The Problem with Sustainability

As I walked through my grocery store the other night- desperately searching for peaches- it occurred to me what a terrible environmental studies major I am.

Living in the United States creates an inherent entitlement that is, honestly, hard to even identify within ourselves. There’s so little we don’t have accessible to us at all times that it barely registers when we’re abusing the planet for something.

Peaches are a good two-three months away from being “in season” where I live. But the recipe I was making requires peaches, so I drove to two grocery stores to find them. Eventually, I did find them, and I purchased them, cooked them, and ate them. But as I stood there in the checkout line, I was a little horrified with myself.

This meal probably had more miles behind it than my roommate’s recently purchased used car.

When I was younger, one of my best friends told me something that has stuck with me since that day, and has driven my entire philosophy towards environmentalism: “It’s fine if you recycle, but there’s a reason that ‘Reduce’ and ‘Reuse’ are listed first.”

Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.

I had been taught since I was eight, and had always been proud that I would consistently recycle- even after those big parties where we could fill two garbage bags with the pop cans and bottles. But never, not once, had anyone really explained the significance.

Being from the Midwest, I’m guilty of living in a house that is, most likely, not properly insulated for the region- we value the house being “normal” looking and will pump thousands of extra kilowatts into keeping it warm to preserve the aesthetics. Being from Minnesota, I grew up traveling in the car each and every day going down to the lake and back during the summer, and to near every city for hockey during the winter.

I am not the environment’s friend, and that is the exact problem with sustainability.

Sustainability requires a shift in thought- a cultural movement.  

Aldo Leopold is often cited as the first conservationist; his writings were inspirational to many for their conscientiousness of a “land ethic” and their nostalgic representation of wildlife. Leopold’s primary message was that humanity must recognize that they need the land, and, in doing so, must move forward with a lifestyle that protects their way of life and the land. What he wanted most was for humans and nature to have a symbiotic relationship that would last for generations.

Thoreau preached this as well through his retreat into the wilderness, and President Theodore Roosevelt felt a similar need to protect nature- using his power to advance the establishment of national parks. This concept had persisted through the generations; but society at large has often ignored this innate sense of obligation to the land for the commercial gains. Even John Locke once wrote that we can only use this planet so to “leave ‘enough, and as good.’”

It is important that we no longer ignore that we have an obligation to future generations. Already we have to explain that Pluto is no longer considered a planet, do we really have to explain why Earth is no longer inhabitable? We are nearly beyond the “Tragedy of the Commons,” there are hardly any commons left for us to destroy. It is even more tragic considering we know about these principles, know about the science that rules the world we live in, and blatantly ignore them. And, in doing so, we have permanently altered our planet.

Particularly here in the United States, we do not acknowledge that we are adding to the climate problems around the world. Our history has been to take, and ask questions later. Let other people deal with the mistakes caused by short-sighted actions. This country has used many fossil fuels throughout its history; trees, coal, gold, and oil have led to degradation of these lands. When we began to use more of these resources than we were capable of producing, we found other sources rather than reevaluating our energy needs.

Today, two of the most tragic decisions Americans have made are in Alaska and North Dakota. For the sake of oil, and merely postponing our inevitable need to find an alternative fuel source for cars, boats, and planes, we have deciding to destroy the environment. It is a process that is truly harmful, to humans and the natural habitat that is being disturbed.

No matter how hard these operations attempt to leave no trace, there is always an environmental impact. In North Dakota, they use hydraulic fracking to extract oil. They blast thousands of gallons of water- with nearly a thousand chemicals in it- into the ground to break the rock. This water is then dumped into giant craters.

Water is an incredibly dangerous ways to extract oil and natural gas; it can be absorbed into the ground, and taint the groundwater. Not only the water, and all the potentially dangerous chemicals, but the same fuels they are freeing can leak into this most vital of all resources. There are videos of people lighting their tap water on fire.

This not being common knowledge is a severe problem. If people only see the benefits, but none of the consequences, these harmful practices will just continue on.

As mentioned earlier, the difficult part with any actions towards sustainability is the culture shift behind it. In truth, it practically calls for an overhaul in American culture. It calls for us to change the fact that we think in the short-term, and in a capitalistic manner. Capitalism and access to resources is what built this country; and, historically, we have abused this.

If I was writing this in an English class, I guarantee my instructor would be upset with my use of the word “we” throughout all of this. One of my history teachers would as well, saying that “’we’ didn’t sign the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers did.’” I would probably apologize to them because I respect what they do; however, I must admit that I use “we” with a very specific purpose- the people currently living on Earth are just as indictable for the actions their ancestors made against the planet.

The issue is that we rarely see it as “our” problem. We sit here, in a country where most of it is uninhabitable, but living here because we have found ways to control the climate within our houses. This is the most discouraging part for environmentalists. That and bottled water.

I think Reduce, Reuse, Recycle needs to be…recycled. Re-purposing this well-known phrase could, in fact, help reshape the way humans live. But, Reduce and Reuse need to be emphasized, Recycle needs to be taught as the “backup plan.” We need to stop pretending this is a problem for later generations, and we need to take responsibility for those who came before us. They may not have known better, but we certainly do.

We recently reached a frightening level of sustained CO2 levels- 400 ppm (parts per million) in certain regions of the world. This is a scary time, for those who know what this means they hear “point of no return,” and those who have never heard the phrase before hears “oh good, more ‘global warming’ nonsense.”

This needs to change if we have any hope of riding this wave. The government and corporations will do nothing as long as there is no outcry from the people that support them. People need education on ways to change their standard of living, because there is only one Earth…and we are nearing a point where it can no longer be saved. The planet cannot afford for us to mock or demean those attempting to educate the masses on our obligations to the rest of humanity.

It will already take longer than current generations will live to reverse this damage- but that cannot be the message we take away from it. The message everyone needs to hear is that, with enough time and effort, it can be reversed. Complacency will not do for this mission- it will only kill our planet, and our progeny, faster.