The Meaning of Social-Environmental Sustainability - Economics and Ecology: United for a Sustainable World - page 135

What can we learn from these early pioneers that will improve the effective-
ness of a process we hope will become pervasive and permanent?
Focus on the environment has been palpable for at least 40 years. Many
of the environmentally related nonprofit organizations and public interest
groups have found the triple bottom-line framework an appealing and com-
patible ally. Often, such groups have come into existence to oppose some par-
ticular type of economic activity by taking up a particular cause. Greenpeace
and Save the Whales oppose factory-fishing fleets and the incidental catch
of nontarget species. The Union of Concerned Scientists argues against the
efficacy of nuclear power, and opposes offshore oil drilling, as does the
Environmental Defense Fund.
Worldwatch Institute has long championed images of a sustainable world
and regularly publishes separate pieces on forests, oceans, farmlands, fresh-
water resources, climate change, energy options, and a host of related topics.
Whatever their particular point of view, the common denominator support-
ing the efforts of all these organizations is a critique, overtly or tacitly, of
economic activities in light of ecological integrity and social equity. When
alternatives are presented, they are universally more compatible with triple
bottom-line criteria than the current economic activities they are opposing.
This is all very encouraging and represents real advancement in the arena
of public debate, but there is one problem. The conversation typically focuses
on the connection between economics and environment, and says little about
communities and social justice. The technological imperative of this culture
of growth is a powerful force, and it is very hard to alter, even in the minds
of those who strongly perceive the need to change the current paradigm. Let
us expand on this through another example.
The Green Building Council promotes use of sustainable materials and
energy-saving techniques in the construction of housing and commercial/
industrial facilities. The LEEDS program (Leadership in Energy Efficient
Development) symbolizes this. To be sure, the results are touted as being
more “livable” for families, but mainly because the monthly dollar costs
(after perhaps a considerable capital investment) will be lower. You are told
that you can have all the comforts you had before. In other words, you do
not need to give up anything or adjust your behavior—technology will see
to that. Personal and family sacrifice are not required, and community solu-
tions are rarely mentioned.
As a result, many proposed solutions are reasonable only if you can afford
them. And the devotion to technological solutions remains intact. As we will
discuss in the two concluding chapters of this topic, the need is for com-
munity-based bottom-up ideas and solutions that will truly speak to the
disparities between income and wealth and promote healthy relationships
among people. All many people really want or need is a sense of belonging
and being valued in a true community, one built on mutual trust and car-
ing. Accordingly, the most pressing need in the advance of triple bottom-line
thinking is for more integration of the social-equity element. If you recall,