If you're a brownfielder and a reader of this publication, you have probably seen at least one of these two definitions in this magazine. If so, forgive me for rehashing old ground. But since so many new people are coming into the brownfield market or just beginning to see how sustainable development has become the latest craze in our market, you should at least have the accepted definitions of these terms at hand before you read my take on the situation.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I am strongly in favor of all practices that use resources more/most efficiently. I live in a state (Georgia) where the failure to plan for long-term water resource use/needs is costing us dearly right now.

But what does sustainable development really mean as it applies to the brownfield market? Is it really here to stay, or just the latest fad in our business and in the ever-increasing world of environmental activism?

Currently, much of the attention and early evolution of this concept in the brownfield market seems to be focused on LEED building design and construction. To the extent that this produces positive gains in water usage, energy efficiency and other tangible, measurable resource benefits, I am very much in favor of it. Where it makes economic sense according to objective metrics-a positive net present value and quantifiable return on investment-the market will continue to support these development practices. Those incremental costs of sustainable development that ultimately rely on government subsidies or can't generate the types of returns demanded by investors are a fad, at least until the economics change or they become supported by major philanthropists, foundations or other interests for whom principle outweighs financial gain.

Let's not forget that the brownfield market as we know it is a real estate market. And like any other market, capital flows in and out based purely on return on investment, not by doing good for the environment.

That sort of romanticism, which currently pervades the well-intended concept of sustainable development, will only go as far as capitalism and/or the human fight for survival allows.

Capital is pouring into this segment of the redevelopment market from all over the world. At the end of the day, that capital has one objective: return on investment (and a higher return than can be expected from less-risky investments).

On a global scale, starving people in developing countries will continue to cut trees for basic fuel or to generate any income they can to survive, which seldom works out well for local flora and fauna. With about 2 billion people on this planet living on between $1 and $2 a day, there is a large populace not too concerned about energy efficiency, global warming or sustainable development. Too many don't have clean water, proper sanitation or enough food to eat, and most have never even heard of the United Nations, let alone the Brundtland Commission.

I am afraid too many people in our industry hear the term sustainable development and believe that development carried out under its banner will last forever with little or no impact on the environment. While it would be easy for one to assume this is the case based on the definitions above, in my estimation, any such belief is simply wrong.

My take on sustainable development? As it applies directly to the brownfield market, what we're really talking about is resource efficiency. But our industry, the environmental movement, the media, and the public need buzzwords. These particular buzzwords have a nice ring to them, especially in this age of increasing eco-consciousness and environmental activism, as the second generation of the environmental movement is feeling its oats.

The author engaged in sustainable food harvest to feed his family.

What we should be asking is, is any real estate development really sustainable?

Buildings have an estimated useful life. Even the IRS acknowledges that fact through the practice of depreciation. Infrastructure degrades over time and must be replaced. If we don't kid ourselves, certain of the resources that we use in the complete life cycle of real estate development and building construction and operation are not renewable and probably never will be.

So every time we sustainably redevelop a brownfield site, we are, technically, willingly embarking on an activity that knowingly depletes some finite resource.

Any way you cut it, such practices, however well-intended, fly in the face of Merriam-Webster's definition of "sustainable" and the universally accepted definition of "sustainable development."

But the acknowledged and well-established balance here is that remediating and redeveloping an old polluted industrial site has a positive environmental impact.

Little, if any, development is truly sustainable. The advancement of global civilization is something we cannot stop. Consumption of resources and the externalization of environmental costs (in dollars and contaminants) are part of the price of human evolution, and that's not going to change any time soon. Demographics, technology, economies, capital markets, per capita income, consumer choices, and government regimes change over time-horse and carriage manufacturers, companies like Bethlehem Steel and the economic rise of China are proof.

The best we can do is be wise and efficient with our limited resources, use regulation as a stick to stop fouling air and water and as a carrot to sow the seeds of innovation, technology and capitalism, and let human creativity and free markets work as intended. I call that resource efficiency, not sustainable development.

So let's recognize it for what it is, and not fall in love with the concept of sustainable development as another means of saving the planet. It's my belief that capitalism and technology will continue to overcome the Malthusian predictions of scarcity and environmental collapse (including global warming), as they always have. Look at the historic data on improvements in air quality, water quality, crop yields, and other objective, measurable standards in the old, polluting western economies. In little more than a generation, strict environmental regulation has drastically reduced point-source emissions and all but eliminated major hazardous waste releases. (If you don't believe me, read Bjorn Lomborg's classic, The Skeptical Environmentalists, and do your own research on his source material.)

Brownfield redevelopment plays a supporting role in environmental improvement. Sustainable redevelopment will continue to evolve to the extent that it makes economic sense, not because it's sure to save our planet. Every day I find that the sustainable development concept has applications in the brownfield market that are not, at their core, based on real estate development economics.

Sustainable development has found tangible meaning in the conservation realm through remediation and reuse of certain rural brownfield sites for wildlife habitat. Proponents of this strategy are helping to restore, reclaim, improve, maintain, and manage specific habitats for specific purposes and wildlife species, while securing perpetual conservation designations on large tracts of land in the process. They are using proven and evolving markets and tools of the trade to align the interests of brownfield owners with conservation organizations in ways that make economic sense.

All land has value. The value of habitat, wildlife and services that can be provided by certain rural brownfield sites creates a financial equation that works and expands the definition of sustainable development in the process-whatever that terms means to you.

Alan Bressler is founder and president of CPR Companies in Atlanta, Ga.