“Sustainability” is a relatively broad discipline that has risen to great popularity in the 21st century. Despite the term’s name recognition, many of the public and even new students of the subject find it difficult to define concisely. The dictionary definition Google gives for sustainability is “Avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain an ecological balance”, but what does this actually mean in practice? My definition for the word strays a bit from Oxford’s. In my mind, sustainability can be defined as, “using available resources efficiently to maximize the gain afforded to human beings while maintaining a healthy ecosystem”. A practice cannot be sustainable if it is not helping people and economies survive at the behest of an “idea” of conservation. Similarly, a policy cannot be sustainable if it focuses only on the economy and ecosystem services. Examples of sustainable exercises designed to maximize efficiency are the American Tree Farm System developed in 1941 and wastewater reutilization systems.
The American Tree Farm System is a certification for privatized forests whose owners demonstrate they are farming trees sustainably on their land by frequent rotation and harvest. The landowner must have 40 acres of forested land and have a natural resources professional make a plan for harvesting the trees that adheres to the Colorado State Forest Service guidelines. In most cases, the plan involves segmenting the farm owner’s forest into many subsections. Once all the trees in one section are cut, the owner replants and moves to the next section to harvest. When all the plots have been harvested once, the owner should now be able to harvest the first plot of trees he replanted, and the pattern of cut down and replant should begin again. The cycle ensures plentiful fiber and timber production, especially for paper mills, without inefficiently destroying many acres of untouched forest. The trees are typically harvested young, at about 7 to 8 years old. Cutting them down at this age rather than as adults is better for carbon reduction. Growing forests sequester far more carbon dioxide than already grown ones. If the products made from the young trees are long lasting, the short term and long-term benefits of sustainable farming over pre-Tree Farm System logging are tremendous carbon-wise and production-wise.
Wastewater reuse programs have been implemented in nearly every new architectural and agricultural development in the United States and abroad. They are incredibly efficient at saving water resources and subsequently, money. Wastewater can be recycled for use in many different industries. It can be treated and made potable by reverse osmosis, used to recreate wetlands, irrigate farmland, and even recycle human waste on the International Space Station. Gallon for gallon, wastewater recycling is one of the most efficient ways to increase the sustainability of water consumption. In urban areas, reclaiming water is especially important. The Tucson city government states that, “Using reclaimed water instead of drinking water for irrigation saves enough water every year for more than 60,000 families.” That is just the savings of wastewater reuse for agriculture.
Whilst the two preceding examples demonstrate practices that are truly sustainable, there are some practices the public believes are sustainable that are not. One such behavior is the purchasing of cloth tote bags. The idea is that reusing a cloth bag will cut down on one’s carbon footprint and plastics usage. Unfortunately, the data does not support this hypothesis. In 2008, the UK Environment Agency (UKEA) published a study comparing the difference in resource use for paper, plastic, cloth, and recycled-polypropylene tote bags. The authors found that the best way to reduce the number of resources expended was not to buy a tote bag, but to instead reuse the free plastic bags you receive at the store at least once. These bags made from high density polyethylene have the smallest per-use environmental impact. Cotton tote bags require 327 uses to achieve the same per use ratio. Very few people can remember to reuse a bag that many times. In addition, many have more than one cloth grocery bag, each requiring 327 uses just to stay on par with a plastic grocery bag used once. It seems that the real reason these bags are so ubiquitous is not that they are good for the environment, but good as promotional items for products and trendy grocery stores.
Another product with a false sustainable connotation is the phenomenon known as the metal straw. Metal straws suffer the same fate as the reusable cloth grocery bag, the energy required to create them far outweighs the environmental impact of their plastic counterparts. Again, the intentions behind the trend are to cut down on emissions and plastic waste. However, a metal straw produces enough emissions to create 150 plastic straws and uses enough energy to make 90. In addition, 304 and 316L stainless steel used to make most metal straws requires mining the element nickel, which has destroyed much of the landscape in places like the Philippines. It is a shame but living sustainably is simply not as easy as purchasing a reusable straw or bag.
The metric of use per emissions and energy expended is apt because of the harmful effects on the environment of creating emissions and energy. It is easy to compare products to each other using this system of measurement and get a rough estimate of how much the production of each object might be contributing to climate change, global warming, or any of the other issues caused by burning fossil fuels for energy.
Citations:
Comments