TINA

A week or so ago I attended a Sustainability workshop put on by some of the professors here. That may be surprising to those of you who know me; normally I don't really care about the environment. But they offered to pay me for it, and I thought it would be a good way to learn a little bit more about being "green" and global climate change, etc. I would hate to push an argument based on little or no fact and have it somehow effect the lives of other people in a harmful way. At the very least, it would be irresponsible, right?

I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting much out of the workshop. As I said, it was a subject that I wasn't really passionate about. So imagine my surprise at how much I enjoyed being there. This offered me a chance to look critically at a lot of information that opposed my own views, something I've been trying to do more of lately. Not only that, but it was a good chance for me to get to know some of my fellow Chem. students and to see what they thought about this issue. Overall, I'd say it was a positive experience.

But...

There were several things that were presented to us that really didn't sit well with me. Some of these things I brought up during the workshop, but it can be difficult to speak out when 1) you don't feel like you know the material well enough, and 2) you know everyone else disagrees with you. So I'm going to take the time to mention them now, in my safe little corner of the world, where I don't feel outnumbered.

First of all, I really dislike the terms "sustainability" and "green". The word "sustainability" bothers me because it has the connotation that our current methods aren't sustainable, that something must be changed. But amongst all the life-cycle assessments not once did I see any evidence that our current methods are not sustainable. Wasteful, sure, but will it eventually lead to a breakdown of society, the extinction of the human race, or something of that nature? I don't know, and apparently neither do they. I was never told what it is we're trying to sustain. Not only that, but it also has the connotation that the changes posited by the "sustainability" movement are the correct ones, that they are inherently better. Now on that one they may have a point(I'll address this in a bit), but I don't think it's necessary to use such a charged word. "Green" bothers me because it suggests that environmental concerns are the chief motivator, which I sincerely doubt.

The reason I doubt their sincerity when it comes to saving the environment springs from a lecture we attended about "Sustainable Business Practices." These sorts of business practices apply not only to chemical companies, but to all major corporations. There were several ideas presented that I found interesting. The first was the idea of a "Triple Bottom Line", the idea being that for the breadth of human history money makers have been concerned only with how much they're making(the "bottom line"). Now, we should focus on
-Financial success
-Environmental Impact
-Social Impact
Sure, those two new ones are important, but at the end of the day, which one do you think is going be the major factor, the one that really decides what a corporation is going to do? Financial Success. And why not? That's the point of starting a business in the first place, making money. And if people think your particular business is concerned with a particular issue, say the environment, and you're also concerned by that same issue, then whose products are you going to buy? I'm not saying that every corporation out there doesn't care about saving the environment. But in today's market, it pays to care, or at least convince everyone you do.

The other major theme we heard over and over again was efficiency. We were introduced to the idea of "Factor Four": twice the productivity with half the resources. Use less material, generate less waste, reuse your waste(or sell it to someone who can), use catalysts...All great ideas. Not one of them needs to be labeled "green". There may be an effect on the environment(less waste needing disposal, etc.), but I think there's an even bigger economic effect. By being more efficient in creating your product, you're saving money, plain and simple. We were given the example of BP, an oil company, who implemented sustainable business practices in 1996. They spent $20 million to do it. By 2006, they had saved $1.5 billion dollars because of it. Am I expected to believe they did it because they felt badly about their effect on the environment? That's asinine.

As far as I can tell, all the things described to me at this workshop are simply much needed refinements of old methods. Why can't we call it "new" chemistry? Or how about "efficient" business practices? Because, as I said before, caring sells. And this doesn't only relate to businesses. Universities are effected by this as well. We were asked how many of us chose our school because of its "green" reputation. Almost all of us raised our hands(I did not). Now, we weren't a representative slice of the student population, but still, it's kinda telling. More students equals more money, and more minds to reach. And universities all over the country are taking up the green mantle. I imagine it'll replace the doctrine of diversity before long.

I still haven't answered the one major question I had going into this workshop: should I be worried about our impact on the environment? The answer I received from them was an incontrovertable "Yes!" Of course it was; I was at a sustainability workshop. In fact, we were told by one of the professors that there was no controversy surrounding global climate change. We are having an effect. Of course this was all backed up by shiny graphs and numbers. But apparently he didn't check his facts that well. There happens to be an organization, located in Portland of all places, called the Cascade Policy Institute, that says we don't know if we're having an effect, and presents evidence showing that maybe we're not doing as much damage as we thought. They're backed up by scientists from around the country. So it seems there is indeed disagreement within the scientific communtity. It's not so cut and dry. Were we shown any of this data? Nope. Not a bit.

I'll leave you with one last thing I learned at the workshop, a new acronym, T.I.N.A. There Is No Alternative. This came from our lecture on sustainable business practices. We were told that this is the wave of the future, that it's the "hip and sexy" trend in the business world. What bothers me about this idea is that the next generation of leaders in society(I mean us) is being told that we're screwing up the environment, that we have to change now, otherwise our children are screwed(which I think is a terribly low blow). We are going to be the ones influencing public policy, and yet we're being fed this message, by scientists, before any sort of a consensus has been reached. Not only that, but we were being trained to communicate to the public, presumably so that we can spread their message. This is starting to sound an awful lot like another organization that we all know I have a distaste for. But I suppose I should just sit back and relax, buy some carbon credits to make myself feel better, and enjoy the environment while I still can.

After all, there is no alternative.