We Didn’t Call it Communism
“Sustainable Sausage,” a blog that promotes “sustainability for twenty somethings” features the views of three New Zealanders, Lisa, Kavi, and Janelle. 
One of the Kiwi sausage-makers found her way to Ashley’s and my provocative press release from a month ago, Sustainability is a Waste: 10 Reasons to Oppose the Sustainability Movement on Your Campus, and was appropriately provoked. She imagines we invite “huge piles of garbage all over the world,” and also accuses us of confusing Soviet communism with the Green movement. Ah, no. Communist regimes proved themselves in the last century to be the most environmentally destructive in human history. The Soviet Union gave us not only Chernobyl, but massive pollution in the Urals; uncontrolled radiological releases including the now famous Chelyabinsk-65 release in 1957 that contaminated 20,000 square kilometers and the Tomsk-7 release in 1993 that poisoned another 100 square kilometers; chemical dumps on the Baltic Seabed; the attempt in the 1970s to re-channel northern-flowing rivers with nuclear explosions; and the destruction of the Aral Sea to irrigate deserts.
The modern West has not always been a good steward of the environment, but there is nothing in the West in the last century remotely on the level of heedless destruction of the environment carried out by communist regimes. It might, however, be a good thing if promoters of the sustainability movement with its emphasis on central planning and an ideology of shared sacrifice showed a little awareness of where public policy based on those principles has led in recent times.
We never drew or implied a comparison of communism with the sustainability movement. Yet Lisa-Kavi-Janelle are so baffled by our criticisms of the sustainability movement that they jump to the idea that when we said “sustainability” we really meant “communism.” Sorry, Kiwis. When we said “sustainability” we meant “sustainability.” And we are not at all keen on having “huge piles of garbage all over the world.” We are just keen on making sure that people like you—people who seem ignorant of recent history and determined to promote the latest feel-good cause without any understanding of its larger social implications—are put on the spot.
I think what Lisa was referring to was that your argument sounds uncannily like anti-communist rhetoric – which, judging from your response outlining how communist nations were worse polluters than “the West” (an unashamedly disingenuous comparison) – is not an altogether ridiculous conclusion to reach. That said, this blog is not about spouting sustainable rhetoric either, in fact we would welcome and encourage criticism of the “agenda” – however whilst we felt your list of 10 reasons why Sustainability is a Waste was “provoking”, it was certainly not “thought provoking”, as you offered no evidence for your claims. As the self proclaimed “watchdogs”, we’d have expected a more reasoned approach rather sensationalist, uncertified claims. If you would please offer some insight into how sustainability is a “waste”, the negative nature of this political agenda (which admittedly, it has become in some places)and how our universities and educations are being sullied, we would be very open to promoting it on our blog.
Thanks for taking the time to respond
The kiwi sausage makers.
Dear Kiwi Sausage Makers,
I am not entirely sure what version of the document you saw. The origianl had links back to the NAS website that includes more than two dozen essays, some o fthem quite substantial and carefully documented. Having spent 15 months researching and writing these articles without achieving much notice, we thought a “provocative” announcement aimed at campus newspapers in the U.S. might prompt some people to read the more substantial work. We knew, however, that some readers would look at the provocation and stop there. If you are as swerious as you claim, good. Let’s resume the conversation after you have had a chance to read and reflect on our more serious work.
There is nothing disingenuous about the comparison of the communist world with the West. We don’t normally look in that direction because our focus is on the contemporary sustainability mnovement, particularly as it is being carried forward on the campuses of U.S. universities. You (or at least Lisa) brought it up and emblazoned a Soviet image on the text of our statement. It seems a bit odd that you complain now about our taking you seriously on the point. I would think that anyone who takes environmental issues as of great importance (we do) and who also understands that to mean that we must pay serious attention to the interplay of political and economic systems with the environment (we do) would at least wwant to register the facts we cited. No? Do you think them irrelevant?
Peter Wood