Sustainable Sustainability
Focus on the year's undisputed overused buzzword: "Sustainable"
Filed under Environment, Fads
| Skeptoid #05 November 01, 2006 Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe Also available in Japanese |
|
I bet you didn't know that Skeptoid is a sustainable podcast, delivered over a sustainable Internet, using sustainable networks, and received through your sustainable ears. Now you know. But really you should have known that already, because this year's winner of the meaningless, overused buzzword award has to be the word "sustainable".
To label your product as "sustainable" is to imply that competing products are not sustainable. What this is intended to mean is often pretty vague. Presumably it means that competing products are manufactured from materials that we'll run out of, should current methods and usage continue.
The environmentalists, usually portrayed in the media as the good guys, first coined the phrase to describe products or methods that are generally better for the environment than the competition. Soon the marketing gurus got ahold of the word, and now everything from toothpaste to music to real estate is being sold as "sustainable".
It's so effective, and thus popular, because it's an alarmist term. Calling your product sustainable is not really saying anything about your product; it's clanging the warning bell about the alternative being unsustainable: Can't be sustained! The world is ending! It's like calling your product "hate free" or "cruelty free". In no way is it descriptive of your product, it's simply an underhanded way to insult your competition. As any marketing expert will tell you, people respond much better to a negative than to a positive.
One gross overusage of the term is "sustainable agriculture", used almost exclusively by those selling organic crops. Organic agriculture is certainly sustainable, so long as a third of the world's population is willing to die off so the rest of us can eat. As with many people who use the word sustainable, proponents of organic foods aren't really saying anything particular about their product, they're trying to frighten you into thinking that modern advanced farming methods will somehow destroy or deplete the environment, and are thus "unsustainable". Ironically, the reverse is closer to the truth. Among other benefits, modern hybridized crops are designed for specific soil types, and to leave those soils less depleted so that they can be replanted for more seasons before being rotated. So-called sustainable agriculture is, in fact, far less sustainable than the planting of crops that have been optimized to thrive in the available conditions.
The word "organic" is itself the same kind of deceptive marketing: intended to trick you into thinking the alternative is somehow not organic. Strictly speaking, all plants and animals are organic, according to the word's true definition. When you hear any product defined only by a vague buzzword, be skeptical.
You also hear a lot about sustainable fuels for cars. This usually refers to biodiesel and ethanol, since they come from renewable resources instead of a limited resource, natural petroleum. In this sense, the production of biodiesel and ethanol is certainly more sustainable than gasoline, since we'll always be able to grow them. However, they have a show-stopping drawback. Burning biodiesel or ethanol in our cars exhausts the most significant greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, into the air — just like gasoline does. So even if we switched all of our cars over to biodiesel and ethanol tomorrow, down the road we'll be no better off. The production of biodiesel and ethanol might be sustainable, but their usage is absolutely not. This is a great example of why you need to bring a skeptical attitude when you hear the word "sustainable". Are the environmentalists promoting biodiesel really looking out for what's healthiest for the earth, or do they have some other motivation, possibly political, possibly economic, possibly philosophic?
The word sustainable has become so pervasive that its usage is often just plain silly. Colgate recently purchased a company that makes sustainable toothpaste. It contains bone powder. Does an intelligent person really think that it's unsustainable to make toothpaste any other way?
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?
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?
A prominent automotive magazine recently tested four "sustainable sport sedans". Are four cars that get marginally better gas mileage than other similar cars — none of which are particularly great — honestly the only type of vehicles whose production can be sustained?
Sustainable music is also all over the Internet. In one case, it means the guy makes his own instruments. Is "sustainable" really the word that best describes that? Playing an instrument someone else made is not sustainable? In other cases, it refers to songs about anticorporatism. Is it truly impossible to sustain the playing of music about other themes?
I found a web site offering sustainable real estate. 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.
There's no doubt that doing things in a truly sustainable way is good. Accomplishing a worthy goal in a way that's infinitely repeatable is best, and that's what sustainable really means. True sustainability might violate the laws of thermodynamics, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. It's still a good goal, and as such, sustainability deserves not to be diluted into a meaningless buzzword. Thus, true environmentalists should be the first ones to object to the misleading pop-culture usages of the word that we see every 2 minutes. When you hear it, be skeptical. Figure out what they're really trying to say, and what their motivation is. And for God's sake, don't buy any bone-powder toothpaste just because it says "sustainable" on the package.
You should follow me on twitter here.
© 2006 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information
References & Further Reading
Edwards, A., Orr, D. The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2005.
Gerard, Jasper. "Sustainable? Over-use of the word will run out." UK Telegraph. 2 May 2008, Editorial.
Hawken, Paul. The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1994.
Lafleche, Daniel. "Sustainable Development - What Does it Mean and Who Wants To Tell You?" Ezine Articles. EzineArticles.com, 7 Feb. 2008. Web. 14 Jan. 2010. <http://ezinearticles.com/973172>
Morris, J. Sustainable development: Promoting progress or perpetuating poverty. Coventry: Profile, 2002.
Reference this article:
Dunning, Brian.
"Sustainable Sustainability." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc.,
1 Nov 2006. Web.
2 Sep 2010. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4005>
Discuss!
5 most recent comments | Show all 31 comments
Remember, you should always read with skepticism the comments of anyone too lame to put their real name & city.
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
Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point). Anyone can post:
You can also discuss this episode in the Skeptoid Forum, hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
Join the Skeptalk email discussion list.
What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?
![[Valid RSS]](/images/valid-rss-rogers.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
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