Environmental sustainability is a great ideal. The environment tickling along, nicely balanced to provide habitat and all the goods and services humans need. And to do it indefinitely with every value supported.
The environmental cake magically renews itself each time you eat a slice.
This is the common perception of sustainability — renewal of something that we readily take from.
The famous definition of sustainable development from the Brundtland Report ‘Our Common Future’ from the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 sums it up...
"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Take but only so much. Leave enough capacity behind for the environment to renew all the goods, services and values we require.
A handy notion except it is not how the environment works.
Environmental sustainability might be ideal, but it comes with a big assumption.
We assume that the environment renews the things we take from it.
A reasonable assumption you would think. At first glance recovery and renewal is what happens in nature.
After a wildfire that scorches trees and grasses sending animals scurrying for cover, the land appears desolate. Yet within days new shoots spring up from seeds in the ground. Grass returns green and lush and some trees even sprout new branches from their charred bark.
After a long drought when soil is baked hard like concrete and every plant has withered, rain first refreshes and then supports transformation. Even deserts bloom after rain.
All of this is about the most basic driver in nature — ‘more-making’.
The reason for existence is to make more.
This does not mean that the environment is all about environmental sustainability even if we assume that it might be.
So when conditions permit, growth and reproduction always happens. Only nature does not require the same organisms return. Renewal is of the process of ‘more-making’ not a specific plant or animal.
Nor does the same ‘more-making’ have to return. If the fire killed trees, then grasses and shrubs may return at their expense, altering the habitat.
Humans modify habitats more than any other species. We cut trees for timber, clear vegetation for arable agriculture, and replace wildlife with livestock. At the same time we build cities, roads and dig deep into the ground for minerals that we convert into indelible goods. And we use fossil fuel for the energy to make it happen.
All to comfortably make more people.
For the most part the environment sustains this. It maintains the ‘more-making’ from crops, plantations and fish farms just as it would do natural vegetation habitats that were there before us.
Only if left to its own devices the systems of production would collapse. They all require inputs from outside.
Humans must move energy, nutrients and seed stock into these arable fields to help the environment support crop growth. And then provide protection from the undesirable more makers — pests and disease.
Click through on these links to more details on environmental sustainability...
Arable field crowd next to ephemeral rivers in southern Botswana — the pattern running left to right in the image are made by the interaction between water and termite mounds as the water drains towards the river
Jul 26, 15 07:19 AM
Global environmental issues fall into three broad categories based on the extent of their effects. Thinking this way helps us to know when the issue is real.
Jul 26, 15 06:59 AM
The GFC hit hard and fast, reverberating through economies everywhere. There are a number of ways that this impact fuelled environmental issues.
Jul 26, 15 05:47 AM
Fracking is drilling and injection of liquid to fracture deep rock layers and release natural gas. It is similar to drilling for oil but far more controversial — find out why.