Environmental Sustainability

From Lauraibm

Revision as of 13:04, 20 July 2007

Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely. For planet earth, it is thus the intent to provide the best outcomes for the human and natural environments both now and into the indefinite future. One of the most often-cited definitions of sustainability is the one created by the Brundtland Commission, led by the former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland. The Commission defined sustainable development as development that "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Sustainability relates to the continuity of economic, social, institutional and environmental aspects of human society, as well as the non-human environment. Sustainability is one of the four Core Concepts behind the 2007 Universal Forum of Cultures.

Conceptual issues

Purpose and the focus on outcomes

At its least, sustainability implies paying attention to comprehensive outcomes of events and actions insofar as they can be anticipated at present. This is known as full cost accounting, or Environmental accounting. This kind of accounting assumes that all aspects of a system can be measured and audited (Environmental audits).

This can be a limited biological interpretation as in ecological footprint analysis, or may include social factors as in the ICLEI—Triple Bottom Line standards for urban and community accounts. The introduction of social factors to the debate implies a much more complex and contentious debate, and those focused on ecological impacts tend to strongly resist non-ecological interpretations.

At most, sustainability is intended as a means of configuring civilization and human activity so that society, its members and its economies are able to meet their needs and express their greatest potential in the present, while preserving biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and planning and acting for the ability to maintain these ideals in a very long term. Typically at least seven generations—the maximum span that any individual human is likely to experience directly. Sustainability can be investigated at every level of organization, from the local neighborhood to the entire planet.

None of these extended definitions, however, ever deny or downplay the importance of the ecological interpretation of sustainability as defined by the science of ecology itself. All advocates of sustainability accept that ecological, not social, factors, are the most measurable and universal indicators of sustainability. Values vary greatly in detail within and between cultures, as well as between academic disciplines (e.g., between economists and ecologists). At the heart of the concept of sustainability is a fundamental, immutable value set that is best stated as 'parallel care and respect for the ecosystem and for the people within'. From this value set emerges the goal of sustainability: to achieve human and ecosystem well-being together. It follows that the 'result' against which the success of any project or design should be judged is the achievement of, or the contribution to, human and ecosystem well-being together. Seen in this way, the concept of sustainability is much more than environmental protection in another guise. It is a positive concept that has as much to do with achieving well-being for people and ecosystems as it has to do with reducing stress or impacts.

The false mantra of infinite growth

Critics of American society state that the philosophy of infinite economic growth and infinite growth in consumption are completely unsustainable and will cause great harm to human civilization in the future. In recognition that the Earth is finite, there has been a growing awareness that there must be limits to certain kinds of human activity if the current diversity of life on the planet is to survive if not indefinitely, at least for the next seven generations. For example, life expectancy and overall quality of life in the USA, although relatively high, are still not as high (in terms of international comparisons) as many people believe. This quality is delivered at enormous cost (calculated in terms of its ecological footprint). A perhaps even more surprising finding is that a few nations, even in today's world, do manage to deliver long and high quality of life more or less within a sustainable economic footprint. The explanation of these surprises stems from the fact that, as Marks et al and, earlier, Lane (1993) has shown, quality of life stems primarily from things like security for the future and networks of social contact. It has little to do with the materialistic components generally used to calculate GNP. One way of summarising the outcome of this work is to view the American dream as a Pied Piper unnecessarily leading to the collapse of diversity and a radical population adjustment.

Common principles

Some people now consider the term "sustainable development" as too closely linked with continued material development, and prefer to use terms like "sustainability", "sustainable prosperity" and "sustainable genuine progress" as the umbrella terms. Despite differences, a number of common principles are embedded in most charters or action programmes to achieve sustainable development, sustainability or sustainable prosperity. These include (Hargroves & Smith 2005, see bibliography):

• Dealing transparently and systemically with risk, uncertainty and irreversibility.
• Ensuring appropriate valuation, appreciation and restoration of nature.
• Integration of environmental, social, human and economic goals in policies and activities.
• Equal opportunity and community participation/Sustainable community.
• Conservation of biodiversity and ecological integrity.
• Ensuring inter-generational equity.
• Recognizing the global integration of localities.
• A commitment to best practice.
• No net loss of human capital or natural capital.
• The principle of continuous improvement.
• The need for good governance.

Weak versus Strong Sustainability

However, a distinction between different 'degrees' of sustainability should be made. The debate currently focuses on the sustainability between economy and the environment which can in other words be considered as between 'natural capital' and 'manufactured/man-made capital'. This is also captured in the 'weak' versus 'strong' sustainability discussions.

Weak Sustainability is advocated by the Hartwick's Rule which states that so long as TOTAL capital stays constant, sustainable development can be achieved—as long as the diminishing natural capital stocks are being substituted by gains in the man-made stock, total capital will stay constant and the current level of consumption can continue. The proponents believe that economic growth is beneficial as increased levels of income lead to increased levels of environmental protectionism. This is also known as the 'substitutability paradigm'.

Conversely, Strong Sustainability, as supported by Daly, believe that natural capital and man-made capital are only complementary at best. In order for Sustainable Development to be achieved, natural capital has to be kept constant independently from man-made capital. This is known as the 'non-substitutability paradigm'.

Population growth and Consumption

One of the critical issues in sustainability is that of human overpopulation combined with current lifestyle patterns. A number of studies have suggested that the current population of the Earth, already over six billion, is too many people to support sustainably at current material consumption levels. This challenge for sustainability is distributed unevenly. According to calculations of the ecological footprint, the ecological pressure of a US resident is 13 times that of a resident of India and 52 times that of a Somali resident.

Obviously, exponential growth is unsustainable in the long term, regardless of technology or lifestyle. For example, with the 2006 population of 6.5 billion, at the current world growth rate of 1.4%/year, the population will reach 1.49x1014 in 722 years, which is equal to the number of square meters of land area on the earth. This is clearly an unfeasible situation.

Critics of efforts to reduce population rather than consumption fear that efforts to reduce population growth may lead to human rights violations such as involuntary sterilization and the abandoning of infants to die. Some human-rights watchers report that this is already taking place in China, as a result of its one child per family policy.

Albeit, it appears inevitable that human population numbers will be constrained and brought into some form of equilibrium by the Malthusian limit and in accordance with the Lotka-Volterra equation. In his book Collapse, author Jared Diamond makes the case that population growth mixed with unsustainable consumption levels have throughout human history bred sometimes very rigid cultural or religious systems. These systems required discipline and hierarchical alignment of the individual but with continued growth, further perpetrated an unsustainable culture. Eventually, a culture of unsustainable growth and consumption leads to unrest and imbalance. One consequence is a sudden collapse in population numbers.

Sustainability and business

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development, founded in 1995, has formulated the business case for sustainable development and argues that "sustainable development is good for business and business is good for sustainable development". This view is also maintained by proponents of the concept of Industrial ecology. The theory of Industrial Ecology declares that industry should be viewed as a series of interlocking man-made eco-systems interfacing with the natural global ecosystem.

According to some economists, it is possible for the concepts of sustainable development and competitiveness to merge if enacted wisely, so that there is not an inevitable trade-off[9]. This merger is being motivated by the following six facts (Hargroves & Smith 2005):

1. Throughout the economy there are widespread untapped potential resource productivity improvements to be made to be coupled with effective design.
2. There has been a significant shift in understanding over the last three decades of what creates lasting competitiveness of a firm.
3. There is now a critical mass of enabling technologies in eco-innovations that make integrated approaches to sustainable development economically viable.
4. Since many of the costs of what economists call ‘environmental externalities’ are passed on to governments, in the long-term sustainable development strategies can provide multiple benefits to the tax payer.
5. There is a growing understanding of the multiple benefits of valuing social and natural capital, for both moral and economic reasons, and including them in measures of national well-being.
6. There is mounting evidence to show that a transition to a sustainable economy, if done wisely, may not harm economic growth significantly, in fact it could even help it. Recent research by ex-Wuppertal Institute member Joachim Spangenberg, working with neo-classical economists, shows that the transition, if focused on improving resource productivity, will lead to higher economic growth than business as usual, while at the same time reducing pressures on the environment and enhancing employment.

It is an unresolved question as to whether all of the attempts at definitions have anything to do with the compound constructs of sustainability investment advanced by network economics and systemic entrepreneurs. These mathematical maps explain how shocked most human beings now are to find that global business models have commonly excluded human sustainability from their long term consequences. Ray Anderson has been the most consistent hero within the corporate world on this issue.

However, it is as late as fall 2006 that a nation's treasury—the UK Stern Report—has released a report showing that 1% of GDP will now need to be invested to save 20% of GDP—because of failures to date by most global market sectors to integrate sustainability in the metrics they have governed with.

Types of sustainability

The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has identified considerations for technical cooperation that affect three types of sustainability:

• ====Institutional sustainability.==== Can a strengthened institutional structure continue to deliver the results of technical cooperation to end users? The results may not be sustainable if, for example, the planning authority that depends on the technical cooperation loses access to top management, or is not provided with adequate resources after the technical cooperation ends. Institutional sustainability can also be linked to the concept of social sustainability, which asks how the interventions can be sustained by social structures and institutions;
• ====Economic and financial sustainability.==== Can the results of technical cooperation continue to yield an economic benefit after the technical cooperation is withdrawn? For example, the benefits from the introduction of new crops may not be sustained if the constraints to marketing the crops are not resolved. Similarly, economic, as distinct from financial, sustainability may be at risk if the end users continue to depend on heavily subsidized activities and inputs.
• ====Ecological sustainability.==== Are the benefits to be generated by the technical cooperation likely to lead to a deterioration in the physical environment, thus indirectly contributing to a fall in production, or well-being of the groups targeted and their society?

Some ecologists have emphasised a fourth type of sustainability.

• ====Energetic sustainability.==== This type of sustainability is often concerned with the production of energy and mineral resources. Some researchers have pointed to trends which document the limits of production. See Hubbert peak for example.

The United Nations has declared a Decade of Education for Sustainable Development starting in January of 2005. A non-partisan multi-sector response to the decade has formed within the U.S. via the U.S. Partnership for the Decade of Education for Sustainable Development.[10] Active sectors teams have formed for youth, higher education, business, religion, the arts, and more. Organizations and individuals can join in sharing resources and success stories, and creating a sustainable future