden when the coriander goes to seed so quickly, as it does when the whether gets warm, you could keep those seeds, grind a few for your chili or curry powder, and save the rest for next year. The trouble is, now you may be breaking the law when you do, at least if your original seeds were patented. Companies like Dupont (who owns Pioneer) may not be interested in going after one lonely gardener or farmer for patent infringement, but the disturbing part is that under this ruling they could. In fact, Monsanto has already started prosecuting farmers. They have already succeeded in a case against a Canadian farmer, Perry Schmeiser of Bruno, Saskatchewan. In that case, Schmeiser claimed that the patented "Roundup Ready" seed blew onto his land from neighboring farms and passing trucks. No matter, Monsanto said, it was still their proprietary seed. Schmeiser lost in Canada's Supreme Court last summer.
In the American Supreme Court case, Pioneer Hy-Bred V. JEM Ag Supply, Pioneer brought suit against JEM for buying, repackaging and reselling Pioneer's proprietary brand of corn. While this may well be an infringement of patent or copyright law, the decision by the Supreme Court goes well beyond that to include rights, bestowed by the court upon companies, to claim proprietary rights on generations of sexually reproduced plants. That is where it gets disturbing. That same coriander in your garden might be heirloom seed that your Great-Grandmother began saving, but when a butterfly cross-pollinates your plant with pollen from your neighbor's patented coriander, your next crop will be a violation of the law and you won't even know it.
According to the Plant Variety Protection Office at the USDA, The PVPA expressly states that among its exemptions is "A farmer's exemption to allow the saving of seed for the sole use of replanting the farmer's land. Neither plant patents nor utility patents provide these exemptions."
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) states that a utility patent "may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new, useful, and nonobvious [sic] process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." The same office states that a "Plant Patent" may be granted to a person who "invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant."
Justice Thomas (a former attorney for agri-business giant Monsanto) and 5 assenters have declared that since the PVPA does not expressly forbid utility patents on plants, then they are to be allowed, effectively circumventing the obvious intent of Congress when it made the original farmer's exemption in the PVPA. This is unusual for a strict constructionist like Thomas. Remember Civics class? A constructionist is one who believes that if the law does not say you can, then you can't.
Justices Breyer and Stevens dissented. In the dissent, authored by Justice Breyer, what is made clear is the intent of patent law vis a vis the intent of the PPA and the PVPA. The key factor is the term "asexually reproduce." In high school biology you learned about asexual reproduction when the little amoeba cell divided and became two amoebae, genetically identical to the original. In agriculture, asexual reproduction means grafting. For example, take a cutting from a grape vine, graft it to existing rootstock, and the new grapes will be genetically identical to the old vine. A similar goal can be achieved with apples and other fruit trees. Breyer and Stevens dissented because while the original lawsuit was brought to stop JEM Ag from packaging and reselling Pioneer's seed (akin to copying and selling a movie on video), the ruling Justice Thomas penned conveyed rights having little to do with the case. It is as if Microsoft programmed Windows to replicate itself onto other computers via the Internet, and then claimed that the users of those new computers owed royalties to Microsoft. Such an idea would be laughable, even for mighty Microsoft to attempt, but the Agri-business industry seems to have managed it.
Since that term "asexually reproduce" is clear in Plant Patents, the Agri-business giants are eager to make Utility Patent claims, insuring their grip on vital food supplies worldwide for generations, and sounding perhaps the final death-knell of the family farm. A regression to land barons and serfs in a fiefdom has already begun. Do you know the penalty for poaching the King's deer?

Kurt, I am not sure what the problem is with patenting plants. This has been the case for years with commercial farming. Why is this supposed to be "news".

I also fail to see the need to spin this in the direction of paranoia with comments like "insuring their grip on vital food supplies worldwide for generations". There is no law that mandates the use of their products. On the other hand, if I am not mistaken patents are only good for 20 years, not generations.

The development of new genetic strains of plants is hideously expensive and those who work in these fields deserve patent protection. The pertinent question is "should one play along?" There are plenty of food plants stains that are in the public domain. If one wants to use free genes, they can freely do so.

"Kurt, I am not sure what the problem is with patenting plants. This has been the case for years with commercial farming. Why is this supposed to be "news"."

The difference is in the kind of patent. Plant Patents have, as I said, been a reasonable and effective tool. To allow utility patents on plants though, which give rights not just to the plant, but to its progeny, makes it illegal for the farmer to save seed with again having to pay royalties to Monsanto.

"There are plenty of food plants stains that are in the public domain."

Yes but plants cross-pollinate. The Supreme Court's decision even upholds the right of patent holders to walk onto your land and test your crops. If their genetic strain is found, you owe. Even if it floated in on the wings of butterflies or from a passing truck or a nearby field. This technology cannot be hemmed in

As for the "generations" part, all they need do is force the farmer to buy their seed, with no option for saving them as farmers have done for eons. Then to keep their patent, they need tweak it only slightly and re-patent. They control the market, the farmer has no freedom of choice.

I'm fully aware of how paranoid it all sounds, but that makes it no less relevant.

The Supreme Court's decision even upholds the right of patent holders to walk onto your land and test your crops. If their genetic strain is found, you owe.

Quite the opposite.

The producers whose crops were pollinated (polluted) by patented stains has the stronger case of collecting damages.

As for the "generations" part, all they need do is force the farmer to buy their seed, with no option for saving them as farmers have done for eons.

Patents are only good for 20 years, not eons, besides farmers are not obliged to buy or plant patented seed by any other force than the profit of the yield. There are a literally thousands of "public domain" strains out there that farmers are more than welcome to avail themselves of.

It's so amazing that a single article can spark all sorts of creative ideas, strong reactions, and responses to it. Maybe this article is an example of one that's sustainable in itself

Greg - I think Kurt has a good point here. You should see movie "The Future of Food". They do a good job of explaining the problem. And why you should be worried.
The gvt is allowing corporations to patent existing life, seeds. Not just strains that they alter with Genetic Engineering. So there is a rush on to patent every seed out there right now.
Large corporations are also buying up smaller seed companies and limiting the availability of different kinds of seed to the public, citing profitability issues. Which may be true, but long term, it may be a plan to force consumers to limit their choices to GMOs.
Plants cross-pollinate. If your farm is found to have a Monsato strain mixed in with your crops you can be found guilty of violating a patent. Some farmers have had to destroy their family's seed because of cross-pollination issues. Regardless of what the is found in court, many of these small farmers settle out of court because of the overwhelming cost of battling Monsato and are often forced to destroy existing seed as part of the settlement agreements.
Monsanto is creating and selling seeds that self-destruct or do not replicate themselves. So you have to buy your seed from them each year. This is the very definition of unsustainability! Sometimes I wonder if Genetic Engineering could be our lead?
Sustainability to me is to only take from the world the minimum needed to live and give back as much as you can. This includes respecting nature. I fear in our arrogance of thinking we know how nature works we might just reap the rewards of our ignorance. Mother nature will always win in the end.

Carolyn,

Can you show me a single instance of a farmer who was sued by a seed company because of cross-polination?

This film seems like young city people talking to young city people.

Sit in court in a rural area some time and watch the law suits fly back and forth. One farmer suing another because the guy broadcast herbicide on a windy day. Another suing because of a dog running loose. Another suit because of damage due to water run-off from a misplaced tile system.

The theme of these suits is "keep your own stuff on your own property or pay up". The notion of having to pay because of pollen drift is about as legally absurd as being charged with fertilizer theft because a neighbors cattle relieved themselves in your field.

Here is the other side of the story Litigation in the Wind

Farmer vs. Farmer
Farmers who grow GM crops might find themselves as defendants in a lawsuit filed by neighbors who complain about crop contamination. For instance, plaintiffs might allege that pollen from the defendant's GM crops drifted over a property line (via wind, insects, etc.) and contaminated their non-GM crops.

Commentators have suggested that the plaintiffs of such lawsuits might assert claims of trespass to land, private nuisance, negligence, or strict liability. A claim of trespass to land can arise when someone crosses the legal boundary of another's land or causes something to cross that boundary. A private nuisance is often described as something that decreases the value of an individual's property or interferes with their use or enjoyment of the property. For a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately resulting from the breach of duty. In contrast, strict liability is a type of liability without fault in which a person engages in an "abnormally dangerous" activity. Factors that a court may consider in determining whether an activity is abnormally dangerous include: whether the activity involves a high degree of risk of harm; whether the gravity of the harm that may result from the activity is likely to be great; whether the activity carries risk that cannot be eliminated by the exercise of reasonable care; whether the activity is a matter of common usage; whether the activity is inappropriate to the place where it is carried out; and the value of the activity to the community.

With regard to strict liability, commentators suggest that a court may compare a genetic contamination case to a pesticide drift case, such as the 1977 Washington State supreme court case, Langan v. Valicopters, Inc. (88 Wn.2d 855). In this case, the State supreme court affirmed an award of damages to an organic farmer who sued a crop duster in strict liability for the crop duster's use of a chemical pesticide on the organic farmer's land. Although this is characterized as a pesticide "drift" case, the Defendant had sprayed pesticide while he was flying over the Plaintiff's land in a helicopter. The pesticide did not simply float from one property to another. Courts will have to decide whether a short-term chemical drift is really analogous to the type of long-term process that would be required for genetic drift, and whether growing GM crops is the type of "abnormally dangerous activity" that is covered by strict liability. Determinations of trespass to land, private nuisance, negligence, and strict liability have nuances that can vary from state to state.

Do not get me wrong, there are many sustainability issues with genetic engineering, but let's separate fact from fear.

I've been exploring this topic this past year while participating in the Eat Local Challenge. Choosing local produce is healthier for us and for the environment, as well as having a positive impact on saving the family farm. The food is more nutritious and tastes so much better picked at its peak of flavor. Learning to eat and cook seasonally has been a remarkable experience as well as knowing that each one of us can have a positive impact on supporting sustainable agriculture. Learn more at http://www.eatlocalchallenge.com.