The great meaninglessness of “sustainability”

At most summits, assemblies, meetings and conferences, one word persistently resonates like the echo of a not-so-distant past. Highly overused, it is repeated like a mantra and strategically positioned in the middle of the sentence almost like a decoration, an embellishment. To say “sustainable” means automatically throwing a cool factor and, consequently, progressive visions into the conversation. Because why should one clearly state their will to exploit another country’s resources when they can distort facts by throwing sustainability into the discourse? In this way, exploitation becomes sustainable exploitation, development becomes sustainable development and so on, with more or less countless combinations.

According to the definition proposed in the 1987 report "Our Common Future" published by the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations Environment Program, “sustainable development” means development capable of ensuring “the satisfaction of the needs of the present generation without compromising the possibility of future generations to realize theirs”. In relation to this original definition, the word “sustainable” has rapidly become an example of meaninglessness and a catchphrase of demagogy. 

Sustainability conveys in its definition both socio-economic and environmental issues; it finds its roots in the notion that the world is not merely a place to be exploited for its natural resources, but to be preserved and cared about. With the rise of a new worldwide environmental consciousness related to climate change and especially global warming, sustainability seems to be at the core of every action taken and each policy suggested by decision-makers. Commitment, participation and common sense are the main drivers of sustainable development on behalf of citizens and, most importantly, policy-makers; it is an attitude that is realized through actions. However, we cannot use this term merely as a decorative adjective; it is important that all factors and dimensions are included in the sustainability world for it to be effective and meaningful. We can identify three dimensions of sustainability: social, economic and environmental. In order to function together, they need to be balanced. 

Culture is the foundation common to the three dimensions of sustainable development. Since it is not possible to simultaneously develop the three dimensions, it is essential to make choices. We might, however, argue that in the end, it is not up to individual citizens to choose to take action. Sustainable development is, therefore, a participatory development; it is a continuous process that must combine and interconnect the three fundamental and inseparable dimensions of development to guarantee the so-called rule of the balance of the three Es: ecology, equity, economy. Putting the principles of sustainable development into practice means directing one’s decisions towards a balance that manages to reconcile environmental protection, social equity and economic well-being.

The exploitation of natural resources is a main source of wealth and well-being for many countries. However, such exploitation is often unrestrained, causing exhaustion or serious impoverishment of resources. Most of the time, exploitation and colonialism march side by side, and the exploited country is the one that suffers the most resource deprivation and social oppression. I suppose today we call it business, but we have even heard about sustainable colonialism or resource colonialism (one does not have to be Frantz Fanon to observe that the use of this term is definitely going too far). Resource colonialism manifests not only through extending extractive frontiers but also through interpreting industrialization as a form of development that benefits the extractive communities by resolving economic underdevelopment.

It is mainly up to us not to fall into the demagogic power of “sustainability”. In order to use and understand this term correctly, we need to know its specific meaning and be able to explain not just what it means, but how it is implemented. Lacking a useful context, it remains a vacuous and vague concept. Will the human mind triumph over the threat of a sustainable bunch of stuff?