This is one post I couldn’t wait to write- a brief summary of yesterday’s start to Burlington, Vermont’s summit on sustainability, organized by Bob Costanza of the University of Vermont’s Gund Institute for Ecological Economics and hosted by Seventh Generation and featuring some of the country’s top sustainability experts. The proposed goal of the summit is to produce a detailed road map to move the U.S. economy to one that is ecologically sustainable, socially fair and economically efficient.

Each guest expert had ten minutes to present five points, and over the next two days they’ll break into small groups to further develop these ideas. The resulting ‘game plan’ will be published in Solutions, a new journal focused on finding real solutions to society’s pressing problems and creating a sustainable and desirable future.

Participants include Jim Hartzfeld of Interface Carpets, Bill Becker of the Presidential Climate Action Project, Bob Costanza of University of Vermont, Thomas Dietz of Michigan State University, Larry Forcier of University of Vermont, Richard Heinberg of Institute for Global Communications, Jeffrey Hollender of Seventh Generation, Jon Isham of Middlebury College, Wes Jackson of The Land Institute, Hunter Lovins of Natural Capital Solutions, David Orr of Oberlin College, Will Raap of Gardener’s Supply, Larry Susskind of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Mary Evelyn Tucker of Yale University.

David Orr, Wes Jackson, Jon Isham, Larry Forcier

There was consensus that the environmental community needs to reshape the narrative of climate change, but the manner by which we achieve “transformational change,” even amongst this group of experts, remains a very lively debate.

Arguing against incremental change, Hollender suggested, “we have systemic issues that won’t be addressed simply by having a new generation of corporate leaders that are more sensitive to the environmental landscape.” For him, immediate, transformational change is possible- just as a woman who has a baby adjusts overnight to the radical changes in her life, responding quickly by necessity to her new sets of responsibilities.

MIT’s Larry Susskind, who often works as a mediator in land and environmental disputes, played the role of devil’s advocate, arguing that the environmental community needs to better appreciate that there is a vast landscape of groups that do not accept at all that which this group of experts takes as given. The community needs an approach that melds indigenous needs and understanding with scientific knowledge.

Others echoed Susskind’s call for a more localized (less global) approach to sustainability, suggesting, as Yale’s Mary Evelyn Tucker did, that we need a “multiform, locally differential planetary” vision.

Middlebury’s Jon Isham described his preference for an “aspirational approach,” rather than a “limits-based approach.” In other words, he said, “those of us interested in sustainability have failed to provide the glue” necessary to positively connect the dots between the decisions of individuals and communities to environmental necessities, that we should borrow from other disciplines (such as economics, philosophy, social sciences) to construct a “utility maximization” approach directed at happiness. The human condition is not limits-based, but rather it thrives on positive, forward progress. In explaining the inter-connectedness of distinct aspirations, he gave the example of a woman in Mumbai who decides one day she wants to learn the tuba- the process through which she moves closer to and ultimately achieves that goal is reliant on other individuals (where she buys the tuba, who delivers the tuba, from whom she learns the tuba, for whom she plays the tuba…). That acknowledgment of inter-connectedness, and its role in our happiness, is a powerful motivating force.

Bob Costanza in search of solutions

One of the questions I walk away from the conference with is this: how do we move forward with people who may accept long term assumptions- that climate change exists, that it’s bad- but reject short term solutions?  Finding solutions that make sense for every community is a virtual impossibility, so can we successfully develop a broad game plan that allows for distinct local approaches? As Hunter Lovins pointed out, “when the environmental community is in trouble, it circles the wagons and shoots in.” What’s more, the din of special interest voices on the Hill often drowns out these disparate- and sometimes competing- narratives of the scientific community.

Other highlights include a revelation from David Levine, of Green Harvest Technologies, that during his meeting with Lisa Jackson, the new head of the EPA, she said “speak to me as a mom;” Hunter Lovins and Thomas Dietz each referencing the significant roles played by Wal-Mart and McDonald’s in moving their industries toward greater sustainability; Mary Evelyn Tucker discussing the positive role that religion has played in bringing about a green moral philosophy; Richard Heinberg’s prediction for the shape of our economy’s recovery (not a V, with a brief low and quick recovery, or a U, with a prolonged low before the recovery, but rather an L, a re-defining of our economy, a recalibration towards something more sustainable, less volatile); Wes Jackson describing the fact that many in Kansas (where the Land Institute is based) do not believe in climate change (or evolution, for that matter), but many of those people believe in recycling and shutting down coal plants…because “it’s the right thing to do.”

I have, of course, only scratched the surface of what was said during the summit’s first day, but, in summation, it’s clear language is vitally important to the success of the sustainability movement. The movement needs to be multi-lingual (so that we can frame and evaluate scenarios borrowing from a multitude of fields) to create new narratives, it needs to account for local economies (e.g. what makes sense for Vermont might not for Iowa), it needs to educate and support policymakers, energize the youth, and, as Mary Evelyn Tucker suggested, it needs to put forth a world view that is restorative rather than extractive.