Bensley+Debate+Paper+-+American+Sustainability

David Bensley 24 October 2011 Debate Paper #2 – Sustainability of American Culture Words: 1,835 STSS 4967 – Sustainability Studies


 * Introduction**

American culture is always changing across time and geography. What is considered American culture today is certainly not the same as 50 or 200 years ago, and what is considered American culture in Los Angeles, California, today is certainly not the same as in Nashville, Tennessee. However, the debate considered herein is not the definition of “American culture,” but rather the question of its sustainability. For that reason, the reader may consider it to be whatever aggregate culture of present-day America he or she perceives.

What does it mean to consider the sustainability of a culture? Many people automatically think of the environment when the word “sustainability” is heard. However, it is also imperative to think about economics, and how a culture treats present decisions with consideration to future benefits or problems. Sustainability is inherently a question of an approach to risk-taking.

It is natural to think that every single person in the United States has a stake in American sustainability, but the problem is larger still. The sustainability of American culture is not just an American issue, but a global one. Because the United States has strong international influence, the issue is not restricted to its own borders. America influences other nations through trade, popular culture, and development aid, among others; the failure of the United States to be sustainable would have a profound global impact.

Three speeches are used in this paper to frame the debate on American sustainability. The first, //Addicted to Risk// by author Naomi Klein, is a commentary on the American tendency to take actions for quick advantages and large profits with little regard for the future. The second, President Ronald Reagan’s campaign announcement speech from 1979, argues that American entrepreneurship can and will solve any problem it encounters. Finally, Ray Anderson, the late CEO of Interface, Inc., proves that a company can grow its profits while increasing environmental responsibility and offers a new equation for a sustainable civilization.


 * Position: American culture is not sustainable**

Naomi Klein’s TED Talk, //Addicted to Risk//, is a persuasive argument that American culture is unsustainable because of its willingness to risk the future in exchange for near-term benefits and profits. She tells the audience that in choices involving the environment and natural resources, decision-makers should be adhering to the precautionary principle, rather than trying to figure out the limit of how much risk they can get away with.

Klein argues that a culture willing to gamble with irreplaceable resources and potential environmental disaster cannot be sustainable. Americans believe that each bubble is always somehow //different// from the last, that it somehow will not burst, and that it will not end in an economic or environmental catastrophe.

The argument that Klein uses against the current methods of climate policymaking is convincing. She points out that there are essentially two scenarios in which we may take the “wrong” position on climate change. The first is that we behave as if it does exist, but in reality it does not. This may lead to cleaner air and water, but would have no foreseeable negative effects. The second is that we behave as if climate change does not exist, but in reality it does. This could be catastrophic to American society and to the rest of the world. Klein argues that with such large risks to consider, it would be wise to err on the side of caution. Despite this, American culture dictates that people and companies should try to get away with as much as possible, only acting on climate change when there is irrefutable proof, at which point it may be too late.

It is clear that the logical position on climate change would be to enact policies based on the idea that it is real. Despite this, American consumerism is stronger than ever and causing more pollution than ever, while the United States refuses to sign such important environmental agreements as the Kyoto Protocol.

**Critical analysis of position: American culture is not sustainable**

It is important not to underestimate the value of America’s strong tradition of entrepreneurialism and innovation. If climate change is real, it may very well be these free-market traits that lead the world through the problems posed by it. When there is sufficient evidence of climate change, it is likely that a company will find a way to make a profit by mitigating its causes. This is the basis of a healthy and efficient capitalist economy; that any societal need can and will be filled by a company, solely in the interest of profits.

As far as Klein’s argument in favor of the precautionary principle, there is little enough evidence of climate change that it is not yet necessary to take action. One must also consider the incredible costs of dealing with such an issue at this point. Because of the lack of evidence, it is unlikely that people or companies will be willing to pay a company directly to deal with these problems. Therefore, the responsibility of “cleaning up” will likely end up on the shoulders of an already-overburdened government. The economy is already heavily stressed, and the government is working through historically unheard-of levels of debt. To “save” America by placing this enormous cost on its government may result in the collapse of America as we know it.

**Position: American culture is sustainable**

President Reagan knew in 1979 that the United States was in a position of potential economic unsustainability. He spoke of the problems of double-digit inflation, and then worked during his presidency to decrease inflation, leaving office with an inflation rate of less than 5%. Like many Americans before and since, he and his administration identified a problem of sustainability and worked to quell it.

Reagan also knew that America’s energy situation at the time was not sustainable, economically or environmentally. In his campaign announcement speech, he stated that “[t]oday, energy is not cheap and we face the prospect that some forms of energy may soon not be available at all.” To deal with this issue, he advocated the stop-gap development of domestic energy sources while renewable sources, such as nuclear and solar power, grew into a significant portion of the American energy portfolio and eventually replaced fossil fuels. He was aware that simply using less energy would cause us to run out of resources more slowly, and it is this type of awareness and willingness to change that will allow America to take on problems of sustainability.

Even as far back as 1979, just 17 years after Rachel Carson’s //Silent Spring// was published and well before what is now known as the “green movement,” Reagan emphasized that America must be self-sufficient in order to thrive.

**Critical analysis of position: American culture is sustainable**

While it is true that inflation was decreased during Reagan’s tenure as president (and has remained below 6% since), it does not mean that America’s growth is sustainable. We are still living in a system of unlimited exponential growth on a finite planet with finite resources. As Reagan said about energy, using less will only make America run out of resources more slowly.

Reagan’s rhetoric may have indicated an intention to pursue a sustainable energy portfolio, but his policies did not. Imports of oil have steadily increased since the beginning of his second term, while domestic production peaked in 1970. His administration failed to develop and pass a comprehensive energy policy, which the United States still lacks.

Reagan stated in his speech that it may take “two to three decades” of reliance on fossil fuels before America could rely on more sustainable sources. It has been more than three decades since the speech was made, and the United States still gets 83% of its energy from fossil fuels. It is important to note that it has been 32 years since Reagan’s speech, and little has been done to make America self-sufficient.

**Overview and additional information**

In February 2009, Ray Anderson, then the CEO of Interface, Inc.—a global carpet company—gave a speech at a TED Conference “on the business logic of sustainability.” He made a persuasive argument that to combine parts of each of the aforementioned positions is a reasonable way forward. In 1994, 22 years after founding Interface, Anderson became aware of just how much damage his company was doing to the environment, even saying that he was “stealing” from future generations. Anderson guided his company toward new environmental goals, aiming to minimize its impact.

Since this time, Interface has decreased its net greenhouse gas emissions by 82% and water usage by 70% while increasing revenues by nearly 70% and profits by over 100%. The company has made remarkable strides in every measure of its environmental impact while experiencing unprecedented financial success.

Anderson shows that a company that comes to terms with its environmental impact is also identifying waste—and therefore unnecessary costs—in its operations. A company concerned with the environment will be a stronger company financially. The precautionary principle, acted upon in the private sector, will lead to the innovations necessary to maintain a healthy economy and sustainable culture.

**Personal Beliefs**

I believe that Ray Anderson’s company is an exemplary model of how we should be moving forward as a culture. When more people are educated, customers will demand “greener” products, and companies like Interface will step in to meet those demands. However, it should not be left to the free market alone to take action whenever it becomes profitable.

Studies of the environment already provide a convincing argument that we as humans, and particularly as Americans, are having a profound impact. There must be a paradigm shift in which the dominant discourse is not about whether to do anything about the environment, but //what// to do. The dissemination of scientific information and the negative effects of American culture on other people and the earth is the first step.

Through all of this, even if companies began to take steps similar to Interface, we have already done enough damage and used enough resources that we will not be able to avoid all of the consequences of our actions. The depletion of energy sources is one issue that comes to mind that will likely cause difficulty in the future. The longer we wait to change course, the worse the problems that will have to be handled. If we do not change course, an eventual collapse of American society is not unreasonable.

Anderson, R. (2009, February). //On the Business Logic of Sustainability//. Speech presented at the TED Conference, Florida. Klein, N. (2010, December). //Addicted to Risk//. Speech presented at the TEDWomen Conference, Washington, D.C. Reagan, R. (1979, November). //Announcement of Presidential Candidacy//. Speech presented at the New York Hilton, New York. United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. //Consumer Price Index//. Available at: <__[]__ >: 19 Oct 2011. United States Energy Information Administration. //Energy Flow, 2010//. Available at: <[] >: 2010. (From //Annual Energy Review 2010//).
 * Sources**