“Sustainability” isn’t sustainable, so says William Anderson, Associate Professor of Economics. Anderson, who teaches at Frostburg State University in Western Maryland says sustainability is just another term for environmentalism. He argues that our lives have been inundated with rhetoric that preaches living green, using less energy, and resources, while pushing for the use and consumption of renewable alternatives. His underlying point, it’s all a fraud, and it isn’t making life any easier:
What sounds good, however, often is not, and “sustainability” has become yet another scam – yes, scam – the statists have foisted on people in the name of saving humanity and planet earth. I will go even further: What is called “sustainability” is not even sustainable, not by a long shot. The irony is that the very implementation of “sustainable” policies will needlessly make life more difficult for everyone.
He goes on to reference a 2008 New York Times Article which details the emphasis government has placed on food-based fuels. The use of bio-fuels (ethanol) is a highly subsidized practice that forces individuals to do what they otherwise would never do, according to Anderson. He further contends that the government is fleecing healthy industries in an attempt to lift up politically favored industries like clean energy. He cites the production of electric generating windmills as a project that is contributing to an unsustainable road to recovery. From readings, Anderson clearly decries government subsidization in these areas.
Economically speaking, sustainability cannot sustain itself. Instead, it promotes a parasitic state that drains an economy – and its people – of energy and vitality.
Does he have a point? Has the push for sustainable practices, all things being sustainable affected other industries, the larger economy as a whole? Or is he ludicrous in his views? Weigh in.