“ A
TRUE SUSTAINABILITY IS LESS ABOUT MAKING THE ‘RIGHT’ CHOICE EVERY TIME AND MORE ABOUT APPLYING A CRITICAL LENS TO EACH DECISION. THE SUSTAINABILITY LENSE FRAMEWORK OFFERS ONE WAY TO ASSESS THE LIFE CYCLES, ENERGY USE, LOCAL IMPACTS, SCALE AND EQUITY BEHIND OUR CHOICES.”
s we become more aware of the environmental and social impacts of our choices, it’s easy to feel that every purchase or
action is a vote for the future we want. Yet for decades, major polluters have promoted the idea of a personal carbon footprint to make individuals feel responsible for a crisis driven by large-scale extraction and produc- tion. While we debate paper or plastic straws, those systems continue largely unchanged. In a globalized economy, and in our desire for simple solutions, we oſten overlook the true complexity of sustainability. We regularly face everyday sustainability
dilemmas: hand dryers or paper towels, local or imported foods. A reusable bag, for exam- ple, requires far more energy and emissions to produce than a single-use plastic one. Even our bigger decisions come with trade- offs. Electric cars may seem like a clear solu- tion, but what about the battery? As data sci- entist and sustainability researcher Hannah Ritchie points out in her book How to Be the First Generation to Build a Sustainable World (and in her excellent blog Sustainability by the Numbers), many of our assumptions are shaped by “zombie facts” that refuse to die. Te claim that EV batteries can’t be recy-
cled is one such myth. While electric vehicles do have a higher carbon cost at production, by their second year on the road they typical- ly outperform gas-powered cars, especially in regions with cleaner electricity grids like Ontario. And sometimes, the most sustain- able vehicle is simply the one you already own, since its manufacturing emissions are already accounted for. Te same logic applies to our digital
choices. A few artificial intelligence-powered searches use less energy than streaming a movie at home, and both activities produce far fewer emissions than eating beef. In burger terms, a year of daily AI use equals
roughly five burgers, while a year of daily video streaming is closer to hosting a single 20-burger backyard BBQ. Te point isn’t to use AI freely (especially
aſter you hear from the neighbours who are being pushed or polluted out to make way for data centres), but to bring attention to scale, and to remember that what we eat carries a much larger footprint than what we click. True sustainability is less about mak-
ing the “right” choice every time and more about applying a critical lens to each deci- sion. Te Sustainability LENSE framework offers one way to assess the life cycles, en- ergy use, local impacts, scale and equity be- hind our choices. Much of this perspective is shaped by
Ritchie’s work, which I highly recommend not only for personal reflection but also as a classroom read. Her data-driven approach connects beautifully to math, science and geography, turning charts, graphs and real- world statistics into meaningful conversa- tions about what sustainability really means in a quickly shiſting global supply chain. Ritchie helps us see which choices we can stress less about (like how we dry our hands) and where our decisions truly make a differ- ence (like what we eat).
THE SUSTAINABILITY LENSE FRAMEWORK
Sustainability isn’t a checklist of right or wrong choices; it’s a way of seeing. Te Sus- tainability LENSE is designed to help us pause, ask sharper questions and weigh the systems behind each decision. It helps us look more closely at how our choices connect to larger systems.
L: LIFE CYCLE What’s the full story of this product? What resources were extracted to produce it, and what happens when I’m done with it?
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ FEDERATION OF ONTARIO 19
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
