Operationalizing Sustainability in Government Operations: What's Next?

The federal government has a mandate to operate sustainably, starting with the Constitution’s call for the government to "promote the general welfare" of the nation. Today, through an evolving patchwork of economic, environmental and social laws and regulations, the government’s procurements are intended to promote economic, environmental and societal health throughout the country. Government agencies encourage participation by small and large businesses alike, supporting worker safety and minimum wages, and minimizing the environmental impacts of their purchases. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) articulated this idea clearly, calling not only for the government to support environmental improvement, but also for it to "fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans."

Today, the government’s new mandates for sustainability have revitalized and given new focus to the environmental programs of the past.

In recent years, we have seen great progress in reducing the government’s environmental footprint. Federal agencies have started to apply the ideas of sustainable development to their operations with the aim of "doing well by doing good," and more effective business practices are evolving incrementally over time. These agencies have also been attempting to introduce environmental and social responsibility to existing economic decision-making models, with the idea that the traditional economic model needs to go beyond the more easily priced, tangible items in order to consider the environment as more than just a source of resources and waste disposal, and social inputs as more than just labor costs.

But, while the last decade has brought increased understanding and an added sense of urgency to the idea that sustainability is not just a better way to do business but an absolute necessity, questions persist. Industry professionals are still asking: why go green? how green is it? can we really afford to go green? And, we are wondering: what’s next?

Where we are today

Today, our nation’s environment is visibly cleaner than it was 40 years ago, and even as our population grows we continue to slow the rate of growth in consumption of resources. But major problems remain in the U.S. and the world as a whole.

Life in today’s world is not sustainable.

The World Wide Fund for Nature’s, "Living Planet Report 2008" concluded the following:
"Humanity’s demand on the planet’s living resources, its Ecological Footprint, now exceeds the planet’s regenerative capacity by about 30 per cent [Figure 1]. This global overshoot is growing and, as a consequence, ecosystems are being run down and waste is accumulating in the air, land and water. The resulting deforestation, water shortages, declining biodiversity and climate change are putting the wellbeing and development of all nations at increasing risk…

In 1961, almost all countries in the world had more than enough capacity to meet their own demand; by 2005, the situation had changed radically, with many countries able to meet their needs only by importing resources from other nations and by using the global atmosphere as a dumping ground for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. If we continue with business as usual, by the early 2030s we will need two planets to keep up with humanity’s demand for goods and services."

Figure 1  Humanity’s ecological footprint 1961-2005

Our world and its ecosystem have a finite capability to provide resources and assimilate wastes. We consume renewable resources at a rate above their regeneration rate, and consume non-renewable resources at a rate above that at which they can be recycled or replaced by renewable substitutes, if any. We deplete ecosystem services that provide essential life support, and exacerbate climate change by our production of global greenhouse gas emissions (which increased by 70 percent between 1970 and 2004).

If we are going to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, the United Nations Development Programme calculates that the entire world will have to cut its GHG emissions in half by 2050, relative to 1990 levels, with the richest countries-which produce most of the emissions-cutting their releases by 80 percent. Developing countries would ultimately need to cut their emissions by 20 percent.

We’re toxifying the planet, too.  In 2007 alone, 506 million pounds of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic chemicals, including lead, mercury, PCBs and dioxins were disposed of or otherwise released into the environment.

Finally, unjust distribution of resources has resulted in 36 percent of the 6.4 billion people in the world accounting for less than three percent of public and private consumption, and 15.6 percent of the world accounting for more than 80 percent-of which the U.S. consumes 41 percent. The remaining 48 percent accounts for about 17 percent of consumption.

In response to these and other challenges that threaten our future, the government continues to add executive orders and guidance, revisiting environmental requirements and periodically raising the bar. But will these new practices be sustainable?

And while we are making relatively great strides in the area of environmental footprint reduction, have we adequately considered whether or not the economic decision-making tools we have been using for the last three decades are still appropriate?

The economic decision-making system in use today is essentially unchanged from the one that helped us make the decisions that resulted in our current, unsustainable state, which is based upon an economic paradigm that sees the economy as an abstract entity, separate from the natural world-a source of resources and a sink for waste. When we apply cost–benefit analysis, we do so in a manner that favors factors that can be easily and accurately priced, thereby disadvantaging sustainability goals. It is relatively easy to measure the value gained from industry and jobs…not so easy in the case of healthy ecosystems, culture and well-functioning social institutions. 

And, although cost–benefit analyses are beginning to include environmental and social impacts, accurately pricing (or even conceptualizing) the social benefits of a human life or complex ecosystem services is no guarantee that a sustainable solution will emerge.

Even ecologists cannot identify all aspects of our natural systems today and the impacts of our actions on them in the future. Although the Clean Air Act passes a cost–benefit test today, it would not have when it was adopted in 1970. Back then, we did not know the extent of the damage caused by fine particulate matter and thus could not accurately measure the benefits of clean air. Still, without precisely quantified costs and benefits, in the 1970s we knew that the air was polluted, that pollution damaged human health, and that we needed to do something about it.

Perhaps this is a good time to reconsider our existing strategies and approaches based upon add-on programs aimed at improving the status quo, and to consider different strategies based on a new paradigm that will help us to view all of our decisions through the lens of sustainability.

Defining sustainability

We need to bring precision to our discussions of sustainability, and understand that the word "sustainable" is not interchangeable with "green" or "high-performance," which can mean almost anything.

"Sustainable" means capable of being carried on for the foreseeable future, whereas "green" and "high-performance" usually imply improved attributes relative to the status quo, and which may or may not be sustainable.

When we’re dealing with the consumption of natural resources and services, we mean:

-Consumption of renewable resources at a rate below their regeneration rate or carrying capacity;
-Consumption of non-renewable resources at a rate below that at which they can be replaced by renewable substitutes, if any;
-Waste generation at rates below the ecosphere’s assimilative capacity; and
-Maintenance of critical ecosystems that provide essential life support.

So what does a sustainable world look like?
It is based on a steady state, reflecting the realities of our closed system, where natural resources are conserved, greenhouse gas emissions reduced, pollution and toxification prevented, and threats to ecosystem services eliminated.

Starting with environmental justice, good wages, occupational safety standards, and support of the socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses that can help build society, a sustainable world allows all to live respectfully and in dignity, with just distribution.

Once we begin to apply this definition of sustainability-capable of being carried on for the foreseeable future-we can begin to answer the questions posed above, and understand why we need to "go sustainable," if it is actually sustainable…and that unsustainable alternatives are not affordable in the long run. 

Making sustainable choices

Our world is a closed system. In order to sustain life within our closed system, we need to restore and maintain the natural systems and resources that make life possible; among these are clean air, clean water and clean soil. When we deplete and toxify these resources, we reduce the planet’s capacity to sustain life.

To be sustainable, government operations must reflect the earth’s closed-system limitations. Nothing short of that will work.

We need to move away from our prescriptive, incremental improvements-based approach toward performance goals based on desired, sustainable outcomes. Rather than wait for the next-generation product, service or building-rating system to define our sustainability goals, we can state them now, and give preference to the most responsive suppliers. Models exist, such as the Fort Carson "2027 Sustainability Goals," i.e., zero waste, 100 percent renewable energy, 75 percent reduction water purchases, sustainable transportation and procurement, and managing facilities to sustain mission capability.

And, most importantly, we need to move toward a new economic paradigm that gives priority to preserving and restoring the ecosystem services that sustain life on this planet.

Our current economic decision-making paradigm sees the economy as an abstract entity, separate from the natural world, shortchanging the role of society and ecosystems (Figure 2). A new, ecological economic paradigm defines the economy as a construct of society, nesting the economy within the environment rather than independent of it (Figure 3).

Figure 2 - The Traditional Economic Paradigm          

Figure 3 – The Ecological Economic Paradigm

Figures from "The New Sustainable Frontier: Principles of Sustainable Development," published September 2009 by the GSA Office of Governmentwide Policy.

In this closed-world paradigm, solar energy sustains the ecosystem, whose products are used as factors of economic production. The economy then sends its wastes back into the ecosystem to be broken down by natural processes. The economy can only be sustained if there are healthy societies living in healthy ecosystems that furnish renewable resources and assimilate wastes.

Closed-world cost–benefit analysis understands and respects these limitations and does not routinely reduce complex decisions to numerical answers. It incorporates the government’s mandatory acquisition policies and regulations relating to the distribution of economic effects on the environment and on society, establishing a baseline for government operations, and generally removes them from price considerations. It applies a multi-criteria, decision-making framework that includes the participation of many interested parties rather than a single stakeholder category.

Conclusion

There are economic, environmental and social consequences to every decision we make, whether at home or at work. For example, when we buy a cup of coffee, consciously or not, we are deciding whether the people who grow and harvest the beans, and the communities in which they live, are being exposed to pesticides and chemical fertilizers. We are also deciding whether they-and those who processed, transported and ultimately made that cup of coffee-can live respectfully, and support themselves and their families with dignity. Similarly, when we specify and acquire goods, services and buildings, we are deciding whether workers will be safe making, installing and operating those items; we are also making a judgment about the amount of energy consumed and the amount of waste generated.

Our everyday decisions determine whether or not our current unsustainable practices will prevail, or if we can truly move toward a sustainable world. In the latter, operations will use only those goods and services that are required for their production, use and distribution, i.e.,

-That conserve, recover and continuously recycle natural resources and restore ecosystem services in a closed-loop manner;

-That minimize GHG emissions, thereby helping to restore atmospheric greenhouse gases to levels that will minimize the adverse effects of climate change;

-That minimize or eliminate hazardous substances, and find/use safer alternatives that protect our health, and our air, water, soil and food chain; and

-That are produced within the finite limits of consumption and in a manner that provides all with sufficient means to live with respect.

-It is these everyday decisions that will determine whether or not our current unsustainable practices will prevail, or if we have the ability to move toward a sustainable world.

*Footnotes