The Costs of Inaction

Inaction, inaction... There is more than one way to describe the cost of inaction as it refers to sustainability. It could be the cost of remaining as we live now (rather unsustainably) which is the cost of our lives today (fairly expensive but not as expensive as buying energy efficient appliances instead of energy abusing ones), or it could be the cost of inaction to come - a future price.

Let’s assume that “inaction” means the cost of living our lives as we do now, with no action. In my opinion, this is the cost of living as a society. When I go to the grocery store, if I choose to remain inactive on global climate change and the trend towards sustainability, I therefore choose to buy regular frozen wild blueberries (approximately $4.99) instead of Canadian organic wild blueberries (approximately $7.99). I am still spending money, but not as much had I chosen to buy the more sustainably grown and produced product.

On the other side, the cost of inaction for living your life as you do now can cost you money. For example, if you have a habit of leaving on lights or the TV, it costs you money to keep that habit. If you were to change that habit and make the effort to turn off things that use electricity when they are not in use, you would save yourself money on your power bill.

Now assume that “inaction” means not acting to prevent pollution or global climate change. This is a highly debated topic. People, even educated persons, have the opinion that climate change will not negatively affect the world; therefore, nothing needs to be done about it. These people actually fit into the first definition, where they feel that they are saving money by remaining living as they do, with no need to purchase earth-friendly products. However, they are actually costing themselves money, because if they chose to live more sustainably, they would likely end up with more money in the long run, such as is the case with purchasing energy-efficient products.

Other people, such as scientists and those who care about the environment, feel that inaction will cost us highly in the future. Although we may have to spend more money now to prevent pollution and climate change, that amount pales in comparison to what it will cost humans and the earth if climate change were to occur. To explain this idea more fully, I would like to direct your attention to a video that I was shown on You Tube that I think clearly and truthfully states the cost of inaction. It is called, “The Most Terrifying Video You’ll Ever See.” Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

I know it seems that when you throw something in the garbage and it’s taken from your house by the truck that you never have to see or deal with it again, but is it really gone? No, it’s accumulating in a landfill that smells, is not aesthetically pleasing and has the ability to contaminate soil and water. If time is taken to recycle that product, once it has been picked up by the truck, it is more “gone” than the garbage because it becomes a new product that serves another purpose instead of sitting... for years and years.

So, what are the costs of “inaction” to you?

What is Sustainable Development?



The Brundtland definition of sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of today's generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987)." What type of development is meant in the definition: physical, social, economic, etc.? I interpret it to be the development of human knowledge. Human knowledge encompasses all types of developement, and as long as the thinking that we use to develop technology, society, etc. has sustainability as the foundation, sustainability will be achieved.

Society is currently not sustainable. We waste, overuse, and do not focus on developing technology that would make it easier to live sustainably. This is because people have gotten use to having everything at their fingertips without needing to think or care about where it came from or how it was created. Our lives have had substaintial development in the past 100 years, and the more we develop, the more we stray from sustainability.

This leads me to believe that true sustainability should not include much development. True sustainability, such as the how indigenous people live, is simple and does not depreciate the quality of life for humans if development is not occurring. For example, when the indigenous people near Tofino harvest sea urchins, they leave behind enough sea urchins to replenish the stock so that they and future generations can continue to have a sufficient supply of the food. Their culture has probably developed somewhat over time, but I believe that they have maintained true sustainability over many generations because they live practically the same way now as they did back then.

This is not to say that sustainability cannot include development. I just think that it introduces complexity. It seems it that it would require a lot of work to maintain sustainability if society is continually developing because we must constantly make sure that all development is done to sustainable standards. However, the complexity of sustainable development may be less difficult than getting society to live as the indigenous people did, since most people are too used to the life they have now. Sustainable development may be the only tool available to achieve any type of sustainability in our society today because people will be highly reluctant or unable to give up their cell phone, electricity, etc. If we must develop to achieve any sense of sustainability in our world today, then it must include the proper use of natural and renewable resources, as well as the reuse and reduction of those resources.

In the end, both sustaibability and sustainable development are simple. The most confusing part is how we come up with ways to prolong or defer the adaptation of this lifestyle.

Reference:

"Our Common Future" - World Commission on Environment and Development 1987