Efficient use of non-renewable resources is not sustainable
sustainability: a term that applies to practices that can be continued indefinitely, after the oil is all gone. "Sustainability" is often confused with more efficient ways to use non-renewable resources, usually because it is too difficult for most people in industrial societies to imagine behaviors that will be able to outlast the Age of Petroleum. A 100 mile per gallon automobile is efficient, but it is not sustainable.
STABILITY IN USA
AS ALIBI IS NUTTY
A USABILITY SNIT
A STABILITY IN US
A STABILITY IS UN
ITALIANS BUYS IT
ITALIAN IS BUSTY
I SAY ALIBI STUNT
ABILITY ISNT USA
BAIL SANITY SUIT
A SANITY IS BUILT
There's only one definition of "sustainability" - it refers to practices that can be continued indefinitely.
A 100 mpg car is efficient, but not sustainable. Even the Interface Corporation (one of the few companies that seems to be sincere in their "green" efforts) is not sustainable, since they still use fossil fuels to power their facilities, transport goods, etc.
A photovoltaic solar electric panel is probably not "sustainable" in a multi- generational perspective. Solar panels are great, but I also like David Holmgren's prediction ( a co-founder of permaculture) that 100 years from now the symbol of solar power will be a tree, not a PV panel.
Using any non-renewable energy or minerals is by definition not sustainable. Peak Oil is the point where these cancer like practices (endless growth) are forced to start slowing down. It would be a good idea to carefully use the remaining oil so there's something positive left over after its all burned up.
New York Times
THE WAY WE LIVE NOW
Our Decrepit Food Factories
By MICHAEL POLLAN
Published: December 16, 2007
The word "sustainability" has gotten such a workout lately that the whole concept is in danger of floating away on a sea of inoffensiveness. Everybody, it seems, is for it whatever "it" means. On a recent visit to a land-grant university's spanking-new sustainability institute, I asked my host how many of the school's faculty members were involved. She beamed: When letters went out asking who on campus was doing research that might fit under that rubric, virtually everyone replied in the affirmative. What a nice surprise, she suggested. But really, what soul working in agricultural science today (or for that matter in any other field of endeavor) would stand up and be counted as against sustainability? When pesticide makers and genetic engineers cloak themselves in the term, you have to wonder if we haven't succeeded in defining sustainability down, to paraphrase the late Senator Moynihan, and if it will soon possess all the conceptual force of a word like "natural" or "green" or "nice."
Confucius advised that if we hoped to repair what was wrong in the world, we had best start with the "rectification of the names." The corruption of society begins with the failure to call things by their proper names, he maintained, and its renovation begins with the reattachment of words to real things and precise concepts. So what about this much-abused pair of names, sustainable and unsustainable?
To call a practice or system unsustainable is not just to lodge an objection based on aesthetics, say, or fairness or some ideal of environmental rectitude. What it means is that the practice or process can't go on indefinitely because it is destroying the very conditions on which it depends. It means that, as the Marxists used to say, there are internal contradictions that sooner or later will lead to a breakdown.
For years now, critics have been speaking of modern industrial agriculture as "unsustainable" in precisely these terms, though what form the "breakdown" might take or when it might happen has never been certain. Would the aquifers run dry? The pesticides stop working? The soil lose its fertility? All these breakdowns have been predicted and they may yet come to pass. But if a system is unsustainable -- if its workings offend the rules of nature -- the cracks and signs of breakdown may show up in the most unexpected times and places. Two stories in the news this year, stories that on their faces would seem to have nothing to do with each other let alone with agriculture, may point to an imminent breakdown in the way we're growing food today.
The first story is about MRSA, the very scary antibiotic-resistant strain of Staphylococcus bacteria that is now killing more Americans each year than AIDS -- 100,000 infections leading to 19,000 deaths in 2005, according to estimates in The Journal of the American Medical Association. For years now, drug-resistant staph infections have been a problem in hospitals, where the heavy use of antibiotics can create resistant strains of bacteria. It's Evolution 101: the drugs kill off all but the tiny handful of microbes that, by dint of a chance mutation, possess genes allowing them to withstand the onslaught; these hardy survivors then get to work building a drug-resistant superrace. The methicillin-resistant staph that first emerged in hospitals as early as the 1960s posed a threat mostly to elderly patients. But a new and even more virulent strain -- called "community-acquired MRSA" -- is now killing young and otherwise healthy people who have not set foot in a hospital. No one is yet sure how or where this strain evolved, but it is sufficiently different from the hospital-bred strains to have some researchers looking elsewhere for its origin, to another environment where the heavy use of antibiotics is selecting for the evolution of a lethal new microbe: the concentrated animal feeding operation, or CAFO.
The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that at least 70 percent of the antibiotics used in America are fed to animals living on factory farms. Raising vast numbers of pigs or chickens or cattle in close and filthy confinement simply would not be possible without the routine feeding of antibiotics to keep the animals from dying of infectious diseases. That the antibiotics speed up the animals' growth also commends their use to industrial agriculture, but the crucial fact is that without these pharmaceuticals, meat production practiced on the scale and with the intensity we practice it could not be sustained for months, let alone decades.
Public-health experts have been warning us for years that this situation is a public-health disaster waiting to happen. Sooner or later, the profligate use of these antibiotics -- in many cases the very same ones we depend on when we're sick -- would lead to the evolution of bacteria that could shake them off like a spring shower. It appears that "sooner or later" may be now. Recent studies in Europe and Canada found that confinement pig operations have become reservoirs of MRSA. A European study found that 60 percent of pig farms that routinely used antibiotics had MRSA-positive pigs (compared with 5 percent of farms that did not feed pigs antibiotics). This month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study showing that a strain of "MRSA from an animal reservoir has recently entered the human population and is now responsible for [more than] 20 percent of all MRSA in the Netherlands." Is this strictly a European problem? Evidently not. According to a study in Veterinary Microbiology, MRSA was found on 45 percent of the 20 pig farms sampled in Ontario, and in 20 percent of the pig farmers. (People can harbor the bacteria without being infected by it.) Thanks to Nafta, pigs move freely between Canada and the United States. So MRSA may be present on American pig farms; we just haven't looked yet.
Michael Pollan is a contributing writer. His new book, "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto," will be published next month.