The word “sustainable” connotes a warm, fuzzy feeling. We are “sustainable”, or we are implementing “sustainability policies”, or “Sydney will be sustainable by 2030-2050“, for example.
Rarely will an economist, politician, or organisation fail to mention “sustainable” when giving an interview. It legitimises one’s existence as a 21st century institution and forward-thinking citizen of the world.
Spinifex is an opinion column. If you would like to contribute, contact us to ask for a detailed brief.
But the word “sustainable” has become so overused and misused that it suffers from acute “linguistic inflation” — its impact and meaning have diminished over time, rendering it cliché. Indeed, a new word was needed to curb its pretentiousness: “greenwashing”.
Greenwashing our way to sustainability
Governments and organisations worldwide are guilty of greenwashing. Public and private organisations have entire teams dedicated to it. In 2024, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) made combating greenwashing a priority.
On 24 October, Australia’s national airline, Qantas, was referred to the ACCC for greenwashing. Climate Integrity and the Environmental Defenders Office filed the complaint requesting an investigation into the airline’s sustainability claims.
Despite being a major polluter, Qantas claims it is committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and emphasises its goal of “protecting the future of travel for the next generation“.
Qantas has a “Fly Carbon Neutral program” that allows customers to offset flight emissions by ticking a box when booking. Climate Integrity claims this could mislead consumers into thinking their flight is sustainable, and its contribution to climate change is negligible.
However, carbon-offsetting programs are under scrutiny for overstating their ability to cut emissions, and businesses like Qantas face accusations of greenwashing over their carbon-offsetting claims. And Qantas, like most major airlines, is a significant emitter.
In 2024, Qantas emitted 17.6 million tonnes of CO2, accounting for 3.8 per cent of Australia’s annual emissions and comparable to around one million average Australian households.
On this basis, Qantas is hardly sustainable but is endeavouring to create the impression that it is. As the director of Climate Integrity Claire Snyder argues: “From what they have disclosed, our analysis would say that they [Qantas] cannot credibly claim to be on a Paris-aligned path to net zero.”
While aspirations to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 are credible, how this is framed is the fundamental determinant of that credibility.
Why “sustainable” and “sustainability” are redundant
Forward thinking organisations and governments are adopting a new terminology as “sustainable” and “sustainability” have become irrelevant. There are numerous reasons why. Here is just a handful:
“Sustainable economic growth” is the ultimate oxymoron — unlimited economic growth is unsustainable on a finite planet with finite resources.
“Sustainable development” has been flawed since The Brundtland Report (1987) defined it as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This alluded to a licence to maintain the status quo, which is obsolete in a rapidly warming world.
Because “sustainability” can only be assessed after the fact, it is a prediction problem rather than something that can be sold as “sustainable” in the here and now. Australia’s sustainability goal, which is also a global goal, to achieve “net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050” exemplifies this.
“Sustainability” hasn’t stopped the increase in CO2 emissions. In June 2024, monthly mean atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations hit a record high of 426.91 ppm, an increase of about 20 per cent from June 1990.
Moreover, as a consequence, Antarctic researchers reported in November 2024 that “Runaway ice loss causing rapid and catastrophic sea level rise is possible within our lifetime.”
“Planned obsolescence” is a strategy where manufacturers intentionally shorten product lifespans to promote excessive consumption and boost profits. This leads to resource over-exploitation and adverse social effects, yet governments largely overlook it.
Planned obsolescence is best summed up in Macquarie Dictionary’s word for 2024, “enshittification“, which describes how a product or service systematically turns to shit.
Concurrent with the above, recycling in Australia has hit an impasse. In the financial year 2020-21, Australia generated an estimated 75.8 million metric tonnes of waste, or 2.95 metric tonnes per capita. Between 2006 and 2021, waste generation increased by 12.8 million metric tonnes (20 per cent). Suffice it to say that landfills are “unsustainable”; they pollute the environment, and most Australian states are running out of landfill space.
The biggest contributor was building and demolition materials at 25.2 metric tonnes, highlighting the “unsustainability” of our built environment. Organics, including food and garden waste, followed at 14.4 metric tonnes, demonstrating the potential to redirect discarded still-edible food to the impoverished.
As Australians, we are incredibly vulnerable to marketing hype and, as a species, extraordinarily wasteful. Think of the annual release of new smartphone models that we have to have and the mountains of edible food waste that could feed a small country.
Food waste occurs at every stage of the food value chain, with Australia wasting 7.6 million metric tonnes annually — enough to fill the Melbourne Cricket Ground ten times. Remarkably, 70 per cent of this waste is still edible, costing the economy around $36.6 billion annually. This is almost eight times Australia’s JobSeeker Payment for 2023, estimated at $4.7 billion.
Is democracy up to the task?
While some democracies, like the UK, acknowledge the need for climate action, others, such as the US, Australia, and Canada, are mired in sophomoric debates about the validity and urgency of addressing dangerous climate change.
The US President-elect and convicted felon, Donald Trump, a climate change denier, is set to reverse the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, which aims to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.
The US is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and is responsible for the largest share of historical emissions. As such, it can be viewed in two ways: as a successful industrialised democratic republic or as the world’s most advanced third-world country. In 2024, the UN Office of Sustainable Development ranked the US 46th worldwide. Australia fared only slightly better at 37th, just above Cuba.
Irrespective, pernicious political polarisation — an “us versus them” mindset and the downside of democracy — has led some scholars to question whether a democracy can genuinely tackle environmental issues like the climate change crisis.
Earth scientist and father of Gaia Theory, James Lovelock, believes that political plurality is incompatible with environmentalism. In a perverse but pragmatic way, Lovelock advocates for “eco-authoritarianism”, declaring that climate change is such a serious threat that “it may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while”.
From sustainability to regeneration
In a 2024 article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Christopher Marquis, a professor at the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge, declared “sustainability” obsolete:
“While a balance among economic, societal, and environmental factors may have been feasible decades ago, we need to recognise that to meet these challenges, maintenance or even mere repair is not enough. We must shift our focus from sustainability to regeneration.”
The downside of democracy: some scholars have questioned whether a democracy can genuinely tackle environmental issues like the climate change crisis
Marquis continues:
“Regeneration techniques can improve systems and replenish the earth’s resources, but better terminology is needed to prevent greenwashing by firms.”
Succinctly, many scholars and practitioners believe that the concept of sustainability has lost its efficacy due to misuse, overuse, and inadequacy to genuinely address environmental issues and that humanity should aspire to more.
“Sustainable” is no longer fashionable
Regeneration is not new. It dates back 7000 years to Indigenous farming practices and “regenerative agriculture”. Indigenous people play a crucial role in regenerative agriculture, safeguarding about 80 per cent of the world’s biodiversity.
Today, “regeneration” involves “restoring, renewing, and revitalising ecosystems and communities” to address the climate crisis by improving natural resources rather than just avoiding harm. It continues gaining traction in environmental science, architecture, urban planning, tourism, education, finance, fashion, and business.
Supporting this is a 2019 survey by ReGenFriends that found that nearly 80 per cent of US consumers prefer “regenerative” brands over “sustainable” ones. Gen Y and Z see “sustainability” as too passive and favour companies that prioritise renewal and restoration. Regeneration transcends sustainability by fostering a much broader socio-economic impact.
In short, “sustainable” is no longer fashionable nor indeed effective. Just maintaining our current lifestyle will lead to the collapse of ecosystems and the extinction of many species, including ourselves.
Henceforth, it’s time to set new, more ambitious goals.
Aim higher
In a 2024 article, Eunomia’s principal climate and ecological consultant, Alex Massie, argued that “the word sustainability is dead” and that greater ecological ambition is needed.
Massie defined five levels of ambition regarding sustainability that organisations typically choose from. The first level, decarbonisation, is the least ambitious, while the fifth level, declaring an ecological emergency, is where we should start.
The five levels of ambition (paraphrased):
- Decarbonisation: reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change.
- Achieving net zero: eliminating greenhouse gas emissions through decarbonisation and carbon offsetting.
- Achieving sero carbon: eliminating emissions without offsetting.
- Declaring a climate emergency: acknowledging the need for significant operational changes due to climate impacts, including adaptation and behaviour change.
- Declaring an ecological emergency transcends climate change by addressing biodiversity, soil fertility, and the water cycle. It encourages us to rethink our role in the ecosystem, moving from mere maintenance to fostering regeneration.
Suffice it to say that most governments and organisations are stuck on number 1– decarbonisation. Massie opines it’s time to move to 5 – and declare an ecological emergency!
Avoiding the pitfalls that sunk sustainability
As Massie reasons, declaring an ecological emergency prompts us to explore a range of critical questions that a mere climate emergency declaration fails to address.
Addressing the climate crisis solely to maintain our lifestyles is insufficient for a sustainable future. Instead, an ecological emergency demands a deep regeneration of our planet’s ecosystems, focusing on restoring habitats, enhancing biodiversity, and promoting global regenerative practices.
This shift moves us from simply sustaining the status quo to actively restoring and rejuvenating the Earth’s natural systems for future generations.
The question remains, however, whether we are collectively capable of regulating “regeneration” to avoid the pitfalls that sunk sustainability. Lest we forget that the world is the way it is because of decisions made by our politicians and corporates.