Sustainability

Key Sustainability Concepts

As I'm sure you are aware, the terms sustainable and green are used in many contexts and in many sectors of society. Sustainable growth, sustainable energy, green business, sustainable fashion, green cars, sustainable food, and sustainable consumption are just a small sample of how the terms are used. Many people in the sustainability field (myself included) are concerned that the term has been overused to the point that it is almost meaningless. Robert Engelman, President of the Worldwatch Institute, refers to this phenomenon as "sustainababble" in his "Beyond Sustainababble" chapter from Is Sustainability Still Possible?. While this excessive usage of the term is undesirable, it is in some ways understandable because a) sustainability relates to everything that humans do and b) it has become an effective way to market products. Selling stuff to the masses drives the economy (consumer spending historically constitutes around 65% - 70% of U.S. GDP), though such rampant consumerism ironically has a largely negative impact on sustainability. You may recall that EM SC 240N was largely designed to cut through a lot of this "sustainababble," and help you understand what sustainability really means. This course will offer a review of a lot of the concepts in that course, as well as provide some additional ones.

See below for a summary of key sustainability points from Lesson 1 of EM SC 240N:

1. There is no single, universal definition of "sustainable," "sustainability," or "green." This lack of definition allows for the ubiquitous use noted above. There is no authority that monitors and/or limits the terms' use, and thus it can be attached to nearly anything. That stated, there are a few important definitions/conceptualizations that you should know:
   • If something cannot be done for at least the foreseeable future, then it should not be considered sustainable. The example of sustained yield management used in EM SC 240N is useful here: If trees (or any naturally replenishing resource such as fish, freshwater, soil nitrogen, etc.) are harvested faster than they can be replenished, then they are not sustainable. On the flip side, if a waste product is being emitted faster than it can naturally be reabsorbed by the environment, it is not sustainable. Rising CO₂ levels are a good example of this - the earth cannot absorb carbon dioxide at the rate it is being emitted by humans.  
   • The most universally recognized definition of sustainability (technically it is the definition for sustainable development, but the terms can generally be used interchangeably) is from the so-called Brundtland Commission, which was the United Nations committee headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland that published Our Common Future in 1987. Their definition is that sustainable development "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Credit: Is Sustainability Still Possible? p. 3. Original source: Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment and Development).
   • There are many other helpful definitions of sustainability. One that I think is particularly robust is from the U.S. EPA: "To pursue sustainability is to create and maintain the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony to support present and future generations."
2. Front and center of the Brundtland Commission's definition is intergenerational equity, a very important concept in sustainability. Intergenerational equity mandates that we consider the impacts of our actions on future generations. This expands the basic concept of sustainability (Can we keep doing what we are doing indefinitely?) to include whether or not we are promoting a good quality of life for future generations. Not only should future generations survive, but they should thrive.
3. Achieving intergenerational equity is fraught with difficulty. What is a need? To what degree do we sacrifice the needs and wants of the current generation in order to maximize the chances of future generations to live a good quality of life? How can we know the exact impact on the future? Though these are difficult questions to answer, true sustainability requires that we address all of them.
4. Sustainability metrics/indicators help get rid of some of the "fuzziness" of sustainability definitions. Indicators quantify things that impact sustainability so that we can ascertain whether or not we are on a sustainable path, e.g. the number of resources remaining, the concentration of wastes, rates of consumption, population trends, etc. This is addressed in more detail in other lessons, but atmospheric CO₂ levels are a good example of this (see below).
5. Systems thinking is another essential concept in sustainability. The following is from EM SC 240N: 
   1. There is difficulty in satisfying both present and future needs. Ridding the world of abject poverty is at the forefront of sustainability goals, but unfortunately economic growth and sustainability - particularly environmental sustainability - are often at odds. For example, increasing access to fossil fuels generally helps facilitate improving economic conditions, but causes unsustainable emissions. Even current and future sustainability can be at odds, e.g. when Engelman notes that: "Safe water may be reaching more people, but potentially at the expense of maintaining stable supplies of renewable freshwater in rivers or underground aquifers for future generations."
   2. This all indicates the importance of systems thinking. There is a lot of literature about systems thinking, and it does not have a single definition. (If only the world of sustainability were so simple!) It can be thought of as analyzing the world around us as a collection of interrelated systems, and not considering phenomena as isolated and unrelated to other phenomena. In other words, systems thinking requires consideration of connections.
   3. There is an old saying that "the biggest cause of problems is solutions," which is important to keep in mind when analyzing sustainability issues. From a sustainability perspective, systems thinking means that you should at least always a) consider the short- and long-term impacts of actions, both in space and time, and b) consider the possible causes of issues. It is unwise to address a problem or situation without thinking about the possible causes and consequences.

Figure 1.2: Global average temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations since 1880. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is one of the most prominent sustainability metrics we have available to us, with most climate scientists agreeing that we are at or approaching dangerous levels.

Credit: NOAA

The Three Es of Sustainability

Sustainability and sustainable development are often thought of as having three core components: environment, economy, and equity. These are commonly referred to as the "3 Es" of sustainability. The 3 Es is a useful way to provide an analytical framework for sustainability. This 3E framework is useful because it provides questions that can be asked when investigating whether or not something is sustainable. While even these terms can be defined in various ways, we will use the following definitions from the reading when analyzing the sustainability implications of something:

• Is it "environmentally sustainable, or viable over the very long term"? (environment)
• Is it "economically sustainable, maintaining living standards over the long term"? (economy)
• Is it "socially sustainable, now and in the future"? (social equity)

Figure 1.3: Sustainability can be visualized as the intersection of all 3 Es.

Credit: D. Kasper

The following provides a few more details about each of the 3 Es:

• The environment is the least confusing of the three. If we can keep doing ___________ without compromising the integrity or functioning of the environment (e.g. by not emitting wastes faster than they can be absorbed and not using natural resources faster than they can be replenished), then it can be considered environmentally sustainable. Later in this course, we will go over the concept of regenerative sustainability, which refers to taking this a step further and improving natural conditions.
• Equity refers to the fairness of opportunity and access to resources like education, health care, a clean environment, political participation, social standing, food, shelter, and others. It does not mean equal distribution of resources. There will always be inequality, whether we want it or not. In a socially equitable society, everyone has reasonable access to things that are generally considered conducive to a good quality of life. Whether or not they take advantage of them is another story. There is an important difference between being uneducated because of laziness and because of lack of access to good schools. Making this happen is easier said than done, but the distinction is important to make.
• Economic sustainability refers both to a) engaging in actions that are economically sustainable (if businesses do not make enough money to continue, they will not be in business for long) and b) promoting an economy that provides and maintains a reasonably high quality of life for all over the long term. From a sustainability perspective, money should be seen as a means to an end, and that end should be quality of life and environmental sustainability. If I run a business that makes me a lot of money but negatively impacts the quality of life for current and/or future generations, it is not considered economically sustainable from a 3E perspective.

Energy, Sustainability, and Society

I have a challenge for you: think of something that you did in the past week that did not involve energy.

Okay, so that's not really a fair challenge. Everything we do, even thinking about things that we might do, requires energy. Here's a more reasonable challenge: think of something that you did in the past week that did not involve the use of non-renewable energy.

Any food you eat almost certainly required non-renewable energy. There are obvious connections like farm machinery, artificial fertilizers, and herbicides, transporting food, refrigerating food, cooking food, and packaging food. But even if you grow your own, you likely used a tool or fencing that was manufactured using non-renewables, seeds that were processed and shipped with fossil fuel-using machines, packaging that was made using non-renewable energy, or maybe even plastic row markers made with petroleum-based plastics. Almost all transportation uses non-renewables, most businesses run on non-renewable energy sources (either directly or indirectly through electricity generation), almost all of the products you buy contain materials either made of or that are processed with fossil fuels. The electronic device you are looking at right now is partially made of and manufactured using fossil fuels. In short, modern society is very dependent upon access to non-renewable energy, particularly fossil fuels. As Asher Miller notes in The Post Carbon Reader:

Look around and you'll see that the very fabric of our lives - where we live, what we eat, how we move, what we buy, what we do, and what we value - was woven with cheap, abundant energy. (p. xiv)

The charts below provide some insight into the U.S. and global energy regimes. The first chart is from the International Energy Agency, and the other is from the U.S. EIA. Both are excellent sources of energy information. Please take a look at them and read through the descriptions, and keep in mind that there is one final summative point provided below.

Global Energy Use

Figure 1.4: 1973 and 2015 fuel shares of TPES Click for a text description.

In 1973, the total was 6,101 Mtoe distributed in the following way: Coal: 24.5%, Hydro: 1.8%, Oil: 46.1%, Biofuels and waste: 10.5%, Natural gas: 16.0%, Nuclear: 0.9%, Other: 0.1%. In 2015, the total was 13,647 Mtoe distributed in the following way (2014 percentages in parentheses): Coal: 28.1% (28.6%), Hydro: 2.5% (2.4%), Oil: 31.7% (31.4%), Biofuels and waste: 9.7% (10.3%), Natural gas: 21.8% (21.2%), Nuclear: 4.9% (4.8%), Other: 1.5% (1.4%).

Credit: International Energy Agency

There are a few interesting things to point out from the chart above.

• These charts provide what is referred to as an energy fuel mix. The term "fuel mix" refers to the percent breakdown of energy sources for a given area or sector. 
• Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES) refers to all original or primary energy consumed. For example, if your electricity is supplied by a power plant, the energy your electronic device is using right now is not primary energy because the electricity was converted from an original source (e.g. coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear). Given that electricity generation is always less than 100% efficient (sometimes much less, per the previous section), the primary energy used by your device is greater than what shows up on your electric bill.
• Biofuels are lumped together with "waste." In many parts of the world, including many states in the U.S., if you burn garbage to produce heat and/or electricity, it is considered a biofuel, and thus renewable.
• Wind and solar are lumped into the "other" category, at a measly 1.5%. This has improved since 2015 (and was 1.1% of the total in 2012), and in fact has been growing at an all-time high rate, but there is still a long way to go before wind and solar make a major dent in the global energy regime.

U.S. Energy Fuel Mix

The charts below provide rather dramatic evidence of how important non-renewable energy is to the U.S. Both charts are from the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) series, which are published on a yearly basis. A few things worth pointing out:

• The first chart is from the 2015 version of the AEO. Though a bit outdated, I put it here because the chart style (distinct color-coding and percentages) makes it very easy to see the dominance of non-renewable energy sources. The second chart is from the most recent report but is not quite as easy to interpret.
• These charts include both historical use and projected future use. Any way you slice it, the charts make clear that non-renewable energy (in particular fossil fuels) has played, and will (likely) continue to play, a dominant role in society.
• Aside from recessions (e.g., the early 1980s and 2007-8), energy use continues to increase over time. Despite consistent increases in energy efficiency, the U.S. can't seem to level off, never mind reduce overall consumption. This is also something that will have to be addressed if we are going to have a sustainable energy future.

Figure 1.5: As you can see, over 90% of the total energy supply in the U.S. was from non-renewable energy in 2013, and about 83% of the total is fossil fuels. The EIA clearly does not think this will change much by 2040, with the exception of a little more total renewable and natural gas use. Click here for a text description

Primary Energy Consumption By Fuel in the Reference Case, 1980-2040 Energy Supply 1990 Natural Gas: 23%, Renewables: 7%, Liquid Biofuels: 0%, Nuclear: 7%, Coal: 23%, Petroleum and Other Liquids: 40%, Energy Supply 2013 Natural Gas: 27%, Renewables: 8%, Liquid Biofuels: 1%, Nuclear: 8%, Coal: 18%, Petroleum and Other Liquids: 36%, Projected Energy Supply 2040 Natural Gas: 29%, Renewables: 10%, Liquid Biofuels: 1%, Nuclear: 8%, Coal: 18%, Petroleum and Other Liquids: 33%.

Credit: US EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2015

Final Thought on Energy and Sustainability

It should be clear that the vast majority of energy used worldwide comes from non-renewable sources, and this is unlikely to change any time soon. This has a lot of sustainability implications, which we will address in more detail later. From systems thinking perspective, it is important to realize that everything you do requires energy, and it is important to think about where that energy comes from and what the sustainability implications are.