Let's NOT be 'more sustainable'

30th November 2023


Michael Hardisty explains why avoiding ambiguous language is key to making real environmental progress

I think Charles Dickens put it very well when Mr Micawber gave the following advice to David Copperfield: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.” This quote beautifully encapsulates the concept of financial sustainability.

But what about environmental sustainability? Perhaps Mr Micawber might have said: “Annual freshwater replenishment twenty million litres, annual freshwater withdrawals 19.95 million litres, result happiness [or sustainable water use].” Or maybe “Annual fish stock recovery twenty million fish per year, annual fish stock depletion twenty and a half million fish per year, result misery [or unsustainable fishing].” We could add similar examples based on rates of reforestation and deforestation or greenhouse gas absorption and emission.

Financial and environmental sustainability are both binary concepts: either we’re spending/consuming/emitting more than we should (to be sustainable) or we’re not. Of course, we may be spending/consuming/emitting a lot more than we should or just a little more. There’s a breakeven point where we’re just on the cusp between acting sustainably and unsustainably (annual expenditure of £20 for Mr Micawber). It might look something like the diagram pictured below:


Mark W McElroy et al (2007)1 developed the “binary orientation” model of sustainability (which they illustrated using a similar diagram to the one here) and applied it to both ecological and societal sustainability. The concept of planetary boundaries (first developed by the Stockholm Resilience Centre2 in 2009) also supports the binary view; it defines a “safe operating space” for levels of ozone depletion, freshwater use etc within which we can continue to live happily and beyond which we’re in trouble.

What, then, should we make of the claim “…it’s more sustainable”? I often hear this phrase used to describe a situation that is in the unsustainable zone but which has moved slightly closer to the breakeven point (which is no bad thing). You can imagine someone describing the use of 5% biofuel in aviation fuel as making flying “more sustainable”. Or we might hear that using gas instead of coal is a “more sustainable” way of generating electricity. An uninformed listener might conclude that if gas is “more sustainable” then it must be in the sustainable zone. In reality, both coal and gas sit firmly in the unsustainable zone; gas is just a less environmentally damaging option than coal – it’s less unsustainable rather than more sustainable.

Why should we care? Because using the term “more sustainable” in this way gives a level of reassurance that things are OK, that they’re already on the sustainable side of the breakeven point, when they’re not. It’s misleading – it’s greenwashing.

If we want to see the changes that are so urgently needed to transform our way of life to a sustainable one, then we need to be honest about those current practices that are unsustainable. Clear language is vitally important in doing that.

So let’s try to be clearer in our language so that we don’t mislead: in many cases “less damaging to the environment” might be a more appropriate description than “more sustainable”.

References

1 Sustainability Quotients and the Social Footprint, accessible at: www.bit.ly/3LF085L

2 www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries.html


Michael Hardisty CEnv MIEMA is a sustainability leader with more than 20 years’ experience working with blue-chip companies. He now delivers the environmental sustainability strategy for EngineeringUK

Subscribe

Subscribe to IEMA's newsletters to receive timely articles, expert opinions, event announcements, and much more, directly in your inbox.


Transform articles

SBTi clarifies that ‘no change has been made’ to its stance on offsetting

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has issued a statement clarifying that no changes have been made to its stance on offsetting scope 3 emissions following a backlash.

16th April 2024

Read more

While there is no silver bullet for tackling climate change and social injustice, there is one controversial solution: the abolition of the super-rich. Chris Seekings explains more

4th April 2024

Read more

One of the world’s most influential management thinkers, Andrew Winston sees many reasons for hope as pessimism looms large in sustainability. Huw Morris reports

4th April 2024

Read more

Vanessa Champion reveals how biophilic design can help you meet your environmental, social and governance goals

4th April 2024

Read more

Alex Veitch from the British Chambers of Commerce and IEMA’s Ben Goodwin discuss with Chris Seekings how to unlock the potential of UK businesses

4th April 2024

Read more

Regulatory gaps between the EU and UK are beginning to appear, warns Neil Howe in this edition’s environmental legislation round-up

4th April 2024

Read more

A project promoter’s perspective on the environmental challenges facing new subsea power cables

3rd April 2024

Read more

Senior consultant, EcoAct

3rd April 2024

Read more

Media enquires

Looking for an expert to speak at an event or comment on an item in the news?

Find an expert

IEMA Cookie Notice

Clicking the ‘Accept all’ button means you are accepting analytics and third-party cookies. Our website uses necessary cookies which are required in order to make our website work. In addition to these, we use analytics and third-party cookies to optimise site functionality and give you the best possible experience. To control which cookies are set, click ‘Settings’. To learn more about cookies, how we use them on our website and how to change your cookie settings please view our cookie policy.

Manage cookie settings

Our use of cookies

You can learn more detailed information in our cookie policy.

Some cookies are essential, but non-essential cookies help us to improve the experience on our site by providing insights into how the site is being used. To maintain privacy management, this relies on cookie identifiers. Resetting or deleting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.

Essential cookies

These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. They include, for example, cookies that enable you to log into secure areas of our website.

Analytics cookies

These cookies allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors to our website and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works.

Advertising cookies

These cookies allow us to tailor advertising to you based on your interests. If you do not accept these cookies, you will still see adverts, but these will be more generic.

Save and close