the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development.

Since then, however, the term has been applied to everything from cars to agriculture and even economics.

My specific focus, in fact, derives from this problem.
I want to analyze what seems to me to be the confusion that surrounds sustainability.

That UN document defines sustainable development as development that allows both the present and all future generations to meet their needs.

Here is the first myth.
Sustainability is not simply about the environment, which may come as a surprise to you.
In fact, the original definition says nothing about it at all.

Sustainability is not about protecting the world around us.
The original focus was on finding ways to help poor nations catch up with richer nations, which primarily meant giving them similar rights to natural resources, water, food, energy,
the things that many of us take for granted.

The consequence and ultimate goal was improving living standards for all.

Another myth is that sustainability is a synonym for green, as in green movement, green products, etc., although there is some overlap between the terms.
Green suggests a preference for natural living, for example, when you go shopping.
Products marketed as green imply the absence of high technology and mass manufacturing processes.

Those groups who campaign for sustainability, we can call them the lobby for sustainability, acknowledge that the situation is desperate.
The main problem, they state correctly, is time.

With six billion people on the planet now, and a billion more expected in the next thirty years, only technology will be able to provide everyone with an acceptable and safe lifestyle.
Electric cars, wind turbines, and solar cells are key examples of this.
They make great use of renewable resources while emitting fewer noxious chemicals.

Nuclear power, too, is something the sustainability lobby has come to accept, unlike most greens.

And here’s the third myth.
It concerns the role of technology.
Technology is not rejected as evil, but we should not overemphasize the role of technology either.

Take electric cars, for example.
Researchers are currently working on plans to electrify the world’s car fleet.
New technology is currently being developed to make better batteries, giving longer performance.
But a better way of thinking is perhaps to have battery stations for drivers to use on roads.
When the battery is getting low, they simply swap the old one for a fully charged one.
In other words, new business thinking, not new technology, for a sustainable future.

There are similarities in agriculture, where knowledge can be more productive than new technology.
Agriculture uses up about three quarters of the world’s water.
Some crops are very thirsty and require a lot of water.
So many farmers who believe in sustainability are now planting crops like sunflowers and wheat, instead of corn, which are happy with much less water.

In terms of water consumption, one of the biggest problems is that our diet is changing.
As countries develop and people become richer, they aspire to a diet with more meat.
Now, admittedly, most of the new births that will take our population to over six billion are going to be born in countries with largely vegetarian diets.
However, most of them will be born in the city, and this is where water consumption is highest.

That introduces the topic for next week’s lecture.