Sustainable Sustainability

As a fellow sceptic (that's how we spell it in Britain!) I applaud your sceticism.

As an eater of organic food, I wholeheartedly disagree, and think, sceptically that you are in the pay of some organisation. :-)

Without going into all the science - I have to go out in 2 minutes and play what you would call soccer (football), organic crops are both more sustainable and higher in nutrition.

Cheers

Graham, Ashburton UK
November 09, 2006 11:44am

Some people do indeed beleive that sustainable means always better in all ways. Recently there was an E. coli outbreak which made at least 199 people ill in the U.S.A. and killed at least one. It was spread by Organically grown spinach. Seems that this sustainable agriculture was sustaining a healthy population of a very unhealthy organism. By the way I do beleieve organic is generaly a good way to go, just be skeptical about it too.

Dennis Fath, Ednonton, Canada
November 10, 2006 8:13pm

Theres one error in this presentation. Even thought its true that biodiesel produces carbon dioxide when combusted. Ethanol does so only to a quite limited degree, most of the exhaust from one ethanol powered vehicle are in fact water.

Myran, Arctic circle
November 13, 2006 3:35pm

So what's the error? I didn't say it produces as much. The goal should be none - a whole new paradigm - not a marginal improvement.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
November 13, 2006 7:32pm

We feel you're not being sceptical enough about so-called "conventional" agriculture.
In fact, "organic" farming should be called "traditional" or "conventional" agriculture, as that's the way food has been produced for many thousands of years. The other sort should really be called "experimental", "chemical-driven" or "big-business" agriculture.
So what about sustainability? "Chemical" agriculture uses up a great deal of the natural resources of the planet (e.g. phosphate rock and oil) to nourish plants that would otherwise not survive or be fruitful. The pesticides and herbicides used damage the soil structure, so that agricultural run-off contains a large quantity of top-soil, as well as excess nitrates and phosphates, which pollute watercourses and poison fish. The new varieties of crops which apparently "deplete the soil less" are in themselves less nutritious, as can be seen by comparing the earliest and most recent editions of McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, spanning around sixty years of changing farming practice.
In many countries, groundwater and surface water pollution from animal waste is a major problem, leading to eutrophication and more poisoning of fish, whereas organic methods use this precious resource as a fertiliser.
Finally, famine in the developing world does not result from food shortage but from conflict and political problems.
More scepticism please!

Anne & Archie, Nr Chantilly, France
November 26, 2006 6:21am

I am dubious about the current merits of biodiesel (I think it will be a reasonable technology only when it is competitive without the benefit of large subsidies, and it's not as though there aren't other uses the same land could be put too - like growing food). However, I don't believe your argument about CO2 production is valid. While it is true that CO2 is produced when ethanol is burned - consider where the carbon in that CO2 originally came from - the cellulose in the plant the methanol was made from. And that carbon came from ... CO2 in the atmosphere. So, as long as you keep re-growing the plants used to produce the biodiesel, there is no net production of carbon dioxide. (Note that this only works if the fuel for the tractors, processing, shipping and all other inputs into producing the crop are accounted for in the cost of producing the crop, which is why governent subsidies of methanol production are so counter productive, at least environmentally speaking). OTOH, if you were to grow a nice healthy stand of oak trees on the same land, you'd have a healthy net decrease in CO2 (at least until they died and rotted).

Robert McDermid, Toronto, Ontario
November 27, 2006 2:57pm

As others have noted, biofuels are sustainable because the CO2 they release only is only that taken out of the atmosphere during the growth of the plants used; therefore, no net change in CO2.

The big problem is the land needed to grow the stuff, which could otherwise be used for food.

Jason Etheridge, Brisbane, Australia
November 30, 2006 12:20pm

You guys are taking into account only a small portion of the complete fuel cycle. Example: it takes 3 gallons of petroleum fuel to drive the International Harvester and transport and process to create one gallon of ethanol. (Source: Dennis Simanaitis, tech editor at Road & Track, big proponent of efficiencty.)

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
November 30, 2006 12:24pm

"In fact, "organic" farming should be called "traditional" or "conventional" agriculture, as that's the way food has been produced for many thousands of years. The other sort should really be called "experimental", "chemical-driven" or "big-business" agriculture."

Obviously! Organic food doesn't use chemicals at all! </sarcasm>

And the fact that something is traditional is no reason to think that an alternative is worse.Also, the Organic Food industry is Big Business. In fact its huge business.

[Dimitri C, Green CR. Recent growth patterns in the U.S. organic food market. USDA Agricultural Research Service, Resource Economics Division, Information bulletin No. 777, Sept 2002.]

"'Chemical' agriculture uses up a great deal of the natural resources of the planet (e.g. phosphate rock and oil) to nourish plants that would otherwise not survive or be fruitful. The pesticides and herbicides used damage the soil structure, so that agricultural run-off contains a large quantity of top-soil, as well as excess nitrates and phosphates, which pollute watercourses and poison fish."

Organic food uses even more resources, requires more hard labor, and has lower yields. Furthermore, much of Organic food also makes use of so-called organic pesticides which also contribute to environmental problems such as Copper Sulfate.

"The new varieties of crops which apparently "deplete the soil less" are in themselves less nutritious,"

This is bullshit!

[Newsome R. Organically grown foods: A scientific status summary by the Institute of Food Technologists' expert panel on food safety and nutrition.

Belathor, The Twilight Zone
December 05, 2006 10:42am

Yes, the point about NPK fertilisers is fallacious. These can be fairly accurately gauged for the required growth and hence NOT over used and NOT cause pollution. The farmer would realise the profits don't increase with over use; the costs would!

It's the organic, traditionalists who can cause pollution because they don't KNOW how much fertiliser [from horse etc.] to add to the soil and hence they use too much in an effort to compensate.

There is no benefit, no taste difference, only greater labour, lower productivity and yield. To counter this the price at the consumer level is raised.

No-one wins with 'organic'.

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
December 09, 2006 5:12pm

So the word is a buzz word now, so what? - Of course: Businesses want to profit from the new Zeitgeist, and many try it by faking that their stuff is sustainable. However, what makes me very skeptical about this skeptoid is the dumb misrepresentation of biofuels. What makes biofuels, e.g., biodiesel, sustainable is that they are come from plant growth, which binds carbon from the atmosphere and thus reduces C02 levels, it's the idea of generating a sustainable cycle of production and consumption of fuel. And btw, that big harvester used to harvest biofuel crop - it can also run on biodiesel, what else? Another example, ethanol as biofuel has the additional advantage of containing a higher level of hydrogen than oil, the burning of which results in water: somewhat more sustainable.
So I wonder: What's the authors problem with the word sustainable? And what are the intentions? Why does he build a straw man about making sustainable music?

Reiner, Belchertown, MA
February 17, 2007 11:08am

Actually straw houses are pretty sustainable (I'm not making this up either!)
I've no idea about the States, but there's certainly a great number of hay bale houses that have been, and are still being, made in Europe.
Ok, they may not have the longevity of stone henge, but I'm sure they'll give the builders of these new "flat pack" estates that are popping up all over the UK a run for their money.

Andy E, Edinburgh, Scotland
June 04, 2007 8:03am

Do you have nothing better to do with your time than argue about an issue that is as pointless as how we use a certain word? We are who we are and we will do what we want as people. You should really look at that and maybe get back to your real day activities.

Taylor Heckman, Bayfield/Wisconsin
September 10, 2007 5:36pm

I enjoy the program, and generally agree with most points made, but some elements of this episode really grated.

The carbon released (as C02) by burning biofuels was originally derived from atmospheric CO2 that was captured by the plant during its lifetime. Since plants used for biofuels (such as sugarcane) are fast growing, they're an efficient means of absorbing atmospheric carbon (unlike mature trees).

Hence providing that there isn't an increase in cleared land to support the growth of the biofuel crop, and harvesting and distribution is performed by trucks/equipment running on biodiesel (which, at least at the harvesting stage, is generally the case), then the process as a whole, from planting to burning is carbon-neutral.

Biofuels aren't a perfect solution (eg. they use land that would be valuable for food production and use valuable water resources), but are greatly preferable than using fossil fuels, which are a limited resource and the effect of burning which is to release carbon that is otherwise sequestered deep underground into the atmosphere.

Hence I think that biofuels are actually a good example of something that can genuinely be touted as "sustainable", rather than just bearing that as a trendy label, and I don't think should have come under attack.

Daniel, Sydney, Australia
December 30, 2007 7:18pm

I must agree with those contesting your analysis of biofuels and hay construction.

I am opposed to biofuels in temperate areas, as they seem to provide little if any net energy supply. The equation is different in sunnier climates (Brazil), and for potential new production methods (new enzymes, GM bacteria, etc.). But they cannot simply be equated to using fossil fuels. As was said, ignoring the production energy costs, the carbon in a unit of biofuels came from the current atmosphere; the carbon in fossil fuels came from the atmosphere long long ago. It's not the same thing.

And I must support the poster who talked about hay construction. It is unusual, but increasingly popular in Europe, and is indeed far more sustainable in terms of energy consumption than concrete or brick, the most common materials used in Europe (except for wood, commonly used in Northern Europe in particular).

As to the toothpaste, I don't know how toothpaste is made. Before mocking "sustainable toothpaste", I'd want to find out how conventional toothpaste is made. If it relies on minerals, that is not a sustainable source, and is usually very energy intensive.

Marc Naimark, Paris, France
April 05, 2008 1:21pm

Actually I think Brian is right, biofuels would be only a marginal improvement on CO2 emmissions. Since the best estimates of currently used methods to create ethanol on the U.S. Department of Energy's website states that "The most official study of the issue, which also reviews other studies, concludes that the ‘net energy balance’ of making fuel ethanol from corn grain is 1.34." So you get 1.34 units of ethenol energy for every 1 unit of petro energy you put in. Biodiesel is better at 3 or 4 to 1. That is until you add in the cost of growing the soybeans. A which point it drops to
1.44 to 1.
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/reportsdatabase/reports/gen/19940101_gen-027.pdf

Aaron Richoux, New Orleans
April 07, 2008 9:05pm

Yep...majorly dropped the ball on the biofuel CO2 issue. That said, some biofuels are not very carbon neutral at the moment. Corn biofuel takes quite a bit of energy input to produce and thus offers only a relatively small energy surplus relative to those inputs. At present, most of that energy input is still fossil fuels, so there is still a considerable net positive production of atmospheric CO2 in cases like that.

Mike K, Maine
July 15, 2008 4:51pm

Well, I am about 82% fat free, organically grown, sustainable (to a point), don't radiate harmful UV or ionising radiation, and do not cause cancer in laboratory trials.

I have a moderate GI index, am not fertilised with dangerous organophosphates, I comply with the laws of physics whereever possible, and like the large hadron collider, my research is has a very low probability of ending life on earth.

I wonder if there is a market for me?

:-D

Brenton, New Zealand
August 18, 2008 6:18pm

"Sustainable economics are particularly bizarre. Google the term, and you'll find that it's used largely to refer to wealth redistribution. Has communism really proven to be more sustainable than capitalism?"

Orwell was almost right: To picture the future, imagine a birkenstock stamping on a human face, forever.

The whole idea for 'sustainability' is the, essentially, condemn the majority of the human race into abject poverty forever. I may be a cruel, heartless capitalist and all but I cannot stomach the idea of forever denying some Bangladeshi woman the chance at a better life just so Al Gore can run his mega-house and Leo DiCaprio can jet about telling people to not jet about

GW Crawford, Toronto, ON
December 11, 2008 6:57am

I have to disagree with the characterization of sustainable tourism that's made in this episode.

"Sustainable tourism is being marketed everywhere. It usually describes destinations where the attractions are generally undeveloped, like the Amazon. It is really unsustainable to vacation in developed destinations like Paris or Tokyo?"

This is a gross mischaracterization of the difference between sustainable and unsustainable tourism. When referring to sustainable tourism, usually ecotourism, the differentiation isn't being made between a trip to somewhere undeveloped and somewhere developed. The fact that there are tourism options that are in developed areas has nothing to do with it. The difference is between tourism which degrades the environment being visited (and as such, the tourism as it currently is practiced cannot continue indefinitely) vs. that which does not. Sure, it can be debated that any visitation will harm the environment being visited(erosion due to the cutting and use of trails, litter, increased access along the same trails for poachers, etc.), but there is a distinct difference between uncontrolled, unethical tourism practices and that practiced in a sound, sustainable manner wherein any damage is minimized and steps are taken to repair it.

Sam, Princeton
December 17, 2008 7:30am

Sam, the point is still the same though. Unless you are getting to your destination in a canoe, the use of the term "sustainable" is misleading. Its just a buzzword to attract people.

Alex, Iowa City
February 26, 2009 7:10pm

Scientific American Magazine Top-10 Sustainability Myths

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=top-10-myths-about-sustainability

Bill, London, England
March 11, 2009 4:03pm

This article is poorly written and holds little substance. But, The article does make a good point by saying that you should ask everyone what they mean when they say "sustainable." This was the only good part of the article.

The Bruntland report offers a deffinition for sustainability, as well as the Australian government and other organizations. Furthermore, economics has several definitions of sustainability (Weak, Strong, Environmental).

Sustainable is an overused word, but this article does nothing to clear up what is actual sustainability in regards to economics or agriculture.

Also, your attack on USDA Organic is poor. USDA Organic certifies that air and water quality are cared for, that biodiversity is encouraged and has specific rules for the raising of animals to ensure health without the use of antibiotics (antibiotic use developed due to unhealthy farming practices). USDA Organic means a lot, check out their website and look at the long list of regulations that protect the environment and animal health.

anders, washington, USA
April 27, 2009 1:26pm

The only thing I take exception to in this article is "Two of the houses were built of corn cobs and hay bales (I wish I was making this up). I'll ask the Big Bad Wolf how sustainable that type of engineering is." You are mistaking corn cobs for an ancient method of construction called cob, which is incredibly strong. Hay bale construction is also engineered for strength and durability. Both are methods that building departments don't want to deal with, but which have great merit as alternatives to traditional stick construction. Yes, the word "sustainability" is stupidly used, especially by people who have never cracked a biology textbook, but don't go shooting an otherwise fine opinion in the foot with ignorant comments like this.

Mirren Gardner, San Francisco
September 07, 2009 8:59pm

Sustainable should mean to be able to continue the task forever without the need for continuous non renewable input and the output should be fully recyclable to create the same product if needed, or biologically fully degradable. Plastic wrapping around a fully biodegradable product defeats the purpose for me.

I think this is where you touched on biofuel. You said it still pumps out CO2, well you have to consider the plants absorb the CO2 to grow, so that is where the sustainability comes from. We do have a problem with the manufacturing process using fossil fuel energy to produce biofuel though which makes the calculation a bit messy when considering using an E10 fuel or straight petrol. I believe when there is potential for such an industry though, you do have to support it through it's dark ages rather than writing it off altogether as quite a few people do.

Windguy, Australia
October 02, 2009 12:04am

Now, you may consider me a huge fan, Brian, but I'm afraid I have to disappoint you on this one. Above, you state that carbon dioxide is the "most significant greenhouse gas". This is quite far from the truth, since CO2 ranks behind such common gases as water vapour or methane in significance (meaning the impact per mass of the gas released into the atmosphere).

You might have covered this inaccuracy in your "Things I'm Wrong About" episode already. In that case, um, I've just wasted some of your time! Sorry :)

George, Slovakia (EU)
October 27, 2009 1:25pm

The release of CO2 from biodiesel is a 'show-stopper drawback"? All of the carbon in plants comes from the atmosphere, and is released again whether the plant is burned or decomposes. Burning plants does not cause an increase in overall CO2. You have made a bold statement but are completely wrong. The carbon in fossil fuels was extracted from the atmosphere by plants millions of years ago, and was then buried in coal and oil deposits. Thus, burning fossil fuels releases ancient CO2 into the atmosphere, and adds it to the current global pool of surface carbon. Don't make statements before you've thought them through or have verified them with authoritative sources.

Eric, Philadelphia
December 15, 2009 11:33am

I feel that presenting sustainable economics as equivalent to communism is disingenuous. It completely dodges the problem in classical economics that to maintain constant economic growth we require exponentially more resources, and quite evidently we are limited to the resources of just this one planet (and the light from the sun). This is an issue that needs addressing and dismissing those who voice concerns about the implications of a world were economic growth is no longer viable as communist sympathisers is an ad homenem fallacy.

Joseph Rogers, United Kingdom
February 11, 2010 10:46am

Joseph, you assert that constant economic growth requires more resources. This ignores that what is considered a 'resource' changes with demand and technological advancement. It is one of the exact same basic flaws that communism fell into.

So if it is disingenuous to compare 'sustainable economics' to communism, it is a very poor choice to bring up one of the most tired defenses of communism.

It is not an ad-hom to bring up the flaws in extremely related economic theories.

Brandon, Falconer NY
February 19, 2010 5:33pm

I like your blogs for the most part. I also agree with most of the article that the marketing people have taken over the term "sustainable" like they did
with "organic" and a few others. That doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate uses of the word.
Some things ARE more sustainable than others, and while biofuel might have its problems including hijacking agriculture from food production to fuel production, that doesn't mean that it's not more sustainable than uses gasoline and the pollution ridden production of gasoline.
Also when making claims about something, like straw bale construction, for example, make sure you know what you're talking about. Because this is an area I know about, I know that you are making an uninformed conclusion. Unfortunately, that makes me wonder about areas that I don't know about and wonder whether you actually know what you're talking about or are making equally uninformed conclusions. It makes me rethink your columns. (I wish I was making this up)
Here's a reference for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-bale_construction

enric (jigsaweco.com), Toronto, Canada
March 09, 2010 3:15pm

Sustainability not only violated thermodynamics, it utterly defiles it.

There literally is no difference between the concept of sustainability and a perpetual motion machine. Just the same idealists trying to avoid the cruel universe that REAL science depicts.

mick, nevada
August 09, 2010 8:55am