Of all the phrases and concepts associated with the environmental field, almost none is are as important — yet controversial — as “sustainability.” We see the word everywhere, and most people, if asked, are familiar with the idea and can give some kind of definition. Compare definitions, however, and you’ll likely find considerable variation depending on whom you ask.
The official environmental meaning of sustainability is perhaps best captured by the definition of a related phrase, “sustainable development.” In 1987, the United Nations’ World Commission on Environment and Development articulated sustainable development as that which “meet[s] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” This is admittedly a somewhat anthropocentric way of stating it, but if you interpret our dependence on the natural world as a need for clean air and water, healthy ecosystems and intact biodiversity, the UN definition can provide a good starting point.
The UN definition’s biggest strength is that it is general enough to remind us of the overarching goal of the various efforts we make in the name of sustainability. The problem is that applying this standard is often harder than it might seem. We as a society have a lot of different needs, and sometimes the choice that is most sustainable in terms of one need is not the best option for another. How should we prioritize clean air, clean water, reducing energy use, reducing landfill waste, etc.? This is where the variation in personal definitions of sustainability begins to show. Do we buy the local apple or the organic one grown in Chile? Should we invest heavily in natural gas as a cleaner-burning alternative to coal, even though the extraction process threatens our drinking water supplies?
Sometimes choosing between seemingly confusing options is simply a matter of researching the true costs and benefits of each. I have met people who refuse to use compact fluorescent light bulbs on the grounds that they contain mercury that can be released into the environment if the bulb is improperly disposed. While this may be true, the amount of energy saved by a CFL prevents more mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants than would be released if the bulb were broken. However, almost every action, product and service has some kind of environmental impact, and ultimately we sometimes have to make value judgments. Of course, there are also important constraints on our decision-making (finances, personal safety, minimum level of personal comfort) that have nothing to do with sustainability.
Whatever your priorities, it always helps to be informed. If you’re interested in reducing the environmental impacts of your lifestyle, the first thing to do is educate yourself not only about the kinds of impacts your actions are having, but also about what your community is already doing to reduce them. That’s why Clean Energy at UMD, a student environmental group that advocates for renewable energy and sustainability, is devoting its spring kickoff meeting to showcasing campus sustainability measures and discussing what sustainability means to each of us.
Tonight at 7 p.m. in the Banneker Room B on the second floor of Stamp Student Union, we will be hosting a speaker panel with Dr. Bruce James, director of the Environmental Science and Policy program; and Ms. Joan Kowal, the University of Maryland energy manager. They will each give a short presentation about their role in campus sustainability efforts and their thoughts on sustainability in general, followed by time for discussion and questions. Free dinner will be provided, so come join us.
Hilary Staver is a senior environmental science and policy major and campaign director for Clean Energy at UMD. She can be reached at hstaver@terpmail.umd.edu.
