On the surface, our problem seems relatively obvious. As a society, particularly since the dawn of the industrial revolution, we have been ‘developing and progressing’ at a rate and in a manner of resource use that is unsustainable. It is unsustainable for a number of direct reasons including: indiscriminate use of finite resources (ie; fossil fuels), wasteful and myopic use of renewable resources (ie; freshwater, lumber, etc.) and the employment of production techniques that emit by-products that are harmful to our atmosphere, cause global warming and that are given off in such a manner as to be difficult or impossible to recover again for further productive use. If the causes and end result of the problem are so obvious to scientists and laypeople alike and if our actions are the direct cause of the problem then why don’t we just stop? 

Asked how he would solve a problem in a single hour, Einstein responded that he would spend 55 minutes defining the problem and 5 minutes solving it. This is particularly relevant to the issue of sustainable business because as a world community we have already begun to attempt to apply band-aid and ultimately ineffectual solutions to a problem whose drivers we have yet to fully enumerate and address. The stakes are high and it seems that our species is doomed to a drawn out demise of our own doing if we fail to make fundamental changes to our behaviour.   Society is making slow progress towards environmental sustainability despite the goal being desired by all parties. There are systematic reasons why there has been inertia with regards to closing the gap. Three factors that contribute to the inaction are presented below.

• Time Horizon vs Intergenerational Tyranny
• Community vs Individual
• Co-operation vs Non Co-operation

Sustainability and environmental responsibility seem to be on everyone’s mind. Testament to this is the development of environmental initiatives like Kyoto, public discourse in media and promises and stated intentions at all levels of business and government. Debate is a good first step but one wonders if the talk is just that, or if it will actually have some bearing on the actions of people as we move forward into the future. Everyone’s got their talking points but who will bear the cost? Who will it be to ultimately step up to the plate and take action even though it is more rational for a risk-averse wealth-maximizing economic agent to be a free-rider and hope that another party will bear the cost? It seems as though most of the discussions of late have been about how to be more eco-efficient, conceding that waste is inevitable.

To conclude: “All the ants on this planet, taken together, have a biomass greater than that of humans. Ants have been incredibly industrious for millions of years. Yet their productiveness nourishes plants, animals, and soil. Human industry has been in full swing for little over a century, yet it has brought about a decline in almost every ecosystem on the planet. Nature doesn’t have a design problem. People do.” From Cradle to Cradle (2002).

—

A la surface, notre problème semble relativement évident. En tant que société, depuis l’aube de la révolution industrielle, nous avons adopté un stratégie de « progrès et développement » à un rythme frénétique et nous avons en quelque sorte utilisé nos ressources naturelles d’une façon non soutenable. Ceci n’est pas soutenable pour un certain nombre de raisons comprenant: l’utilisation aveugle des ressources finies (i.e. utilisation de combustibles fossiles), l’utilisation inutile et myope des ressources renouvelables (i.e. eau douce, bois, etc.), et l’emploi de techniques de production qui émettent des gaz à effet de serre nocifs à notre atmosphère, et cause le réchauffement planétaire. Si les causes et le résultat du problème sont si évidents aux scientifiques et certains d’entres nous, et si nos actions sont la cause directe du problème alors pourquoi pas ne nous arrêtons pas?

Most of the solutions that have been examined to date have focused on large utility scale renewable energy sources and markets and macroeconomic forces.  Some have debated the value of free market forces versus policy interventions.  Others have studied the relative merits of policies oriented toward supply side (renewable energies and clean energies) interventions versus efforts toward influencing consumer demand.

The US government said food from cloned animals is safe to eat and that no special labels are needed. The agency already has indicated it would approve cloned livestock. The American public now has three months to comment on the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) ruling before final approval is given.