What's wrong with this argument?  Let's see.  Environmentally sustainable economies.  Now the opposite of that would be environmentally unsustainable economies, right?  Right.  And we wouldn't want that, right?  Right.  So, that must mean that we should do all in our power to stabilize the life-supporting services of Earth's natural capital by reducing the environmental impacts of businesses, right?  Maybe not.

Consider one of the premises of the authors: the environmental impacts of businesses are bad.  But are they?  What if one of the most universal environmental impacts of nearly all businesses was good?  What if it actually increased the life-supporting services of Earth's natural capital?  Then it would not be good to reduce its environmental impact, right?  Right.

But what kind of environmental impact could possibly be good?  We're glad you asked; for we're just itching to introduce you to one of life's basic building blocks - indeed, the very elixir of life - that gives breath to the biosphere and makes possible our existence as well.  Yes, you know what we're talking about, what we tout every chance we get to sing its praises.  We're talking about carbon dioxide, CO2, that God-given wonder of wonders, the absence of which would reduce the planet to little more than a dead hunk of rock.

But is CO2 really that good?  Yes, it really is.  With more CO2 in the air plants grow bigger; and they grow bigger faster.  They produce more and larger roots, more and larger branches, more and larger leaves, more and larger flowers.  With more CO2 in the air plants use less water to produce the same amount of biomass; and with the same amount of water, they produce more biomass.  Hence, plants exposed to higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have greater water use efficiencies; and, for similar reasons, they have greater light use efficiencies and greater nitrogen use efficiencies.

Plants exposed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are also better adapted to cope with environmental stresses, such as high concentrations of ozone and other types of air pollution.  They better tolerate the debilitating effects of disease, weeds and insect pests, as well as high levels of soil salinity and other toxic substances; and they better survive the rigors of water stress, lack of light, and freezing and searing temperatures.  Indeed, in the face of every challenge that confronts them, and in almost everything they do, plants perform better with more CO2 in the air.

So why settle for the status quo?  Why settle for the low level of sustainability of life-supporting services that is provided by Earth's natural capital at the current concentration of the air's CO2 content, when so much higher levels are possible under greater atmospheric CO2 concentrations?  Where is the exuberance and lust for life, the desire to move forward and better the welfare of every living thing, which so animated the life and times of John F. Kennedy?  Or that was evident in his brother Bobby, who could well have spoken of the subject we address here, when he said "Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not?'"

So, Why not?  Why not shoot for the moon?  JFK set our sights on that objective, and we achieved it.  If we look no higher than the horizon, we'll never see what's out there; we will stifle our potential and that of every other living thing as well.

Science teaches us that it is indeed a fact, as the bard suggested, that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the philosophies of those who would give us ? sustainability in our time.  And when literally mountains of scientific evidence, which reveal the life-enhancing properties of elevated levels of atmospheric CO2, continue to rise before us, it is little less than a sin to trade the real potential of tomorrow for the false security of today.

And that is the deceit of the concept of sustainability, as preached by those who would curtail the engines of industry that give us CO2.  It robs us and the biosphere of our joint ability to progress; and it stifles the inherent and inalienable right, of all life-forms, to achieve their true potential.