How we went from conservation to sustainability and what that means

It's not just a change in lexicon. It's a change in mindset.

When I was growing up, people talked about “conservation,” an environmental byword for everyone from Marlon Perkins, the host of Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom, to acolytes of Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring. Talk to anyone in the environmental movement today, and the word is now “sustainability.”

Words come in and out of usage. Aging grandparents who described their favorite music as groovy now have grandchildren who call their favorite music awesome. Most of the time words come and go without much explanation; words simply change. But going from conservation to sustainability is more than a switch from one word to another. They mean different things, and there are ramifications in the ways we think about preserving the planet.

The birth of sustainability

The first mention I found of the word “sustainability” was in the September 12, 1958, edition of The New York Times in an article on the Reserve Bank of New York raising interest rates.¹ A spokesman for the New York Reserve Bank said of the economy, “The vigor and sustainability of the upswing remain uncertain.” The word became part of the lexicon of banking and finance over the next couple of decades. The word was also picked up in reference to military operations during that time.

The first mention of sustainability—at least as far as I could find this last week—in reference to the environment was in a book from January 1992. Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future was written by academics Donella H Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, and Jorgen Randers, all of whom were associated with the Club of Rome, the organization established in the mid-sixties that sought to tackle environmental and social problems on a global scale.

Starting in 1992, sustainability seems to have become a vogue environmental word, cropping up in articles about food production and trade in exotic species. It was probably a good thing because conservation, as a word, was pretty much gone.

But conservation goes back a ways

Conservation had been part of the parlance of environmentalism since the late 1800s. I found a reference to forest conservation going back to 1884.² During those decades, the word was used almost exclusively to talk about saving forests and wildlife. John Muir and others like him were called conservationists.

Conservation became part of the zeitgeist of the late sixties and early seventies. First, hippies who had dropped out of the corporate/capitalist/ consumerist culture, happy to make their livings at small cheese and pottery shops, influenced the broader culture. Besides flashing hippie peace signs, a lot of folks pursued pleasure over status. Architect Ludwig Mies van der Rohe's famous quote, “Less is more,” was taken beyond his principles of minimalist design and used as a mantra by many to emphasize the joys to be had in living simply. People also embraced E.F. Schumacher’s book, Small Is Beautiful, which advocated for a less capital-intensive economy that concentrated more on people’s needs.

Further, the crises of the Cuyahoga River catching fire and the prospects of our American symbol, the bald eagle, going extinct led to significant environmental and conservation legislation, including the great federal legislation of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the establishment of the EPA.

So by the early seventies, we had good laws on the books to protect the environment, and most folks were on board to do their part for the planet. Less was more. Small was beautiful. Conservation was cool.

And then…

But 1973 was also the year of the first Arab Oil Embargo, spurring inflation and disrupting the U.S. economy. Conservation became more than a good thing to do for the environment: energy self-sufficiency was for the good of the nation.³ But such self-sufficiency also meant frustration and inconvenience. Everybody, grandmas driving gas-guzzling Cadillacs and grad students in economy cars, waited in long lines at gas stations to fill up their tanks. American automakers responded to the oil crisis by producing compact and subcompact cars. The goal of fuel efficiency, however, translated into tiny vehicles with little pep. Most folks hated them.

Sure, it got better milage than your dad’s Chrysler New Yorker, but could you get up to freeway speed in your Pinto? Photo: hotcars.com

Conservation was no longer seen as a choice favoring a simpler life lived more gently on the Earth. Conservation was now imposed from hostile foreign countries. Conservation meant that the U.S.—what we Americans considered the most powerful nation in the world—was not only defeated in Vietnam, we were being pushed around by Middle Eastern sheikdoms.

Conservation was crappy economy cars. Conservation was no Christmas lights at Christmastime. Conservation was a 55 MPH speed limit on interstate freeways. Conservation was President Jimmy Carter wearing a sweater asking Americans to turn down the thermostat. In short, conservation became a bummer.

President Jimmy Carter urged Americans to conserve. Some think this cost him his reelection.

Perhaps learning from the environmental and economic ups and downs of the seventies, the word sustainability is dissociated from sacrifice. Conservation is wearing lighter clothes and drinking another iced tea when the temperature goes up. Sustainability is ensuring your air conditioner is up-to-date and efficient. Conservation is taking pubic transportation to work. Sustainability is switching to an electric car. Conservation is turning off the lights when you’re not using them. Sustainability is keeping the lights on, but building more solar and wind generation facilities.

OK, more power than a Pinto, but is a hybrid really more sustainable? Photo by the author

The cynical side of me can think of sustainability as unserious, that we’re fooling ourselves with our electric cars and wind power generators. Electric cars are an improvement—better than gas cars—but these emblems of sustainability are not really sustainable. We still have to mine the metals that go into making them and build the freeways to drive them on. Vast amounts of rubber goes into making their tires, requiring the conversion of forest to rubber tree plantations or the use of petroleum for synthetic rubber. Not using a car in the first place should be the real goal.

And yet, I should know that what we called for 50 years ago—good public transportation, walkable cities, an economy that prioritizes people’s welfare over profits—hasn’t come about. We’ve had 50 years, but politics, laziness, our drive for status, inertia, and not caring enough got in our way. Much of what we wanted is further from reach now than it was 50 years ago. In such a world, an electric car is at least an improvement.

Thoughts? I’d appreciate any input you may have on this subject.

1. "INTEREST RATES ARE RAISED HERE: RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK AND 3 OTHERS JOIN CLIMB FROM 1 3/4% TO 2% CHASE, GUARANTY MOVE INCREASE CHARGES ON LOANS TO BUSINESS FROM BASE OF 3 1/2% TO ONE OF 4%."New York Times (1923-), Sep 12, 1958, pp. 35. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/interest-rates-are-raised-here/docview/114357670/se-2.

2. "Save the Forests." New York Times (1857-1922), Jun 22, 1884, pp. 5. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/save-forests/docview/94271328/se-2.

3. By EDWARD COWANSpecial to The New,York Times. "U.S. Study Urges Strong Energy Conservation Effort: U.S. Study Urges Energy Conservation Supporting Data Possible Actions Outlook on Price." New York Times (1923-), Oct 23, 1974, pp. 1. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/u-s-study-urges-strong-energy-conservation-effort/docview/119975939/se-2.