The Triple Bottom Line Blog

It's a fascinating dilemma, and a bit of a Catch-22. Those of us who worry about human despoliation of the natural environment like to invoke, among other arguments, the long-term value of species survival for our own quality of life. "Who knows," we like to ask rhetorically, "What untold cures may someday be discovered among the obscure species of plants flourishing in the Amazon rainforest?"

It's a valid argument, but one that carries a sting in its tail. Because when those "untold cures" are actually discovered, it doesn't exactly guarantee the protection of the source species. In fact, it may be just the opposite, as this article from a German broadcaster's website suggests:

Drugs made from medicinal plants have become ever more popular among doctors and patients in Germany in recent years. Around 75 percent of customers in German pharmacies reach for a natural product when they buy non-prescription medications. In 2006, so-called phytopharmaceuticals accounted for around 2 billions euros ($2.9 billion) worth of revenue, or about a third of the total revenue in non-prescription medications. That translates into a high demand for the raw materials for these products--medicinal plants and their leaves, flowers, roots, and seeds. . . .

. . . for this reason Germany has a special responsibility when it comes to protecting medicinal plants. Excessive harvest and unregulated trade pose a threat to the existence of 4000 medicinal plants worldwide. In Europe, around 150 types of plants are in danger of extinction.

The article goes on to explain that, for technical reasons, industrial production of most of these plants isn't feasible. For now, at least, the only hope is the establishment of strict protocols governing how the plants can be harvested in their natural settings, and in what quantities. The inevitable result is limitations on the size of the market and lack of availability of the natural cures for some people who could benefit from them.

Sometimes we in the sustainable business community speak as if sustainability requires no tradeoffs--as if, with sufficient ingenuity, we can devise solutions that offer wins all around, with no downside for anyone. And maybe, in the very long run (measured in generations), that will be true. But in the real world, in the short term--where we all live--tradeoffs are unavoidable. And one big reason is the sheer fragility of our environment.

Medicinal plants offer just one example. There are many others. We want America's national parks to remain as symbols and reposititories of natural grandeur, which means we have to limit the number of visitors. We want to take advantage of wind and water power wherever these are available, which means we have to tolerate the intrusion of windmills and generating stations into some of our most scenic landscapes. We want the peoples of the developing world to enjoy a standard of living comparable to the one we enjoy in the West without accelerating the production of greenhouse gases, which means we all have to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels--perhaps drastically.

In each case, a balancing act is demanded, weighing goods that are mutually exclusive against one another and requiring difficult choices.

One of the painful lessons of growing up is that it's just not possible to do everything--that hard choices and, often, sacrifices must be made. (I have recently come to accept the harsh truth that I will never be a starting pitcher for the New York Mets.) As an industrial civilization, we'll be facing a series of such choices over the coming decades. We in the sustainability movement have a responsibility to help the world focus thoughtfully on the kinds of tradeoffs that are necessary, so that wise decisions for the long term can be made.

Labels: Food and Agriculture, Germany, medicinal plants, Sustainable Consumption