By Steven Cohen, Ph.D., Director of the M.S. in Sustainability Management program, School of Professional Studies
Last week, through many NYC Climate Week events, one could hear the alarm about the existential threat of climate change, fear about the retreat of the U.S. government from climate governance, and occasional hope that somehow, we’d figure a way out of this mess. Climate Week, like Earth Day and the many COPs on climate and biodiversity, focuses attention on the issues of environmental sustainability, but to me, they sometimes miss the point. Predictions of catastrophe seem to dominate optimism, while I continue to see a cup half full rather than half empty. Although we are a long way from “solving the problem,” we have already started to make it less bad. These media events play a part because they influence awareness and understanding of environmental degradation. We should not underestimate the significance of the social learning now underway. There is a culture shift, most pronounced in young people in the developed world, where a deep and profound understanding of the planet’s peril is understood and internalized. I perceive it, perhaps more than most, because I have been focused on environmental protection for more than half a century.
When I first saw the Earthrise photo in 1968, taken by Apollo 8 Astronaut Bill Anders as his ship orbited the moon, and saw that beautiful blue beacon in the vast vacuum of space, I internalized the fragility of our home planet. Many of my teenage contemporaries felt the same way, but I guess some must have forgotten that feeling. I never did. It took me to the study of environmental policy and to the U.S. EPA. But I remember that back then, I was one of very few people paying attention. We were the fringe of the fringe.
Today, environmental sustainability is at the center of our culture, values, organizational management, politics, and policy. The vexing question is: how do we get from here to where we need to go? Our understanding of the environmental crisis continues to evolve, as do the methods needed to address that crisis. Early on, many framed the issue around a population explosion, causing a massive increase in material consumption that, in turn, caused pollution and ecological destruction. Later, we learned that once a certain level of economic development occurred, a demographic transition took place where children, once considered economic assets, became economic liabilities and birth rates fell. With global economic development, we can now project the human population peaking before this century ends. We also learned that some forms of material production and consumption were less destructive than others.
Initially, we added pollution control devices to autos and power plants, adding expense due to “end of pipeline” retrofits. Then we learned that through technological innovation, we could design products that did not require pollution control devices because they didn’t pollute in the first place. Electric vehicles do not emit air pollutants, and solar energy does not require a stack scrubber to reduce air pollution. We could design business models where products were leased to facilitate remanufacturing or where products could be returned by consumers for cash when new ones were purchased. We learned how to recycle organic waste, and someday we will use artificial intelligence and robotics to mine our waste stream instead of our planet.
It has become clear that the transition to a renewable resource-based economy requires the development and diffusion of new technologies to replace old ones. The issue of biodiversity maintenance is a related but distinct issue, and one that requires greater care and precision in developing human settlements and agricultural practices. In all cases, we need a higher level of mindful organizational management that pays attention to the impact of production and consumption on people and the planet. Once we understand, project, and measure negative impacts, we need management practices and technologies designed to reduce those impacts. Each day, we are learning more about how to manage for sustainability, and while many still manage the old way (“to make an omelet you must break some eggs”), more careful and mindful management is gradually replacing macho management.
At the start of my career, I was convinced that the way to build a less destructive economy was to develop and enforce governmental rules that required people and organizations to reduce their pollution. While we still need rules of the road, I now believe that regulation is not as important as technological and management innovation that creates the products and services we want, while minimizing the destruction that is an inevitable byproduct of human activity. We need people who want to design clothing that is not toxic when it comes to the end of its useful life and might be reused in some other form. We need agricultural management that grows food efficiently without wasting water, fertilizer, and chemicals, and therefore reducing damage to ecosystems. In other words, more than laws and rules, we need people to internalize the value of creating goods, services, and wealth with the least possible damage to people and the planet. Just as you can’t legislate morality, you can’t legislate an environmental ethos. But both morality and a concern for the environment are real, codified in law, but most importantly, internalized in our values and culture.
An issue at the individual level is that my own consuming behavior depends on infrastructure and products designed and built by others. I might favor the use of renewable energy, but if my electric utility burns fossil fuels, there is not much I can do about it. In that case, I may need to wait for new technology. Someday, my apartment’s windows will be inexpensively converted to high-efficiency solar arrays, and battery technologies will be so advanced and inexpensive that I can disconnect my apartment from the grid. That technological innovation will come someday, and it will be adopted if it is easy to use and less expensive than the grid. That is how smartphones replaced landlines and how the internet is replacing cable TV. The technologies of energy will change, but will only be successful if our values lead us to purchase renewable energy when it is available and competitive.
The emerging green economy benefits from public policies at times, but in this era of scientific illiteracy and ideological disinformation, we must learn to reduce its dependence on government subsidies and regulations. The combination of culture shift and technological innovation is what will bring about the circular economy because, in theory, it should increase economic productivity and wealth. A product that depends on finite resources that is then dumped in a landfill at the end of its life must compete with a product that depends on renewable resources. Renewable resources do not become scarce and expensive since they are not finite. A product that is designed to be remanufactured at the end of its useful life can pass its costs to many customers instead of one. Moreover, the price of the product can be lower due to a business model that ensures that usable materials are reused in a new product. The circular economy will require investment in public infrastructure, but will largely come about through competitive market forces.
A circular economy will only come when it can compete on price and convenience with our linear, throw-away economy. With excellent management and continuously advancing technologies, this will come. The motivating force behind this transition will be our desire for it to take place. The basis for this force is the cultural shift that has more and more people concerned about the impact of a warming planet and degraded ecosystems. It is difficult to argue against the goal of maintaining our lifestyle without damaging the planet and harming life.
It's true that there are older folks, dinosaurs, and ideologues who do not think about these issues. They think that climate science is a hoax, and they question the value of science and expertise. They don’t think it’s possible for human activity to impact the planet’s ability to regenerate wealth, and they do not understand the connection between ecological wellbeing and human wellbeing and wealth. I’ve been encountering people with this belief system for decades. But their numbers are dwindling. The facts of planetary stress are obvious and visible. Floods, fires, and hurricanes are more intense than ever. Plastics wash up on beaches with every changing tide. Everyone my age remembers a forest that they once hiked in that has been developed into a strip mall. The yellow haze from Canadian forest fires that blankets American cities from time to time is a reminder of Barry Commoner’s old first law of ecology, that “everything is connected to everything else.” I am mindful of the ironic spectacle of an American President addressing the United Nations during New York City Climate Week, berating nations for promoting green energy. But I’m reassured by the fact that nearly everyone listening found the remarks ridiculous and divorced from reality. In a strange way, the dismissal of the President’s view of renewable energy was, for me, a positive takeaway from 2025’s New York City Climate Week.
Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia School of Professional Studies or Columbia University.
About the Program
The Columbia University M.S. in Sustainability Management program offered by the School of Professional Studies in partnership with the Climate School provides students cutting-edge policy and management tools they can use to help public and private organizations and governments address environmental impacts and risks, pollution control, and remediation to achieve sustainability. The program is customized for working professionals and is offered as both a full- and part-time course of study.
