Sustainability is important

“No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be.”

I would like to present a response to the column “The Right Stuff: Putting frivolity ‘down to zero!’” (Chips Vol. 130, No. 13) by Pat Knapp. I appreciate Knapp expressing his opinion, although I feel it is fundamentally distracted and troublesome for our future.

I am Luther’s sustainability intern, whom Knapp referred to in his column. Sustainability can be defined as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” There are three components of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. Sustainability doesn’t disregard the need for economic vitality and posterity — au contraire — it is one of its principles. But on the other hand, how can we sustain ourselves economically if we don’t have any natural resources left from which to create our economy?

Ultimately, however, talk of a vulnerable economy that we need to protect utterly pales in comparison to talk of a vulnerable planet that needs our attention.

Knapp observes that “if carbon is a pollutant, so are humans,” as if humans and carbon are inseparable. In fact, humans in the present world are tremendous polluters, which is a change from our ancestors, who lived in communion with the earth. The lifestyles we have developed, along with the machines and modern technology that we use, are literally changing the face of the earth. “Natural Capitalism” by Paul Hawkins observes that in the past 50 years, one fourth of the topsoil in the world has disappeared into the oceans. One third of all the forests in the world is gone, and more are vanishing (which produce the oxygen we breathe). In the last 30 years, we have consumed one third of the planet’s resources. Today, one half of all the land on the planet has been altered by humans. With a world population that will double within the century, what can we expect will happen to these figures? We are polluting our water, air and soil and dismantling ecosystems that our lives ultimately depend upon. The “Armageddon predictions” that Knapp flippantly invokes are prophecies of our inevitable future. It is undeniable that our current pace of life cannot continue on this planet indefinitely.

I disagree that if environmentalists have their way our economy will suffer. Just as we’ve built up our economy on fossil fuels and practices that degrade the natural world, we can shift our economy toward renewable fuels and practices. These fuels are more expensive now, but with government support and research, prices will quickly become comparable. Besides that, through efficiency and conservation, two tenets of environmental thought, we will end up saving money, not wasting it.

More importantly, when talking about money and the economy, we need to understand that up until now, we’ve been leaving out the true cost of products. There are environmental costs associated with the manufacture and disposal of products. Those costs are astronomical and will eventually have to be paid for, probably not by us, and they are left out of current costs. When they are included, the “green” alternatives become comparable in cost, if not cheaper.

I propose that we stop thinking of the environment as a separate entity from ourselves — as something that needs our help. I ask that we again start to think as our ancestors. The reality is that we are not different from the environment. We are another species of this planet that has achieved a more advanced way of life. Unfortunately, that way of life is undermining our source of life. Go outside, smell the air, touch the trees and come to be familiar again with the only planet we know of that supports life.

Caleb Mattison
Campus Sustainability Intern