“Why Sustainability Is Not Working” by ocean actionist,
Berna Tural is a confused, upside-down, topsy-turvy piece needless to say. While Tural’s disorderly article published in Oct. 2021 highlights the importance of healing the planet from the damage humans have inflicted upon it, her view on the single word “sustainability” is utterly skewed and all over the place.
Tural begins the article by claiming that context is very an important element when using the word “
sustainability.” She insists that there are many different definitions behind the word which can create complications when consumers read it.
After reviewing her many (and by “many” I am referring to the two she discusses) different definitions of “sustainability,” the definition she provided from the
Oxford Dictionary seems to be the only one people regularly use.
When you first read the word “sustainability” in this article, surely the majority of you thought of this definition.
The second definition Tural provides is simply incorrect, not to mention she does not even cite where she found this definition.
“Meeting our own needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs,” Tural says.
Where did that come from? Why is this entire article built on the foundation of these two definitions while only one of them is accurate?
When most people think of sustainability, they think of something along the lines of creating a cleaner environment by reducing individuals' and companies’ carbon footprints. Sustainability is moving toward an environmentally friendly future as well as restoring and maintaining balance in the ecosystem.
Tural goes on to comment on the commitment many large businesses have made to become completely sustainable and produce
zero emissions by the year 2050. This is where she begins her argument of “Why Sustainability Is Not Working.”
Tural makes a solid point of how these
big-name businesses are promising to simply enact their zero-emission policies by 2050, which is sort of a long time from now in terms of saving the environment. And although these businesses plan to be fully sustainable in thirty years, most are not necessarily planning to combat the damage they have already done to the planet.
While this is a fair argument in regards to undoing the damage, that is not necessarily what “sustainability” means.
Sustainability typically focuses on the present and the future of one’s environmental impact. And yes, offsetting the negative impact an individual or company has already induced is extremely vital to restoring the earth, it is just as important to take positive steps toward a sustainable future which is essentially what these large companies are promising to do.
Tural pays little to no appreciation toward the efforts of companies producing zero emissions by 2030 or 2050, but instead, she fabricates this complex analogy about how a leak at the top floor of a building relates to greenhouse gases.
Let’s make it a water leak.
The bottom line is that Tural has created a weak foundation for her statement about sustainability. It can be understood that the main takeaway from her article is that, yes, there is more to be done in order to restore and sustain the planet. However, there is always going to be more. The healing never ceases.
Sustainability encompasses the notion that individuals and businesses are creating a cleaner future for the planet, and hopefully once we have reached zero emissions, we can start offsetting the past. Sustainability is in fact working, we must simply take baby steps.
Photo: Abigail Lynn, Unsplash
