For in this great sea of 'sustainability', which spans business strategies and regimens of weight loss, one all too easily loses sight of the real battle. We know that over-use of a term can have an unintended blunting effect. But the word is so much in vogue, and its employment so overzealous, that it has in many instances become obscured entirely. So, you ask, what is sustainable development? Who are its proponents and antagonists? And, oh yes, why exactly is it to be so desired after all?
Ours is an age in which we have come under the twin pressures of burgeoning population growth and an accompanying intensification of economic development. This development is necessary for the provision of the surging population's needs and wants. Though rates of population growth show signs of slowing, the number of earth's inhabitants will continue to expand massively in the foreseeable future. With the added variable of impending climate change, there is a sudden and new awareness of the potentially destructive nature of the human project.
These realities have given immense weight to calls for an oversight which explicitly takes account of the fate of future generations. Many nuanced definitions have been devised, but the most commonly evoked is that sustainable development "meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." General consensus holds that the sustainability project spans three interactive domains; these are (1) environmental sustainability, (2) economic sustainability, and (3) social-political sustainability.
Environmental sustainability is concerned with the preservation of resources and our earth's natural environment. In the strictest sense, any process which allows natural capital (the net sum of all natural resources and other bounties of the earth) to be depleted faster than it can be replenished threatens its ability to function and to serve us properly and indefinitely. Advocates of environmental protection actively seek solutions which will minimize the present and future burden to our natural environment of industrial and other pursuits. The best solutions are those which find ways to incorporate renewable methods of resource exploitation.
The notion of environmental sustainability is thus inextricably bound to the premise of economic sustainability. Rapid advances in new technologies and production techniques are constantly altering and expanding the boundary of production possibilities. But ultimately, economics is the science of the allocation of a finite resource pool. Promotion of economic sustainability thus seeks to allow for future generations to reach their own optimal allocations free from constraints imposed by our own patterns of exploitation in the here and now.
The sphere of social-political sustainability is interesting in that it expands beyond the simple necessity of economic growth and its effect on the natural environment to more directly include the human element in the equation. Social-political sustainability promotes social harmony and continuity of healthy political institutions so that a mechanism is in place for the enactment of the collective will (presumably a will which is favorable to sustainability).
The project of sustainable development has inevitably encountered resistance. Some are eager to point out that any economic pursuit which entails resource depletion is by that very fact unsustainable. But to make this charge is to reduce the debate to semantics; to contend that the impossibility of an absolute application invalidates the endeavor wholesale is to court the ridiculous.
Another more prominent criticism is slightly more troublesome to counter. Available evidence seems to confirm the wisdom that as nations emerge from poverty and amass wealth they are more willing to dedicate a portion of their incomes to combat pollution and other unpleasantries. The wealthy industrialized nations of the world at one time advanced through dirtier stages analogous to the present progress of developing economies. However at that time there were no monitors or whistle-blowers. This school of critics cries hypocrisy. They uphold "dirty" mediums of economic growth that wealthier nations can now afford to bypass as the only hope to elevate massive populations from abject misery. In so doing, they seek to force arbiters of sustainable development into the unenviable position of choosing between the welfare of the earth's poor and that of the earth itself.
In the face of these criticisms, proponents of sustainable development strive for the national and international coordination of environmental, economic and sometimes social policies in the advancement of responsible progress. They are mindful that the world more than ever is a system of actors, none of whose actions bear no consequence for others. Their goal is the day-to-day management of policy decisions such that humanity might enjoy the bounty of our natural environment without exhausting it, and without selfishly revoking the privilege of coming generations to do the same.
Without sounding the bells of certain alarmists, sustainability of this color is to be venerated and upheld. Dilution of the term's strength by those who would seek to hijack its nobility is, on the other hand, to be regretted and indeed resisted.
Copyright (c) 2008 Daniel Lafleche
How will U.S. environmental and energy policies look in 2009? With the primaries winding down, we're starting to get a better idea. Senator Barack Obama fancies himself on this issue, as on most, a man of vision. Senator Clinton calls above all for accountability. The presumed nominee of the Republican Party, Senator John McCain, has very noble beliefs. Because recent polling shows that environmental issues like global warming aren't at the top of voter priorities, it is doubly important to press candidates about clarifying their positions. So, what are candidates saying now about environmental and energy policies?
Obama's rabble rousing oratory capacities have awed and inspired many; however if you watch a clip of him on the stump it is easy enough to see how he is guilty of espousing what one journal describes as a "vague uplift". While hardly a death blow, this claim is at present especially damaging for its implicit contrast to the "crisp detail" famously proffered, and willingly delivered on cue, by the Clinton machine.
Not so in the policy literature. Hillary's showing is respectable, to be sure; however it is Obama's campaign webpage that wins my top marks for clear, effective and economical presentation of his intended approach. In the field of carbon emissions, he aims to impose a market-based cap-and-trade system with the ultimate goal of reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by mid-century. He would utilize some of the revenues generated in carbon-credit auctions to ease the burden of those negatively impacted by the enormous economic transition.
Obama believes in a massive investment in clean energy initiatives. As president he would "invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure", with the specific goal of ensuring that newly developed technologies are commercialized and brought to market in the United States and beyond. He would pursue an ambitious campaign to double funding for energy research and development. He would invest to ensure labor supply in a "clean technologies workforce" and to bring clean technologies to manufacturing centers such as Detroit. Obama would actively pursue the development of coal technologies cleaner than those which are presently in use. His hope to move toward oil independence is founded on the improvement of fuel efficiency standards. To do this he would provide guarantees to auto manufacturers that experiment with new engines and lightweight materials. This would be parcel to a broader national campaign of efficiency improvement; other incentives would include grants for local governments that implement building codes more favorable to energy efficiency.
The final pillar of his environmental policy is the restoration of American leadership on climate change. He would create a new Global Energy Forum to facilitate communication amongst the world's largest emitters of greenhouse gases, and would further pursue coordination within the framework of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Senator Clinton's proposals are remarkably similar to Obama's on a number of levels. She too favors a cap-and-trade system which would see 100% of permits auctioned; she too hopes to invest $150 billion over ten years in "new energy" (some of the bills to be footed by corporations); and she too hopes to double federal investment in energy research. She has established timetables of national goals for energy reduction and use of clean energy similar to those of Obama. And finally, she too favors efforts to increase automobile fuel efficiency, specifically through the provision of $20 billion in "Green Vehicle Bonds" to American automakers. It would be interesting to see a chronological side-by-side of their respective policy evolutions.
In her traditional mass appeal to America's middle and lower-middle classes, there is finally something of a differentiation, if it is more one of form than function. In addition to supporting "green collar" jobs, she would seek to modernize 20 million existing low income homes to improve energy efficiency. She would initiate a "Connie Mae" program to ease the acquisition of green homes by low and middle-income Americans. And finally she would require all new federal buildings to comply with zero-emissions specifications.
There is one commendable initiative unique to Clinton. She would oblige publicly-traded companies to include estimations of financial risk posed by climate change in annual reports submitted to the federal Securities and Exchange Commission. However such a policy might be of limited effectiveness if companies included the estimations only to appease the requirement without genuine regard for its implication.
To end the investigation, it is John McCain who receives poor marks, not for benevolence of intentions but for clarity of vision. In five short and murky paragraphs, it is he who commits the sin of "vague uplift", failing to elicit a single clear policy initiative through verbose allusions to the forces of a cap-and-trade regime. In the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt he believes in preserving America's natural majesty. His belief that "America's economic and environmental interests are not mutually exclusive, but rather inextricably linked" is all fine and well. But I would hope to see a more clear-eyed expression of his means to this end. In a video clip tagged to the page, the Senator expresses his belief that the United States should join the Kyoto Protocol if China and India could be brought onboard. This suggests another debate which I evoked in last week's column concerning the respective sacrifices of developed and developing nations in the battle to cut greenhouse emissions. Finally, citing the instability of many oil-producing states, McCain too advocates energy independence for the United States. America has been a net importer of oil for decades; true independence is only achievable through the intensive use of renewables and a great push to improve conventional fuel efficiency.
I hazard to presume that more specific policy proposals will become readily available from the McCain campaign as November approaches.
Daniel Lafleche has sinced written about articles on various topics from SEO Search Engine Optimization, Marketing Mistake and Politics. Daniel Lafleche is the co-founder of Alternative Channel, a website dedicated to giving non-profit organizations concerned with issues of ,. Daniel Lafleche's top article generates over 3600 views. to your Favourites.