Greens’ Failure to Define Sustainability.

This article has been taken from Carbonomics VIII: ‘Carbon Accounting’ published on june 5th 2000. ‘Sustainability’ is one of the founding concepts of green politics. Unfortunately, greens have failed to provide a definition of the concept. All that they have succeeded in doing is providing a large number of generalized views about what it means. None of these generalizations has succeeded in winning widescale approval within the green movement let alone the wider community. But the fact that there is no commonly accepted, concise definition of sustainability hasn’t prevented greens from touting it as a self-evident truth. A number of greens and green organizations have outlined their views on sustainability. For the mundic club’s defintion of sustainability please see ‘Carbon Accounting’.

Bossel, Hartmut.

"I will not attempt a crisp, mathematical definition (of sustainability) as purists might like to see it: it would destroy its full meaning. There is no unique state of sustainability." Arguing that he doesn’t want to spoil the full meaning of sustainability by giving it a definition is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever conceived in the green movement and typical of the political ineptness of many greens. Bossel makes the obvious point that on a sustainable planet it is possible to have either a lot people living well or a smaller number living in luxury but that is about all that he has to say about the matter. Even if bossel gave a definition of sustainability it is highly questionable what its use would be given that it wouldn’t include the Earth’s life support system because he doesn’t believe Reforestation is of any significance in combating global burning and stabilizing the climate.

Begg, Alex.

There are greens who are proud of not understanding the Earth’s life support system and having no vision of a sustainable planet. Begg believes there is no such thing as a sustainable planet only individuals concerned about sustainable personal development, "While green politics is .. aiming for radical change, it is one which does not seek to create a new world, but liberate the existing one. It is a strategy firmly embedded in the autonomous development of the living, rather than putting forward a grand design of a perfect society. The way is the goal; the goal is the way." This stance enables begg to suspect it is possible to create green politics in one country .. "if only because we need to know if ‘green politics in one country’ is possible or desirable. .. This suggests that ‘green politics in one country’ would be feasible." Anyone who believes it is possible to create a sustainable climate in one country whilst all other countries suffer from climates that are not sustainable clearly has no understanding of the geophysiological facts of life. And, like most other lefties, begg believes democracy has to be put above the Earth, "The fact that the greens do not speak in terms of grand designs or plans is one reason to believe that they will genuinely seek to empower the ideas and projects of those they ‘represent’ rather than their own ideas." According to this view - the planet is whatever oomans want it to be.

Easterbrook, Gregg.

"Suppose humanity decided to devote itself to preserving the correct form of the environment. The idea has certain attractions. There is also a drawback: It would be impossible to determine what the Correct environment might be." ; "The Earth’s ecosphere is ever in flux, knowing no fixed or proper alignment."

Gray, John.

"It is, perhaps, unsurprising that we have thus far lacked anything resembling a green political theory." ; "If there is as yet no distinctively green political thought, it is partly because the radically anti-humanist implications of a ecological world-view have proved indigestible to most greens themselves." This is accurate.

Green Party.

Even more shockingly, this failure also afflicts the green party - even though it is usually one of the roles of political parties to point out their vision for the future. Perhaps the reason for this is that they fear that if people knew what a green future looked like they would stick with the over-indulgences of a consumer society.

‘Green Magazine’.

"No environmental organization in Britain is offering a vision of what a sustainable society might be like and how we might get there."

Greenhalgh, Liz.

"The very vagueness of the term ‘sustainability’ is both an advantage and a curse."

Greenpeace.

It is shocking that even major green organizations haven’t bothered to present their vision of a sustainable Planet. In 1994, greenpeace presented an outline of a plan to abolish fossil fuels but stated, 'This is not our ideal'.

Joseph, Lawrence E.

"There is no more general agreement on the principles of ecology than there is on what constitutes sound economic theory."

Leland, Bill.

"One reason sustainability has not been defined is the sense that to define it in anything that approaches operational terms is just too complex - that the best we can do is head in the right direction with the hope that we may eventually get to a place we want to be."

Ophuls, William & Boyan, A Stephen JR.

At the start of their book the authors argue .. "a steady state society is one that has achieved a basic long term balance between the demands of a population and the environment that supplies its wants." By the time they have got to the end of their book their opinion has changed, "It is not possible to specify the structural features of the steady-state society."

Pearce, Fred - the British Government’s Plans for a Reform of Gdp.

In response to the government’s announcement that it is seeking to develop sustainability indicators, fred pearce points out, "The indicators are supposed to guide britain towards sustainable development but the worrying fact is that there has been no attempt to define what the country needs to do to become sustainable."

Rowell, Andrew.

"That could be the ultimate challenge of the global environmental movement. To formulate an ecologically sustainable world."

Toler, Eric.

"That definition is very elusive. In fact, there has not been a single, universal definition of what ‘sustainable’ really is - other than simply use that cannot exceed replenishment."

Conclusions

Greens' failure to define one of their most prominent, most well-known, and most fundamental, concepts, may be shocking but it is by no means surprising. The reason for this is that the concept is determined by a vision of a sustainable Planet which, in turn, is dependent upon an understanding of the Earth’s life support system. In other words, the concept of sustainability is shaped by the structure and institutions needed to maintain a sustainable planet which in turn is determined by an understanding of how the Earth works - after all, if greens don’t understand how the Earth works how can they possibly know what needs to be done to make a planet sustainable?

It is unfortunate, but true, that greens not only have little understanding of the Earth’s life support system they have no vision of a sustainable planet. Not only is there no commonly accepted vision of a green planet, no green theorist has outlined such a vision. Without an understanding of the Earth’s life support system there is no way of envisaging the structure of a sustainable planet, and without ascertaining the structure of a sustainable Planet there are no criteria for assessing whether society is moving closer to, or further away from, sustainability.

Sustainability is an issue which affects all ooman activities. The absence of a definition of sustainability, and of a vision of a sustainable planet, means there can be no definition of 'sustainable economics'; 'sustainable Forestry'; 'sustainable transport’; ‘sustainable development’; ‘sustainable energy’; etc, etc.

What compounds greens’ problem that they have no chance of developing a definition of sustainability nor a vision of a sustainable Planet because they have no understanding of the Earth’s life support system is that because they have no understanding of the earth’s life supoport system they have no way of being able to measure the damage that ooman industries are inflicting on the Earth, nor are they able to determine which industry is causing the greatest destruction of the Earth’s life support system. Worse still, if shown that the biggest contributor to the decimation of the Earth’s life support system was the Animal exploitation industry they would refuse to support it because their version of green politics regards pharming as the most important way of creating a more environmentally friendly planet - whatever that might mean. Even more diabolically, if shown the main way in which the Earth’s biggest contributor to the decimation of the Earth’s life support system is causing such damage i.e. deforestation, they would oppose the rejuvenation of the Earth’s life support system i.e. Reforestation, because it would interfere in the exapnsion of organic pharming - which most greens believe is the panacea for the creation of an environmentally friendly planet - whatever that might mean. For people who go around calling themselves green most greens seem unable to be completely unable to appreciate that the basic colour of a sustainable planet is green. To put it colloquially, greens do not know what they are talking about. Some greens protest they have a meaningful view of sustainability but their disinterest in Reforestation and the abolition of the Animal exploitation industry reveals this is the usual greenwash.

The reason that advocates of ‘sustainability’ haven’t presented their vision of a sustainable planet is because they are reformists repulsed by any grand scale curbs on consumerism, oomano-expansionism and anthropocentrism - what they want is for everyone around the world to be able to indulge in the same appallingly degenerate lifestyles as consumers in the over-industrialized world. They are petrified by demands for a grand scale restoration of the Earth’s life support system. Most greens are irrational. They can provide lengthy lists of the damage being inflicted on virtually every ecological habitat around the Earth and worry about the deterioration in the Earth’s life support system but as soon as its suggested that action needs to be taken to restore the Earth’s life support system they wilt away and confine themselves to asking consumers to switch off their lights after leaving the bathroom. In the absence of a definition of sustainability, all that is left for greens to do is to plea that oomans should try to act in a more enlightened manner towards the environment - whatever that means. It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to take them seriously.

All publications are copyrighted mundi club © You are welcome to quote from these publications as long as you acknowledge the source - and we'd be grateful if you sent us a copy.	We welcome additional information, comments, or criticisms. Email: carbonomics@yahoo.co.uk The Mundi Club Website: http://www.geocities.com/carbonomics/
To respond to points made on this website visit our blog at http://mundiclub.blogspot.com/