Sustainability
Many people ask what we mean by a "sustainable" coast, or "sustainable
development." Before attempting to define sustainability and explain how it
might be used to address problems in coastal Georgia, we first describe what
the Center is trying to accomplish by using the sustainable approach.
Rationale for Using Sustainability
Analysis and Policies
It helps us understand the present situation, the choices available for
correcting foreseeable problems, and the consequences of all choices as they
affect the future.
Being holistic, it forces us to consider how dependent we are on nature,
economically
and otherwise.
Because it is a comprehensive approach, it reveals the problems created by
overly fragmented economic development, public health, environmental
protection, and other areas of
public policy.
By showing how current practices contradict their objectives,
sustainability analysis assists in getting a more accurate understanding of
the costs and as well as the benefits of new approaches.
The basic objective and underlying principle of sustainability is fairly
simple: We need to live within the capacity of natural systems.
Acknowledging that nature has a finite capacity may seem self-evident, yet
the combined effect of our many individual decisions do not reflect our
awareness of that maxim.
The original and most widely used formal definition of sustainability came
from a United Nations report on environment and economic development in 1987
(Our Common Future, by the Brundtland Commission).
Quoting from that report, "We all depend on our biosphere for sustaining our
lives. Yet each community, each country, strives for survival and
prosperity with little regard for its impacts on others." The report went
on to call for new approaches to development that meets "the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs."
By competing for individual advancement without reaching reasonable
agreement on the total resource limits and how to allocate them responsibly,
humanity is depleting the worldıs resources at an accelerating rate. "If
environmental scientists are correct...the consequences of not acknowledging
material constraints on the economy are scarier than anything the shift to
sustainability might imply." (Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human
Impact on the Earth, The New Catalyst Bioregional Series, 1996)
The last statement may seem like a dramatic claim, but the evidence of its
validity is readily apparent even within our own state. Consider water. No
one doubts that many of Georgiaıs most urgent water resource problems (both
quality and supply) are related to excessive development in the Atlanta
metropolitan area and other poor judgments imposing unrealistic demands on
natural resources. Daily, land use decisions by many local governments
continue to add to the mounting difficulty of serving the water needs of a
rampantly growing population. [Similar findings apply to air quality and
other natural resource issues.]
In the face of overwhelming evidence of adverse consequences*, the
individual decisions of cities and counties in that sprawling urbanization
are marching us relentlessly off the edge of a cliff. The cliff weıre
approaching is the gradual destruction of our watersheds, five of which are
vital to the coast for both water supply and nature-based jobs, not to
mention our quality of life.
[*Evidence includes: Water supply conflicts and water quality problems;
traffic congestion, travel costs, and driving fatalities; air quality and
increasing respiratory illness, especially among children and infants;
contamination of fish, shellfish, and other foods.]
Among those in positions to decide how water is used, or to influence those
who do, are people who still argue that this growth is inherently good, and
who therefore seek to promote it at all costs. But exactly what is growth
good for? Typically, the answer is "economic development,² ³job creation,²
and, of course, ³pursuit of property rights." But how much private gain can
be made at the expense of public resources, and how do we determine the
limits? It is crucial that we answer these questions.
Lacking a larger perspective, many decision makers take too little account
of the interests of other groups (current or future) in demanding that their
own constituentsı needs are met. What's most troubling, in our efforts to
appease conventionally defined economic interests, few bold steps are taken
to lead policy in a more responsible direction. Thus, there is a
self-destructive disconnection between the perceived self-interest of
short-term thinking and the long-term, ecosystem-level impacts of our
actions. This is where sustainability comes in, and exactly the
circumstances that led to the concept being advocated.
Sustainable policies would require assessment of (1) the capacity and
condition of essential natural systems, (2) the needs of all users relying
on those systems, and (3) alternative options for making these uses more
efficient before access is granted to any additional resources in support of
growth. And sustainability would serve to integrate economic and community
development programs with goals for health and environmental protection.
Without this comprehensive approach, further mistakes cannot be avoided.
But to use it, we must confront conventional thinking, which is often
narrowly short sighted.
For instance, property rights are stridently used as the basis for objecting
to any policy that constrains the 'highest and best use' of land. The
beguiling simplicity of that argument and its highly emotional ties to our
frontier past are also its fatal flaw, proven in numerous legal actions.
When growth reaches a certain point, it is no longer possible for one
person's property rights to be pursued limitlessly without hurting the
rights of others. Thatıs what led to adoption of zoning in the 20ıs,
environmental laws in the '70's, and the current push toward merging the
multiple objectives of economic, health, and environmental programs through
policies of sustainability.
Obsolete and commonly misinterpreted notions of property rights are among
the most entrenched justifications for individual decisions that work
against our common interests. Respect for property rights does not have to
be equated with blind adherence to market forces, especially when those
forces lead us in the wrong direction.
As times change, we must reexamine the rules that prescribe these
trade-offs, and now is one of those times.
Georgiaıs rampant growth can no longer be viewed as unconditional
prosperity. Nor can locally-driven agendas to compete against other
communities or states be validated by accommodating their selfish demands
for natural resources, which in one way or another adversely affects other
Georgians. Even more to the point, we cannot continue using our public
resources to support antiquated notions of development, which gains benefits
for the few at the expense of the many sometimes even within the same city
or county. [Case in point - Hercules Air Permit - see article in this
issue.]
We must use the logic and information-handling capacity at our disposal to
reach decisions that reflect true public interest. Among other things, this
will mean more deliberative, thorough decision processes, supported by
better information about our natural resources that will help determine the
sustainability of choices available and how to reach them.
Environmental research, monitoring, and assessment will be the key to our
future success. But for this key to work, we must adapt and integrate all
major policies to conform to the principle of sustainability. Until we make
this reform, we can expect every solution to produce its own new problems.
Piecemeal decisions governing the use of land, air, and water will continue
to generate benefits for some at the expense of others. Further, decisions
made without reliable understanding of impacts will bring increasing risk.
Sustainability seeks to stem that trend by improving the accountability of
our decisions using more complete information to unify the objectives of
individuals (voters, employers, property owners, and industries) with those
of society, represented by government at all levels. Our future depends on
revised approaches that are more realistic and responsible. One of the keys
to achieving that will be the adoption and consistent use of sustainability
policies. |
