As flooded streets bear witness to the increasingly frequent weather events in the UK, it is clear that the once-distant threat of climate change has become an urgent reality.
Yet, our slow-motion reaction to the rapidly escalating speed of these events is having dire impacts. Part of this disconnect may result from how we have depicted climate change, particularly in how we interpret and plan sustainability.
The Latin verb 鈥榮ustent膩re鈥, meaning 鈥渢o support,鈥 is reflected in the activities of ancient western and eastern civilisations that sought a harmonious relationship with the environment. The industrial era in Britain witnessed the birth of nature conservation and preservation movements. Legislation including the Wild Birds Protection Act of 1872 and organised land protection through institutions like The National Trust reflected a growing awareness of responsibility towards nature.
The term 鈥榮ustainability鈥 was adopted by the disciplines of environmental science and ecology during the environmental activism of the 1960s heralded by Rachel Carson鈥檚 warnings about the devastating effects of chemical pesticides on the environment, in her 1962 bestseller, 鈥Silent Spring鈥. During this period, sustainability concerned the endurance of natural systems and processes via their ability to remain diverse and productive indefinitely.
However, this understanding was quietly relegated to the archives of history when the United Nations in its 1987 Brundtland Commission Report, permanently linked sustainability to economic growth and development.
Under the banner of 'sustainable development鈥, this new framing shifted the meaning of sustainability from one concerned with the preservation of the environment to one that preserves a certain standard of living.
This narrative, now deeply ingrained, has reshaped our understanding of sustainability, co-opting the original environmental focus into one that facilitates the perpetual pursuit of economic and population growth. This shift from an ecocentric to a human-centric perspective is thoroughly embedded in textbooks, international treaties, national laws, and The United Nations鈥 Sustainable Development Goals.
Thereby, the 鈥榣ogic鈥 of this approach assures us that unlimited growth, production, and consumption can coexist with successful climate change mitigation and management. Economic journalist Naomi Klein aptly labels this mindset; 'magical thinking'.
Hence, in order to be successful in any potential adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change we may first need to rethink who and what is being emphasised in our narratives of sustainability.
Perhaps by re-thinking these narratives, we can then begin to bridge the gap between our slow-motion responses and the reckless pace of our changing climate.
Paul Kadetz, Institute for Global Health and Development, Queen Margaret University
