Twitter
Facebook
Reddit
Digg
Tell us what you think!Send a letter to the editor about this or any other article in The Maine Campus.
I’m a coward. Despite having read, meditated and debated on the subject, I didn’t want to do this publicly — that is, stick a toe in the treacherous waters of what is and what isn’t sustainable.
However, as I said in my last column, I’m determined to figure out what a sustainable University of Maine would look like and I cannot get too far with that venture without defining what sustainability is.
Sadly, it is a word so full of meaning it’s meaningless.
First a caveat: “Hell hath no fury like an environmentalist scorned.” There is perhaps no force more detrimental to the environmental movement than environmentalists themselves.
Those working for environmental causes often find themselves working against each other, despite the mountains of hard work they have accomplished, as much as against big, bad pollution monsters — the typical, heartless fiends.
These advocates can be split into, roughly, four groups: utilitarian, environmentalist, social ecologist and deep ecologist.
Utilitarians are those who see man as dominant and nature as a boundless resource to use for their benefit. Basically, almost everyone throughout history falls into this category. I will not say these are the bad guys who only need to be educated, because all of us have that selfish why-can’t-I-have-this-if-I-want-it mentality. But it must be recognized that if you make a choice, it is the result of conscious rationale, not natural instinct.
Then there are environmentalists who believe in economics, rational choice, incentives and regulations — think of the ‘70s, when all of our best environmental legislation was written. Nixon, have I loved?
Deep ecologists run the gamut from moon-dancing hippies transcending in nature to level-headed environmental scientists concerned with biological loads and ecosystems.
And lastly are the social ecologists who agree with the goals of the others, but not the means. They can’t go all the way and say that humans are a pest infesting the earth, as a few deep ecologists do. Rather, social ecologists look at the mass of human suffering, social injustice and inequality, and then try to combine an anxiety for the environment with a concern for our species.
These simple definitions give only a slight sense of how four people working toward the same goal could really get nasty when dealing with the details, and the divisions don’t end there.
Internationally, the divide runs deep between the developed “we are so rich, we worry more about saving animals than eating them” mindset and the undeveloped “well, we’d just kind of like to eat and have a iPod” frame of mind.
For 20 years and since the first Rio Earth Summit, leaders have been dithering over technology transfer and carbon levels — unfortunately, without much input from a certain world power. This year they will meet again for Rio and I doubt anyone has much hope of a change-the-world moment.
This brings me back to what I think of sustainability. I want to define it as something I believe could actually happen, thus I cannot say everything in the world must stay as it is now.
Timothy Waring, a University of Maine economics professor, recently gave a lecture on the evolution of sustainability theory. He prefers the idea of thermodynamic sustainability, an idea I was attracted to as well.
The theory stipulates that the world is limited, so we should use renewable resources at a rate at which they can actually renew themselves and we should use nonrenewables no faster than the technology we have to substitute them with. We should also emit wastes no faster than natural systems can absorb them.
What a wonderfully sensible plan!
What Waring and I like about this theory is that it gives you something to quantify — something to measure, compare and base actual decisions on.
But, as with any theory of sustainability, it rests on one giant assumption — that humans are willing and able to cooperate. To sustain, we must be altruistic and motivated to act for the good of the community, not just ourselves.
It’s a bold and possibly foolish hope, especially when the UMaine community barely cares enough to attend cheap concerts or free Winter Carnivals. Twenty years ago, everyone was excited about sustainability. Now we’ve seen projects succeed and fail and we’re at the point where what has stuck is the new normal, and we have no momentum for moving ahead.
Sustainability is out of its teenage years and heading to college, but it is up to us to decide if it lives to have a mid-life crisis.
The older generations have done as much as they can or are willing to do. No matter what flag someone is waving, it comes down to small changes in behavior, a new wave and sense of purpose.
Why can’t UMaine be the model community for the world?
I’m not an alarmist, but the effects of change and degradation on the world we live in won’t wait for us to get comfortable. So come out of your caves. Do things.
Mackenzie Rawcliffe is graduate student studying international affairs and public administration. She is the production manager for The Maine Campus.
Bangor Daily News