Louisville Mojo: The Difference Between “Green” and “Sustainable”

This blog is a slight departure from what we normally write about. Instead of concentrating on policy, products, or local events, we felt it was necessary to address some reoccurring questions that arise in our work. The first persistent question would be “What is 'green' and how is it different from 'sustainable'”? The second would pertain to motivation of action: liberal guilt or responsibility. This is not an exercise to see who we can alienate, so if you have concerns about what we are saying please read this thoroughly and leave a comment at the bottom of this page.

In a lot of ways “green” and “sustainable” are interchangeable as that they both tend to describe an effort on someone's part to make choices that have a beneficial impact on society and our planet. I will argue, however, that “green” relates more to a determined set of actions or practices where “sustainable” refers to a way of thinking. When someone says they are “going green” they normally mean that they are eating organic, offsetting their carbon footprint, or any other list of prescribed actions you can find in various sources of literature. These actions have come under scrutiny in a number of circles because a majority of them do not address the underlying issues that they claim to address. For instance, if you are eating organic foods from Whole Foods, a company who's CEO is a climate change denier and has spoken against sustainable energy policy, your food still come from an average of 1,500 miles away. In other words, you are addressing the concern of having toxic chemicals in your food, but you are supporting an unsustainable food system, depleting your local economy, and giving your money to a company that actively works to halt actions that address energy concerns and climate change.

The interchangeability of these two words has led to some confusion and has somewhat discredited their shared purpose, but let me make it clear: green does not mean that is sustainable, and you have to include both to make reasonable decisions. Now, if I haven't bored you to death already, let me define what I mean by sustainability. A sustainable decision, product, or service is one that can continue into perpetuity. An example of an unsustainable enterprise is using fossil fuels as an energy source. There is simply a limited supply of it which makes it inherently finite and spending our money to research these technologies is a waste of resources that could be spent on developing more promising technology. Also, the production and the use of coal, petroleum, and natural gas destroys communities, the environment, and economies. So, when you are making your decision to get to work tomorrow you might want to think about alternate methods that either do not use or minimizes the use of this fuel. Which leads us into our second question.

We all want to be good, responsible people, and there are many different social-economic constraints to the decisions that we make every day. This is where I feel that “going green” falls short. Not everyone can meet the list of prescribed actions to “go green”. Buying a Prius or getting to work, buying groceries, and picking up the kids on a bike just doesn't work for most people. What most people do have is the ability to make informed decisions and demand the same from our representatives in the government as well as in the companies we support with our commerce. Living sustainably means accepting the responsibility of your actions and realizing that they have a collective local and global impact. This has nothing to do with guilt, being liberal or conservative, religious or atheistic, and everything to do with acting as adults. Unfortunately, living sustainable is more difficult than “going green”. It requires research and applying that knowledge to every decision you make while asking yourself if it is good for you, your community, your family, and the world. This includes everything from where you buy your food to how you treat your neighbors. It is a true commitment to a way of life that is more involved and more rewarding.

So, we challenge you to first understand what it means to be sustainable and then to pick one area of your life to apply those principles. Believe me, it's not easy, but it is fun and you will find it rewarding in every aspect. If you have any questions feel free to write and we'll do everything we can to help you along your way.

ADD A COMMENT

Louisville Grows fri oct 16 2009 at 2:42 pm ·


	PS This picture is of Brown-Forman's garden just off of Broadway and Dixie Hwy. They have done wonderful work. Expect a future blog about this.

Steppa fri oct 16 2009 at 3:48 pm ·


	I totally get it and its hard to be gotten as a sustainable application which can be honestly maintained... we do our damnedest though

Socialist sun oct 18 2009 at 3:25 pm ·


	Thanks Louisville Grows for the interesting commentary. I'd like to add to the conversation. From the dictionary, "green" in the eco sense means "environmentally sound or beneficial." Acording to Wikipedia, which we all know is the definitive resorce, sustainability means: "... in a broad sense, [it] is the capacity to endure. In ecology, the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. For humans it is the potential for long-term maintenance of wellbeing, which in turn depends on the wellbeing of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resources." Therefore, green behavior is supportive of the sustainablity of our community, region, etc, and behavior that does not contribute to sustainability is not green. Trouble is it is very hard to tell sometimes. Are there any good and simple guidlines out there? Socialist

Louisville Grows sun oct 18 2009 at 4:38 pm ·


	I'd say you're right in all of your definitions. What is missing then from the conversation is the hijacking of the term "green" that has turned it into what is mentioned in the above article, which creates opportunities for "green washing". I am hoping that it will be more difficult to hijack a concept like sustainability. Where it is easy to take a term like green in all of it's vagueness and control the meaning (ie list of ways to be green, products that are green) it will be hard to take a term like sustainable, which has the meaning rooted in the word, and convince people that a product or action has "the capacity to endure" when it does not. Thanks for the comment.

christopher hall mon oct 19 2009 at 10:04 am ·


	made-up crisis? and a few cool years? those few cool years don't do anything to the overall warming trend. the evidence seems fairly irrefutable, if you actually talk to reputable scientists and are willing to have your mind changed. but all the evidence in the world won't change the mind of someone determined to believe whatever nonsense they want to - in fact, studies seem to suggest that they just cling even harder to their beliefs when presented with contradictory evidence. funny, i could have told them that without the need for a big, expensive study.

Louisville Grows mon oct 19 2009 at 10:09 am ·


	That's true, normally it does change over grand swaths of time, but what we have seen since the industrial age has been unprecedented. And yes, climate change is a better term as that it is not a uniform process, but the research has been done so if you're truly interested in learning about it here's some good resources: http://www.ipcc.ch/ http://www.nature.com/news/specials/planetaryboundaries/index.html The solution is not in "taxing he[sic] 'rich'" it's in taking responsibility for your actions and the effects they have on other people. So yes, if you company pollutes, then you should have to pay for that damage, and if you pass that cost down to your consumers then it will make more responsible businesses and products attractive. That's capitalism for you. The over simplistic box that you place people in order to quite your own cognitive dissonance does a disservice to your own well being. Good luck to you sir and thanks for the comment.

ADD A COMMENT

blogs: Louisville Grows's blog