Amid all of the fallout around the Solyndra bankruptcy, and the subsequent controversy surrounding the infusion of taxpayer cash by the White House, we all need to take a step back and assess how the rest of the “green” world is doing. Time and time again, the popular media only pick up on large-scale failures or administration missteps, when there are entrepreneurs and innovators throughout the country who are making positive steps toward a more sustainable life for all.

So what does it really mean to be sustainable? It seems that people you talk to about sustainability development (SD), or “being green,” have their own (oftentimes extremely self-serving) definition. The academics are saying one thing while the practitioners are saying something totally different. If they’ll both check the Bruntland Commission’s report from back in 1987 they’ll see that SD was defined some 24 years ago as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p. 47).

Sustainability development at its very core is very applicable in both developing and developed countries. Van Cotthem maintains that for sustainability development to be implemented successfully in developing countries, action has to take place at the local and community level, and will likely need to be supported by various stakeholders from both public and private sectors.

One of the first things that I ran across this morning was a headline across the top of FoxNews.com that read “Emails Reveal White House ‘Pressure’ To Fast-Track Questionable Loan.” Without even opening the article, I knew exactly what it was talking about: the half-a-billion dollar funneling of taxpayer money to a solar project that is now out of business. I’ve held a pretty firm stance all along that the current administration doesn’t have a real grasp on what institutes an impactful sustainability project, and this was just another example why.

With the 2012 presidential campaigns beginning to get ramped up, it is as good a time as any for all sides to reexamine the impact that “green” government spending has had on our country … or, shall I say, the lack of impact the spending has had. There is no better time than the present to move beyond the rhetoric and billions of wasted dollars, and let the private sector do what they know how to the best – not waste money, put people to work, and thrive despite the ever-changing rules that are presented for playing the game.

Last week it was announced that the New York City Council is providing a $1.25 Million Dollar grant to the Solar 2 Project. (1) The building will truly be a laboratory for learning, where the public is welcome to visit exhibits and attend seminars about sustainable and environmentally friendly topics. Using state-of-the art sustainability architecture and engineering, the building will be capable of putting energy back into the grid and operate at net zero in water consumption, the first such building in New York City.

A recent global survey released by SustainAbility and Globescan (see www.sustainability.com) reported what is becoming increasingly apparent: businesses, not governments, are the leaders in sustainability. “Social entrepreneurs are the only ones effectively advancing the sustainability agenda” according to the report. Clean energy is a major sustainability initiative that is being advanced by the private sector. However, due to recent budget battles and cuts in Washington, the $8 billion that President Obama is seeking for clean energy programs is in danger.

One of the biggest problems with “sustainability development” today is the mis-use of the term. The lack of knowledge on the subject has resulted in both the intentional and un-intentional practice of “greenwashing,” where a product, service, and/or viewpoint is marketed as sustainable or environmentally friendly when in fact, it is not. It is important to note that just because something is environmentally friendly doesn’t mean it’s sustainable.

Over the past few weeks it has been all over the news that President Obama and the EPA were working on revoking a permit for a West Virginia mining company doing surface mining. On the surface, this looked like a good move. If you take a little closer look, though, you’ll see from a sustainability development standpoint, the revocation of this permit will likely do much more harm than good.

A few days ago, I was thumbing through CNN.com on my Blackberry, and saw a headline about “Social E” (i.e., social entrepreneurship). I was immediately sucked into reading the article. In the article, Peterson discussed how over 15 colleges are now offering Social E classes, and students are increasingly getting involved in start-up businesses with the beneficiary being a social cause or charity, not themselves. What a wonderful idea … college students taking a grass roots approach and using their talents and creativity to help others – that’s entrepreneurship that I can get behind.