Tuesday
Sep082009
Sustainable vs. Green
Tuesday, September 8, 2009 at 10:52AM We began this conversation on Twitter, but I wanted to allow people to get into more discussion about this important topic. As we continue to move forward creating new industries and methods that are more environmentally and socially responsible, labels get tossed around in different situations and representing different nuances. With this in mind, is it important that we begin to define terms more clearly? What is the difference between "green" and "sustainable"? Is there one? Should there be one?
And then, let's take it a step further. Once we've defined these terms, how do we implement them in such a way that the general public will also understand?
Reader Comments (31)
I tend to like sustainable better than simply green as a descriptive term. The added emphasis of sustainability is that it works on more than one matrix: ability to fit long term growth; economic feasibility; development that is workable and environmentally sound over the long term.
As far as defining sustainable vs. green they are not the same, nor should they be one in the same. There are systems in place that allow for a "green" and sustainable building, basically you get the best of both worlds. The term "green" may differ from person to person though.
The question to me is a cultural one. No one called Van Jones a "sustainable" jobs czar, but a "green" jobs czar. It's not called the "sustainable" movement in most of pop culture. It's called the "green" movement. Yet serious thought and understanding of the topic tends to find it's way back to the term sustainable. Simple actions/products tend to be seen as "green." While larger working systems tend to be seen as "sustainable."
Is the question semantic or systemic?
I sick of hearing green. Its so tired now. In fact there is a backlash against green anything. People are sick of the brow beating they recieve from the liberal demasculated metro sexual wimps or the over bearing feminist flower child. Making people feel like there evil or trespassing planet earth is not the answer. The fact is , we are at the top of the food chain and with that comes responsibility. Most dont have the instincts to live sustainable becuase our society has bread it out of them. Meat comes from the freezer in a convenient package. Milk comes in those hand jugs. Produce just sits there in the produce section waiting for us to pick it and put it in our basket. We're afraid of our own shadows. You want to change peoples habits, start showing them different ways of living. Instead of beating them over the head with shame. I guarantee you my lifestyle is way cooler to live then your silly little box living. Live in the box,drive to work in a box,work at box,shop at the (big) box,come home and cook it in the lilttle box(microwave), entertain yourself with a little box, go to bed and do it all over again. Sounds like great living eh. Get your hands dirty and grow something, build your own shelter, try to use our resources a little more responsibily. It only makes sense not to waste anything. If people experienced how much effort goes into a raising or growing something you wouldnt waste it. Thats all I have for now and please excuse my lack of spell check.
Sustainable - Can we keep doing the same thing? Is forever repeatable?
Green - Just one of the names applied to the perception of being good to the environment.
So not the same thing.
That's my tuppence.
Wish some of the commenters would offer more substantive definitions. I am not sure I can, but here goes.
Green is a moniker used by the mainstream media and developers who both see an opportunity and hopefully want do something better than they did last time. It is somewhat measurable and is relative in a metaphoric way. Programs like LEED attempt to quantify it.
Sustainable is something that does not take away the same opportunities from future generations. Look at the Living Building Challenge at http://ilbi.org/, or the Precautionary Principle at http://www.pprinciple.net/the_precautionary_principle.html. These are sustainable programs that can act as overlying layers in directing our choices. The regulations in-place right now, notably the ICC, do not include sustainability in their building codes as covered in a recent report sponsored by the Cascadia Region Green Building Council at http://ilbi.org/resources/research/CodeStudies/codestudy3. These ideas are what we can use in our goals toward sustainability.
Sustainability is measured in how we affect the future in measurable ways compared to what we would do without the goals of sustainability. Green is how we may be able to make incremental changes toward being sustainable.
Jeff Ruppert, P.E.
http://www.buildearth.org
http://tls.buildearth.org
To the "box" lifestyle person (Reese) (Sorry it is a unisex name, so person it is):
First I have to ask, did you write that on your little box? lol.
I'm just kidding, but in all seriousness, Sundance channel ran a really cool series about living "green" called "It's Not Easy Being Green." The things that Dick Strawbridge and his family do are pretty neat, and they don't gloss over the hard work, which I like. It is completely about a change in lifestyle. I wish it were done in The States though, it always seems easier to get out of box type consumerism in Europe.
Another good one is "Big Ideas For A Small Planet". This one particularly deals with sustainability in addition to "green".
Not sure if I misread you, but I assume your lifestyle that you refer to is something of the like?
P.S. I don't brow beat or do anything aggressively suggestive, it can be counterproductive if the person develops negative feelings toward the subject. If we want people to embrace it, we have to have them interested and asking you for more info, not yell it in a judgmental manner as they collect their groceries in a *gasp* non reusable bag made from recycled plastic bottles.
"Green' is the packaging, "Sustainable" is the content. Green is the heart, sustainable is the head.
Packaging remains important, but you can overdo it, like puting a beer can in a champagn box.
And that is what is happening indeed with the color Green.
The harmonious product Sustainability, composed of the environment, the economy and the social aspects is the purpose of it all. Products that are "Green" are not neccesarily Sustainable when they are not durable or replace a product that has maybe a higher carbon footprint but a lower life cycle or lower yield, e.g. green sheepwool versus sustainable fiberglass or better.
In my mind, performing a "green" activity or purchasing a "green" product is one of many gestures towards lessening your environmental impact. Collectively, these green efforts may add up to being more sustainable, however, to have acheived a level of "sustainability" that entity, person or business, must have virtually no environmental impact. That means climate neutral/zero waste in all it's activities. Whether this can be truly acheivable, that is another question. We exhale CO2 and excrete waste so it almost seems that we would need to be climate negative in our actions to address basic human functions. It looks to be quite a challenge.
Interesting question. Green is more fad than anything else. A marketing term. That's not to say there isn't value in things labeled green, but it's more about fashion than the inherent value these days.
Most people are wrong about what sustainable means and how it should be pursued. Most rigorous writings on this, starting with the Bruntland commission and scholars like Herman Daly, are clear that sustainability consists of three primary elements--social, economic, and environmental. Many environmentalists tend to forget the first two and talk about sustainability as being "zero waste" or "not extracting a resource faster than it is regenerated." Nonsense. The three elements go hand in hand. If society decides to improve wealth, living standards and social conditions by using a non-renewable energy source, as we have done for centuries, it is not automatically "unsustainable" in the true definition of the term. To make this a sustainable practice, society must eventually invest some of the generated wealth in finding alternatives that will allow future generations to have the same choices about living standards and social conditions as we have. Those investments can be through R&D, educating people to do the work etc. The consumed natural capital has to be replaced with various forms of social or economic capital so that we don't preclude future generations choices. Volumes have been written about this and yet many people remain ignorant of the ideas.
Green : It’s a colour, which symbolize nature , which is having power to sustain on it’s own , if no external intervention ( Man made and/or natural disaster) happens. Which
ultimately means sustainability. Now somewhere we had lost the track about how to green relates to sustainability .
Now the current situation is green has many shades ( Cost saving, Resource saving etc), which are not having exact overlap with the sustainability concept. Whereas for sustainability , the basic concept remain the same.
I feel, slowly we are now at a point , where green and sustainability are recognized as two different concepts/approach.
Jeff Ruppert's comment is very thoughtful, especially his last paragraph where he states: "Sustainability is measured in how we affect the future in measurable ways compared to what we would do without the goals of sustainability. Green is how we may be able to make incremental changes toward being sustainable." He makes a good point, but without looking at the actual definitions of the words in the dictionary (and no offense Jeff -I think you did an excellent job!!).With my comment, I'd like to take his comment a step further and look at the definitions more closely.
Green does have a proper definition, as both a noun and a verb, from the 13th and 12th centuries respectively (per Webster's Dictionary, 9th ed.). As a noun, green means "a green color, or green vegetation" and etc. As a verb, green means "to become green, to make green." Webster's also lists two cross-reference words with the verb: Rejuvenate and Revitalize. My understanding of how the dictionary is structured means that these latter two words can also be used synonomously with what green means.
Sustain is the root of sustainable and comes from the 13th century. It is a verb and means "to give support or relief to; to supply with sustenance; keep up, prolong..." and so forth. The word sustainable is actually an adjective of sustain, so it is used to describe something which gives support or relief too and so forth.
Given these two definitions from Webster's, I think that in reailty, we can use green and sustainable interchangeably as verbs, nouns and adjectives, to describe our efforts to be more mindful of how we use resources, how we build and how we live. And given that these definitions have been around now for about plus/minus 800 years, I think we can take them to the general public with confidence.
Michael Braungart made an excellent observation on the concept of being sustainable. He said that is someone asked you how your marriage was doing, would you want to answer that it was "sustainable". Sustainable on one hand may be a more descriptive word than green, but it actually sets a low bar for performance. We should strive to be more than sustainable. How about regenerative, productive, or the like? Green works as a description for the masses, but it is dangerously close to being overly diluted and becoming meaningless. Everything is green now. Whoever comes up with the "right" name for what we are doing will be doing us all a big favor.
Sustainability is an expression that has many meanings. In his book, “Sustainability by Design: A Subversive Strategy for Transforming Our Consumer Culture”, John Ehrenfeld describes many aspects of the green movement and “sustainable development” as doing things that are less unsustainable as opposed to being more sustainable. I believe all folks reading this blog would find his thinking evocative and an essential part of establishing a new language for thinking about and creating sustainability. Mr. Ehrenfeld’s own definition of sustainability is;”The possibility that human and other life will flourish on the planet forever”.
Many of my thoughts are already represented here, so rather than reiterate or re-purpose what others are already saying, I'll simply add that on top of all of this, 'Green" is typically used to describe environmental qualities or actions dealing wiht our physical surroundings, whether it is energy or resource use, air quality, or systems such as buildings. To say that 'sustainability' is interchangable with this term is to forget that the need for perpetual balance is true in economics, social order and justice, population, etc. The need to be sustainable in these areas (in the accepted definition) is equaly true for our ultimate survival.
I know this is a difficult question but over the past year I have simplified it greatly (at least in my mind). Green is a small portion of sustainability. Green can be either a product or a process. I prefer the term "Environmental Stewardship". Sustainability is broken into 3 important aspects, 1. environmental stewardship (both product and operations), 2. economic, and 3. social. This is how our company evaluates its decisions. We have been around for over 100 years, to be around for another 100 we need to be sustainable not green. This means that we are focused on these aspects. We need to manufacture and develop products that limit environmental impact either through manufacturing or the product itself. We need to be good corporate citizens, this means we are involved in our communities, not just absent renters. Lastly but most important we need to be financially successful. Without the finance portion everything falls apart, we can not support our communities, invest in new operations and products, continue to improve operations, etc. It is really simple if you look at it this way. The difficulty is that everyone has different definitions and ideals so you can not eliminate the term green, even though many of us would like to.
As a builder of eco cabinetry, I claim my products to be green but I do not claim them to be sustainable. The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) of which I am a member never claims that there wood comes from a sustainable forest, just a well managed forest. There is not a standard for sustainablity in forest management, especially with the harvesting of hardwoods. How many trees must we plant in place of each tree cut? one? ten? I only claim that the fsc certified wood I use in my cabinetry comes from a well managed forest. Even the organization SFI , which is another forest management organization no longer claims sustainability for their products.
Thank you Mark Lorie for referencing Herman Daly-- I am researching all that is sustainable and it is wonderful (being a academic database research junkie and all) having a conceptual foundation off which to acess the contemporary "green" movement. Again, thank you for your insight.
why do we have to be tied to these labels? when the fad is over, where will these labels have us?
labels also = exact targets for the right or whomever. easily dismissible.
shouldnt flexibility be key? we have to word things w truth and w the goal of winning.
why not some sort of financial term? why not approach things from the perspective that will actually make fat staunch repubs wanna get off their butts? think money, corp finance.
you might think that sustainable sounds like a good financial term, but it isnt. it sounds flat and stagnant. corps dont wanna just 'sustain.' they want money, at least until we get rid of them =)
All green buildings should be sustainable, as well as durable. If a building does not hold up over time, how green is it really? Let's not litter the landfills with ill-built homes and businesses. That would truly be a step toward protecting the environment.
Sustain is to keep in existence; maintain. Green meaning beneficial to the environment.
As most here agree, green & sustainable are not the same. But we need both. We have to crawl before we walk.
Green has to do with a product, system or action having "some" positive impact on the environment. This impact may be simple or complicated but it is not absolute. Because Green is vague in its metrics there is room for debate of the word’s usage but it serves as an important function to allow people to make small or large changes towards the ideal step of sustainability. Because its a color its a great & easy way to share a more complicated call for action. It gets consumers to stop and look but ultimately its up to the product to do the selling. For instance, buildings with varying impacts towards the planet are considered GreenBuildings. Market based metrics create a minimum acceptance of defining buildings as Green.
Moving forward, sustainable has to do with a product, system or action maintaining the balance of the resources that it uses. This is a complete transformation and is more serious than Green because it entails no negative impact toward the planet. This is a lofty goal, that most people and things honestly do not live up to. We should try but let's be okay with the word Green for now.
I believe the best example of Sustainable vs Green has been already defined in the wood products industry. For years sawmill companies claimed to be "Green" or "Sustainable" but it wasn't until organizations like the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), and the Sustainable Forest Industry (SFI) made manditory standards and audited certification was there truely a Sustainable wood product. It is all about accountability by a third party certification.
Green may be an element in the paper or plastic type questions. Sustainable implies there are answers to the earth meeting today's human needs without compromising future human needs. Humans are more apt to accept green than sustainable. More importantly, what is a term for best eliminating those "needs" either by removing humans from the abused earth completely or by holding them hostage via fines and imprisonment until they simplify their needs. Once one has tasted a whole pie it is difficult to settle for a piece of crust.