Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on April 18, 2014
The Case Against Sustainability
Do you recycle? Cool, me too. Do you turn off your lights when you leave the room? Good idea. Do you only buy produce that’s in season? Nice! Way to support your local farmer. Are you worried about the future of the planet? Politically active in some way around conservation of resources or green energy? Awesome, politics is really important.
Politics.Rosalee Yagihara, via Flickr
If you’ve answered ‘yes’ to any of the above questions, you’re probably concerned about sustainability in some way.
But I’ve got some news. “Sustainability” is a dangerously flawed way to think about the world.
What does “sustainability” mean? Something is sustainable if you can sustain it—if you can keep doing it forever.
The world as it currently exists is deeply unequal and violent; the political and economic structures that shape the way that most of us live our lives depend on exploitation. The question is not one of future downfall, but of present injustice. Framing “sustainability” as the organizing philosophy of a political movement means perpetuating a morally repugnant status quo. It’s definitely true that sometimes an agenda of sustainability or sustainable development includes provisions for the social good, but many institutional definitions of sustainability hew close to what I’m talking about, including those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Most modern economic production depends the extraction of finite resources like fossil fuels, metal ores, and minerals, or the use of renewable resources like trees at a rate that’s faster than these resources grow back. These are unsustainable relationships because eventually, something about the relationship will change. Eventually, the forest will be gone. The mines will be abandoned. The well will run dry. The topsoil will all wash away.
This narrative animates a lot of the current environmental movement: “We as a society are overstepping our limits. Resources that we depend on for our well-being are going to run out soon, and if we let things get to that point, it will be a catastrophe.” This narrative is collective and future-oriented, and makes up the logic behind many environmental discussions. If we continue to use this resource, eventually something bad will happen.
The be-all, end-all of this narrative is that of climate change. Treatments of climate change range from the catastrophic to the apocalyptic. Basically: “If we continue to use fossil fuels the way we do now, we’ll eventually face a world with vastly more infectious disease, where wars become more common, where weather becomes more unpredictable and extreme. Where the vast majority of humanity, as well as probably a lot of the other species on the planet, will go extinct.”
…Shit. Pretty grim, huh. So what’s the issue with this way of thinking about things and framing issues? Well, let’s take a step back and look at the world that this type of discourse warns of.
War…
Airstrike in Fallujah, Iraq, in 2004.Airman Magazine, via Flickr
Disease…
Malaria-endemic countries in 2014.CDC, via Wikimedia Commons
Famine…
Famine relief in Somalia, 2011.İHH İnsani Yardım Vakfı/TURKEY, via Flickr
Economic insecurity…
Waste pickers in the Philippines, 2007.Konousu, via Wikimedia Commons.
Political instability…
Riot in Jakarta, Indonesia, 1998. via Wikimedia Commons.
It’s like the environmental apocalypse already happened! What sustainability seeks to avoid happens to be the type of shit that billions of people already deal with every day. The pictures above are all from the so-called “developing world,” but don’t be fooled—there’s very real existing oppression and exploitation right here at home, where children in inner cities have PTSD at similar rates to veterans, there’s a 10-14 year gap in life expectancy between rich and poor, and more people are currently incarcerated in the United States than were enslaved in the nineteenth century.
Environmental problems are real and demand urgent and sustained action. They’ll certainly make life worse. Climate change is indeed a crisis, as is peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak everything. But these political and economic changes that are being predicted won’t happen in a vacuum. They’ll be filtered through the existing social structures. Who was hit hardest by Katrina? Who went hungry when food prices spiked in 2008? Whose livelihoods will be most affected by the coming years of drought in the American West? You know the answer by now.
Some groups get this. The movements for climate justice and environmental justice place existing systems of oppression front and center. They’re led by, and conducted in solidarity with, people from affected communities with an immediate stake in the issue. Rather than treating “humanity” or “civilization” or “society” as a monolithic entity which will weather a coming environmental storm collectively, these movements think of society as it is: deeply unequal, and characterized by intersecting systems of oppression.
But huge swathes of the environmental movement—activists, citizens, writers, academics, policymakers—don’t seem to understand (or care). It’s one of the reasons why, despite widespread support for the goals of the environmental movement, its participants are so goddamn white. Environmentalism has a long history of maintaining oppressive power structures, from the displacement of Native Americans in the creation of national parks to the unequal enforcement of environmental law by the EPA to the contemporary appropriation of the agricultural techniques of people of color in sustainable agriculture.
So calls for sustainability, as the latest iteration of the mainstream environmental movement, ought to be watched warily. Sustainability is about keeping things going, but without explicitly confronting the ways that people are currently getting fucked over. “Sustainability” is tacit approval of the current state of affairs. The world as it currently exists perpetuates the poverty and exploitation of millions and millions of people to sustain (see what I did there?) the well-being of a lucky few. This may not be sustainable from an ecological standpoint—but unfortunately, it’s a tried and tested method of human social organization. You don’t need to wait for the apocalypse—its horsemen are already here, and have been for a awhile.
Sustainability guards against an intolerable future. What about the intolerable present?
21 Comments on "The Case Against Sustainability"
DC on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 1:43 am
I didnt care for this line one bit:
“its participants are so goddamn white. Environmentalism has a long history of maintaining oppressive power structures”,
Maybe it didn’t occur to the author, that ‘goddamn whites’ being among the most wasteful and carefree ‘consumers’ -ever, would be among the first to recognize(or some of them at least), that there is\was something profoundly wrong with the current paradigm? The notion this author subscribes to that ‘environmentalism’ is some kind of(white)racist plot to keep the black\yellow man down is ludicrous.
Makati1 on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 1:53 am
DC, think about it. Whites don’t give a damn about the rest of the world and haven’t since forever. They have dominated or tried to dominate all of the other races since at least the Romans. That Mother Nature is color blind is the comeuppance they are due. Now whites have the most to lose in the new world of depletion and they are going to go to world war to keep their wasteful lifestyles a bit longer. In the end, we all lose. That’s how I see it.
eugene on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 2:01 am
What I really like is all the American finger pointing at everyone else. We, who have raped, pillaged and slaughtered our way around the globe having the guts to point our finger at anyone. And now, at things collapse around us, we are gutting our meager social support systems with fancy pseudo rants that really mean “let em starve”. But then I’m just a cynical old vet so what do I know?
Mike in Calif. on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 5:09 am
“They have dominated or tried to dominate all of the other races since at least the Romans.” Or the Aztecs, or Carthage, or Egypt, Babylon, Persia, China, Japan…
There are two things different about European imperialism. One, their technology made them better at it. Two, they often voluntarily withdrew from colonialism. Find that elsewhere. Indeed, the very dialectic of criticism Makati uses, and the douche-bag author above employs, is Western. It was this criticism, this self-reflection that makes the European episode unique, not conquest itself (which is common and mundane in history).
The author is referencing a well-known but rarely mentioned fact. The environmental movement and similar groups have a disproportionate number of Whites. He then ties this into his tired racial version of Marxism and concludes that the “goddamned” Whites are really there only to perpetuate privilege and power. He comes to this not because that’s the way environmentalists think, but rather because that’s the way Marxists think and can imagine no other. He rejects that any one (but especially Whites) are there for the reasons we recognize – a well-intentioned, even selfless concern about the Earth, its ecosystems and its future.
This author is either dumb or inexperienced since his naked Marxism lacks the usual camouflage of seasoned green-reds. His humanism and materialism dominate and his disdain for environmentalism, sustainability and, we may presume, Transition, prepping, etc. is obvious. The replacement is predictable: “climate justice and environmental justice” show a focus on people rather than either climate or environment. If only you give him political power he will bring “social justice” which invariably means social revenge. As for Doomers, either run or fight. This type of ideologue actually believes he’s a good-guy and can improve the (social) world (He doesn’t really care about the environment.) He despises your pessimism as defeatist and has a bullet with your name on it.
Makati1 on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 9:51 am
Well Mike, since the US is no longer a democracy but a corporatocracy run by psychopaths, how is that better then Marxism? I suspect that the future system will be more Marxist than democratic. That is, if we survive the coming changes.
Arthur on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 9:54 am
DC, think about it. Whites don’t give a damn about the rest of the world and haven’t since forever. They have dominated or tried to dominate all of the other races since at least the Romans.
As if the other races cared one hoot about whites. Not that they should. This is a Darwinian universe, an insight that will return in spades once resource depletion and overpopulation will make themselves felt the hard way. For several reasons the whites had/have advantages over others (IQ, individualism, lack of conformism) and created a civilization that gave them the technical and economical means to lord over the rest.
This article comes from a ‘1968 group’, meaning a bunch of lefties prepared to sell out their own civilization at the first opportunity. I’m not going to glorify the imperial past, neither am I prepared for the usual Marxist guilt trip. There are no good and bad guys, just competing groups. The end effect of European imperialism was that a bunch of stone age cannibals were transformed into a group of people that live in what some would call houses, eat with knife and fork and can operate a mobile phone and every now and then see a classroom from inside. Good for them. The good news is that imperialism is over. The bad news in the light of the coming resource depletion is that it is NOT repeat NOT coming back. You’re on your own and no “goddamned whites” to carry the “white mans burden” for you. Been there, done that.
Arthur on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 10:06 am
Well Mike, since the US is no longer a democracy but a corporatocracy run by psychopaths, how is that better then Marxism? I suspect that the future system will be more Marxist than democratic. That is, if we survive the coming changes.
Marxism is an ideology of the past and is not going to return because it is an essentially globalist ideology. It is an ideology of ‘progress’, anticipating technological and material expansion in a globalizing world. And more globalization is precisely what is NOT going to happen. What is going to happen is all sorts of fundamentalism, religious and ethnic/nationalist and they will go at each others throat, like it or not. When the world of 20th century Soviet and US varieties of globalism will unravel, segregation will be the new normal. What is happening in Iraq, Syria and the Ukraine today is going to happen everywhere.
Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 11:14 am
Mak, climb back in our hole of PPI Anti Americanism and “white” is the reason for the world’s problems meme. Get some balance and objectivity.
Art, DC, and Mike points well taken especially Art.
This guy is a cocky kids that is juvenile in his thinking. He gets some pubic hair and some hormones and is ready to change the world. His blame, complain, and protest attitude will likely do little and depending on how far he takes it ruin his life.
What we need is bottom up life boat talk. We are not going to change the top because it is a runaway train and can’t be stopped. It is self-organizing and currently is at the point in the cycle of limits of growth with corresponding diminishing returns on problem solving facing multiple predicaments with over population and environmental overshoot. You can complain and blame all you want but there is no stopping a runaway train. It is better to deal with this in a positive rational manner in the local with individual, family, and small community initiatives. Where one can try to make a dent in the top down to guide it away from bad policies that will harm bottom up efforts. We need positive non bias attitudes to adapt and mitigate the coming crisis of climate, food, and energy. We have very little time and will need every effort to count. We are so far down the curve that many are going to be washed away when SHTF.
Sage on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 1:05 pm
If anyone actually studies and reads human history one will find that regardless of exterior color, all humans are pretty much in it for themselves. This is reality on a finite ball of rock, in a backwater of the galaxy, in a remote part of the universe where breeding is the main sport. Not that the Cosmos cares.
Pops on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 1:25 pm
“What we need is bottom up life boat talk. We are not going to change the top because it is a runaway train and can’t be stopped. It is self-organizing and currently is at the point in the cycle of limits of growth with corresponding diminishing returns…”
Very good.
bobinget on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 1:42 pm
First of all, it was Not Whites who first acted against oppression. Haiti’s slave rebellion, 1791/1804 first
put fear of dark skins into a thin all white ruling class.
action on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 1:48 pm
“Whites” are a minority by far. Overpopulation is an enormous problem. The third world keeps increasing its population despite the lamentable conditions.
ghung on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 2:20 pm
Much ado about a bunch of Neanderthal hybrids out-competing the rest of the world. Nothing new here.
Daniel55 on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 2:48 pm
I have been a peak oiler and talking of the end of oil as we know it since 1994, and I have been mocked for this in all kinds of social circles, Academia, blue collar, liberal, conservative etc..I bought a new truck back then and told people this is the last gas powered vehical I will own, I still have it a Ford Ranger! That got a lot of laughs from people..I am a chameleon of sorts…..Until recently people did not get it; now they are whistling past the grave yard when I talk about it. But there is some truth to this article the wealthier nations think that they will be less affected by peak anything….which leads to their lack of motivation to do anything about anything…I don’t know about any of you but some times I feel like a modern day Noah or Chicken little….time will tell….
Arthur on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 3:48 pm
Since I’m living less than 100 miles from the original Neanderthal, ghung is probably refering to me.lol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neanderthal_position.png
Neanterthalers are not exactly known for outcompeting anybody, the went extinct because they possibly were outcompeted themselves by modern humans, let’s say the ghung types.
J-Gav on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 5:11 pm
Sustainability is not a question of black or white, in any sense of the terms.
The term can be used (misused, abused) in various ways. One example is to pair it with a noun like growth (in traditionally absurd but still dominant GDP calculations.
Using the word as a strawman to make an argument for writing an article, as this author does, is facile – and somewhat puerile as pointed out in posts above. But linguistic acrobatics don’t mean the notion should necessarily be entirely abandoned. Truly sustainable practices (which does NOT mean “forever” by the way – nothing is forever) are laudable and need to be implemented on every feasible scale, NOW! Thus the writer’s conclusion that it is only concerned with the future is erroneous.
ghung on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 6:12 pm
Yeah, Arthur, ironic isn’t it. The last remnants of Neanderthal genes in white western European stock being accused of all sorts of predatory behaviour. I’m thoroughly Anglo-Saxon/Celt myself; lots of English in my background, but don’t hold that against me 😉
Arthur on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 10:12 pm
I’m thoroughly Anglo-Saxon/Celt myself; lots of English in my background, but don’t hold that against me
Most certainly not, but it explains the, well, ‘distance’.
J-Gav on Fri, 18th Apr 2014 10:19 pm
Ghung – Not that anybody cares, or even should, but melding paternal/maternal sides, Northern England, Scotland and Ireland are where my family came from – before settling in Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, etc. Nobody chooses where they come from, do they?
Makati1 on Sat, 19th Apr 2014 2:11 am
Most Westerners are descended from European stock. I’m German with a bit of Scotch/Irish on my mother’s side. I cannot help that. But, I can objectively observe the empirical fanaticism found there.
Kenz300 on Sat, 19th Apr 2014 8:56 am
The world adds 80 million more mouths to feed, clothe and house every year. Endless population growth is not sustainable.
Too many people and too few resources.
Family planning services needs to be available to all that want it.