Sustainability refers to the continuation of a process or product, or as Wikipedia defines it as “the capacity to endure”. I think that can pretty much sum up what sustainable development is to be; with the motion of continual expansion of human progress.
During class, after an introductory lecture on the Bruntland Commission’s definition of sustainable development; the UN Millenium Summit’s take on the world’s priorities in the 21st Century [freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance (respect of diversity and a peaceful culture), respect for nature and shared responsibility]; as well as defining natural capital – renewable resources and natural systems that can replenish themselves (using energy from the sun), we were given a task to define sustainable development ourselves or give an illustration to represent it. Most definitions have agreed on using the three interlocking circle approach that incorporates society, the economy, and the environment, balanced together will be sustainable in the middle. Only will a system be sustainable if it incorporates all responsibilities and links between each to be viable, livable, and equitable.
 |
Another more evolved way of linking these three responsibilities are explained in this video...
The balance of environmental sustainability is between the use of resources and ability of those resources to be replenished or by environmental resilience. The system becomes viable only if it’s continually sustainable, and livable in a healthy environment. To achieve economic growth (net economic benefits) employment, food, income and wealth must be generated. To be equitable, equal opportunities for natural resources must be attainable among generations, genders, and cultures.
The balance of environmental sustainability is between the use of resources and ability of those resources to be replenished or by environmental resilience. The system becomes viable only if it’s continually sustainable, and livable in a healthy environment. To achieve economic growth (net economic benefits) employment, food, income and wealth must be generated. To be equitable, equal opportunities for natural resources must be attainable among generations, genders, and cultures.
The definition I came up with in class was “preserving environmental integrity through using renewable resources that provides the necessities of human life and equitable gain for all people present and in the future”.
This includes environment, social, and economic aspects as well as a fair and enduring attitude. It mostly rewords what others have said, such as the Bruntland’s Commission, but improves on each of the environmental, and social, and economic values. The environment is sustained with a hint at protecting other species and biological processes. All people are given a fair opportunity to meet their needs and progress in economic gain, continually into the future.
I also came up with an illustration that is based on the water cycle.
 |
(Altered) water cycle http://www.kidcyber.com.au/topics/water.HTM |
The process of evaporation of the oceans and lakes continually replenishes water across the land; the upward motion representing economic gains into an “economy cloud”. The next step is movement of clouds over the landscape, which rains fairly evenly across a local area, representing the needs met of society and fairness across the landscape. The replenishment of water from rivers running back into the ocean represents the continual recycling and sustainable processes of the environment. Any hindrance to this process does not make the process sustainable, such as a dam that slows the replenishment of water “the environment” back into the ocean or industrial processes that artificially increases the amount of particulate matter and pollution that creates more seeding for clouds “economy” and eventually changes the distribution, quality, and rate of rain “needs” and water replenishment into the oceans “environment”.
When searching online, most of the representations of sustainable development are solar power or wind power. Solar and wind power is a good renewable natural capital; as it uses energy from the sun, “a stock that yields a flow of valuable goods or services into the future” (Source: Constanza, R and Daly, H (1992), Natural Capital and Sustainable Development). But only will it be sustainable if the energy is used to create more solar panels and wind turbines, instead of using energy from non-renewable resources to manufacture them.
An electric car is not sustainable either, as it uses more energy to manufacture the vehicle and uses non-renewable resources in the technology. I quote from David Suzuki from a television program I saw once; the manufacturing process of a gasoline engine vehicle uses more energy that what the car would in its entire life cycle.
As ecosystems, social systems, and economic systems are complex, equal attention to each results in a sustainable development. The Venn diagram shows the conditions of knowledge and skills that are required for all processes to be sustainable.
I personally don't understand fully what they are trying to say to depict in the diagram here (also see link to article), but maybe someone can shed some light on this. Most confusion is the balance of the percentages on each side of the triangle is a bit foggy. I do understand that one needs to understand how to negotiate the extraction of resources and limit the economy from becoming too greedy. So, between environment and the economy we need to negotiate in order to obtain social equity? Or is it we need negotiation in society in order to obtain sustainability at that side? Material processes must be known in order to keep the balance of ecosystem resilience? Is this referring to only the fish stocks (article link)? Can this model be used in other industries?
In all the debate about what is sustainability, we can probably all agree that it is a negotiation between resources and technology we have and the economy and social equity we can obtain from it. With this in mind, all industries and people aiming to become more sustainable are able to create their own model or mission statement.
After this, I believe action is only what really counts.
 |
In all the debate about what is sustainability, we can probably all agree that it is a negotiation between resources and technology we have and the economy and social equity we can obtain from it. With this in mind, all industries and people aiming to become more sustainable are able to create their own model or mission statement.
After this, I believe action is only what really counts.
The video below shows what people can do to become more energy efficient and environmentally friendly.
I also have technological ideas of my own that I find from current unsustainable sources in everyday life.
Why is it we use refrigerators in our houses to cool the air inside a container to keep our food cold, when we heat the air around that container to keep our bodies warm? Seems like a waste of energy and unsustainable system. My idea is to incorporate houses with a refrigerator to work with the already cold environment outside the house. A refrigerator would be much more efficient if it didn't need to cool as much in a hot environment than in a cold environment. A refrigerator that would only regulate the temperature from outside the house.
Another is to input automatic shutoff switches on most devices, appliances, and energy using systems we use. Sensors that turn off lights when no-one is in the room. We already have these, but why aren't they more common or even discussed more? Most ads for energy saving tips are for people to remember to shut off things when not in use, but automatic shutoffs would definitely have a much better memory or habit than humans.
By switching to energy efficient practices, we also save money which is no doubt beneficial to the economy and society to rather spend time and resources on greater needs.
