Sustainability is a word that once meant local action, independence, and mindful stewardship of the environment. It once carried a simple promise: that what we take from the Earth should never outweigh what we give back. It implied responsibility, balance, and respect for the natural systems that sustain us.
Today, the term is everywhere. Corporations, policy groups, and global institutions frame sustainability as a goal, a metric, or a badge, but it is often detached from its original meaning. Labels get slapped on products. Reports are published. Conferences are held, many of which emphasize centralized control. The real connection to community, independence, and local ecosystems can feel lost.
At the heart of the question is this: who gets to define sustainability? When powerful global institutions set the narrative, local communities, artisans, and individual choices can be overshadowed - their voices drowned out by policy frameworks that may not account for real-world impacts.
We see a divide forming: centralized visions of “progress” and sustainability versus grassroots approaches that prioritize autonomy, transparency, and balance with nature.
Carbon, Chemicals, and the Limits of Current Sustainability Approaches
Much of the climate discussion centers on carbon dioxide and top-down approaches such as global temperature targets. Carbon taxes and trading markets are commonly promoted to reduce emissions. Critics note that these markets can sometimes allow high-emitting industries to offset rather than reduce emissions, depending on enforcement and transparency. As Larry Lohmann of the Corner House explains, carbon trading can create incentives for companies to continue business largely as usual while appearing compliant.
Yet sustainability is more than carbon. Industrial chemicals, pesticides, herbicides, and synthetic compounds pose serious and persistent risks to ecosystems and human health. Substances like PFAS, formaldehyde, tanning chemicals, and synthetic dyes are often resistant to natural breakdown, accumulating in soil, water, and living organisms. Unlike CO₂, these substances cannot be sequestered naturally and remain hazardous for generations.
We can't simply "carbon trade" our way to a healthier planet. In fact, it could seem that pushing the discussion towards abstract concepts such as trading carbon is to distract from the current use of toxic chemicals that many industries are trying desperately to keep legal, despite evidence of their harm to health.
True sustainability must address both greenhouse gases and chemical pollution to create a truly healthy planet, starting from finding alternatives to harmful chemicals and cleaning up pollution in our air, waterways, and soil - tangible, local solutions that are more than a corporate metric.
Centralization vs. Decentralization
A major divide in sustainability approaches is the question of centralization. Global institutions often set broad frameworks for sustainability. For example, initiatives and forums like the World Economic Forum convene unelected leaders and corporate representatives to discuss economic and environmental strategies at a planetary scale. These conversations are public and important, yet they often focus on centralized approaches - standardization, surveillance, and metrics over lived experience, community, and local ecosystems.
The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Great Reset initiative outlines a vision for 2030 that emphasizes the shared use of resources, digital services, and circular economic models. Some observers summarize aspects of this vision as “you will own nothing and be happy,” reflecting a shift toward rental or shared access rather than personal ownership.
While the intentions may emphasize efficiency and environmental outcomes, this vision has raised questions about the balance between centralized systems and individual autonomy. Critics note that increased reliance on shared systems, digital tracking, or service-based access could reduce personal independence, local resilience, and control over essential resources.
From the perspective of decentralized sustainability, true resilience arises from empowering individuals and communities. This includes:
- Producing local food through community gardens and farms, vertical farming, and regenerative and organic agriculture
- Generating clean energy at home or in local microgrids
- Owning durable, long-lasting, artisan-made goods that can be maintained, repaired, and passed down
- Local economies that empower artisans, farmers, and small businesses
Ownership, in this context, is not about accumulation for its own sake. It is about accountability, care, and the ability to live independently of centralized control. When individuals maintain their own resources, they create systems that are more resilient, adaptable, and aligned with environmental and social health. Communities that grow their own food and produce their own energy are less vulnerable to centralized control or corporate monopolies.
By prioritizing decentralized, human-centered solutions, we reclaim the original purpose of sustainability - building communities and societies that are resilient, responsible, and free.
Critical Perspective on Global Institutions
While philanthropy and international aid can have positive impacts, we must examine who drives these initiatives. Foundations and global institutions, including the Gates Foundation and other influential actors, shape agricultural and health policies worldwide.
The Gates Foundation is the largest charitable foundation in the world, distributing more aid than any government, and as a result, heavily influencing global development, especially regarding health and agriculture. According to a report by Global Justice on the Gates Foundation, we take the following quote: "The world is being sold a myth that private philanthropy holds many of the solutions to the world’s problems, when in fact it is pushing the world in many wrong directions."
The Global Justice report highlights that the Gates Foundation's senior staff mostly come out of corporate America. The report concludes that the Gates Foundation has an ideological strategy that promotes corporate globalization and the technology this brings, such as GMOs, rather than traditional farming and artisanal methods. While intended to increase efficiency, these approaches foster dependence on multinational corporations and erode local autonomy and health. In fact, there is a long list of health and environmental concerns with GMOs:
- Cancer Risk: Glyphosate, the primary herbicide used on many GMO crops, has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as "probably carcinogenic to humans," with studies linking it to non-Hodgkin lymphoma and other cancers.
- Reproductive and Developmental Effects: Research in areas with widespread glyphosate use, such as Argentina and Paraguay, has reported increased birth defects and developmental disorders among local populations.
- Endocrine Disruption: Glyphosate has been identified as an endocrine disruptor, potentially affecting hormonal systems and contributing to reproductive and developmental issues.
- Environmental Impacts: Glyphosate use alters soil microbiota, reduces biodiversity, contaminates water sources, and can degrade soil fertility over time.
- Worker Safety: Agricultural workers exposed to glyphosate face elevated health risks, with studies showing higher levels of the chemical in their systems and correlated health problems.
These issues underscore that sustainability is not simply about efficiency or yield; it must also prioritize human health, ecological integrity, and local resilience. True ethical sustainability supports community-driven, traditional, and regenerative practices rather than solutions that create corporate dependence or compromise public health.
We believe that a decentralized path toward sustainable practices is the best way to protect people and the planet simultaneously, allowing communities to thrive without sacrificing independence or health.
By producing and consuming food locally and without the use of pesticides, we reduce environmental impact, empower communities, and improve public health, rather than creating artificial dependence on centralized, industrialized systems.
We do not aim to demonize individuals, but question the structure of power and encourage citizens to assess who makes decisions that affect our communities, our environment, and our independence.
Call to Action: Reclaiming Sustainability
Sustainability is not a top-down mandate. It is a living practice, cultivated where we live, work, and create. By reclaiming the true meaning of sustainability, we can shift from a model of control to one of independence, health, and ecological harmony. This begins with conscious, local, and empowered action:
- Support regenerative agriculture and community food projects
- Buy goods from local artisans and ethical producers
- Choose non-toxic materials in clothing, furniture, and household products
- Participate in decentralized energy and water initiatives
- Educate yourself and others about environmental and social impacts
Sustainability is not a tool for centralization. It is a path to freedom, resilience, and thriving communities. It’s about thinking critically and asking: Who is making the rules? Who benefits? And how can we act locally to preserve balance and autonomy?
This can be summed up as a choice between a Great Reset of centralized control, dependence, and top-down mandates, or a Great Awakening of independence, empowerment, and local resilience.
The choice is ours to make. We can allow sustainability to be defined by distant institutions and global policies, or we can reclaim it through local production, ethical sourcing, regenerative agriculture, and mindful living. By focusing on autonomy, transparency, and harmony with nature, we can create a version of progress that truly benefits both people and planet.