comments

1. Josh Weichhand on June 13th, 2010 at 9:53 am

   I like to think of “sustainable” as being able to be used and recycled repeatedly, without complete destruction of the source (this could be a source of energy, food, etc.), given (or near) our current rate of consumption.

   I have oil in mind when writing this, as I can’t see any way for our petroleum consumption to adhere to those perimeters.

2. Deron Bauman on June 13th, 2010 at 10:10 am

   beauty is sustainable. well made is beautiful.

3. Daryl Scroggins on June 13th, 2010 at 10:24 am

   I like the way you have posed this question, Joseph, because it subtly indicates the fact that sustainability is a matter of human attention, not a property of this or that resource or technology. It may sound odd, but when I hear the word Sustainability I always think of a children’s book by Donald Hall–The OxCart Man. I won’t go on about it here, but it’s a great book that shows the way people can work together in a cycle tuned to seasons and growth–and it is one that has nothing of the trap or rut in it.

4. Josh Weichhand on June 13th, 2010 at 11:07 am

   Indeed. This is the hardest part, I think, about watching this oil spill unroll over the past 6 weeks. I realize that I’m part of the problem. Every time we fill up the car with gas, we’re putting an entire barrel of unprocessed oil into the tank.

   This is partly why Grace & I attempt to live in urban centers that provide more transportation options (bike, light-rail, subway, etc.).

5. Joseph Logan on June 13th, 2010 at 11:51 am

   Disclosure: the motive behind my question is a low-level anxiety about greenwashing that which we have neither the will nor the discipline to change in meaningful ways. “Going Green” strikes me as the most vapid slogan of the entire environmental “movement”, though those using the phrase are often the least connected to that movement. I don’t mean to sound bitter and cynical about this, but I am, so it comes out that way.

   Josh, Deron, and Daryl, I hope your views are contagious.

6. Daryl Scroggins on June 13th, 2010 at 12:06 pm

   I know what you mean, Joseph. I worry about the shelf-life of “going green.” I hope it can outlast its status as an idiological plugin of the sort that gets pushed aside by the next. A green approach has its own momentum, of course–but like you I am cynical when it comes to the question of how much hardship has to actually arrive before cronic wasters suddenly want “somebody” to do something about it.

7. Joseph Logan on June 13th, 2010 at 12:14 pm

   Interesting analogy to HIV/AIDS: everyone threw on the red ribbons and bought the [red] products (those were HIV, right?), and it did appear to have an effect on awareness and infection rate. Alas, it isn’t sexy anymore, and I fear that people have forgotten that it’s still a problem. I’d hate to see environmental progress similarly halted, but we tend to have short attention spans. When’s the last time you heard the name “Haiti”?

8. Kelsey Parker on June 14th, 2010 at 7:09 am

   Joseph, I feel the same way about greenwashing. It’s feels like the low-carb movement and only a matter of time before the public grows skeptical of yet another overused marketing campaign.

Leave a Reply