“Sustainability is the simultaneous achievement of environmental, economic and
social goals,” the State’s definition of sustainability says, but the three do not have
equal clout. What hope does the environment have when pitted against economics and
a growing population’s drive for amenities?
It’s a battle of brute force and expediency with no real moral imperative on which
to build more substantial terms of engagement.
Remembering the death bed scenario, it is surely tragic that we, as a society, allow
materialistic thoughts to pre-occupy us, and put questions of spirituality and ethics
into the too-hard basket.
Sustainability –– nebulous and hard to define –– raises more than environmental,
economic and social concerns. It is a supreme test of our basic human decency and
virtue. These are the sorts of qualities we will look for and treasure the most at the end
of our life.
It may sound odd but the State Sustainability Strategy is as good a place as any to
start a spiritual search.
Contemplation of this Strategy is recognition that resources are finite and we have
to tread carefully –– something we haven’t really done for the last 30 or 40 years.
But when it comes to considering the long-term impact of developments and
drawing lines in the sand –– yes, you can go ahead, or no, it’s unsustainable –– will
the economic imperative continue to exert most influence, as it does now?
Will our sustainability rules be bent by economics? Will governments continue to
favor development projects because they equal jobs, economic prosperity and votes
at the next election? Tangible things. Runs on the board.
