GDP, Green GDP, and the Omission of Salient Concerns about Environmental Sustainability
|
|
There are many criticisms of the concept of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the commonly used measure of a country's economic well-being. (See GDP and Well-Being). But one criticism, noted near the end of this video clip, is that all productive economic activities within a country are counted as contributions to GDP, including economically and environmentally unsustainable activities such as the depletion of non-renewable resources and other environmentally destructive activities that will require later expenditures for abatement of damage.
One suggestion is that we adopt a Green GDP metric for a more informative, environmentally sensitive picture of how well a country is doing. The rough idea is that we should subtract from the total economic output that portion of the economic product that has long-term negative environmental impact. While Green GDP is useful in alerting us to activities that have hidden social costs and the fact that sustainability concerns are left out of account on standard GDP metrics, a prior question is: "which sustainability concerns are most salient?" |
Ecological Footprints: the "Unsustainable" as living beyond our means
|
|
One quite focal way to think about sustainability is to consider the impact of human consumption on the available stock of resources that are necessary to meet human needs. To the extent that resource demand outpaces or "overshoots" the amount of resources required to meet the existing consumption patterns of everyone on the planet, then there is a clear sense in which we can say that these patterns are not sustainable. Unsustainability, on this account, simply marks the existence of natural limits to the continuation of existing patterns of production and consumption. Although the underlying assumption is that such trends should not continue, such a measure merely tells us that we cannot go on with business as usual. Indeed, most, if not all ideals of sustainability are inherently normative: they identify what is valuable to sustain and they explain why. For more on ecological footprints and the many factors that determine the human impact on the environment, see Ecological Footprints/Human Impacts.
|
The Conceptual Shift from Sustainable Resource Use Metrics to Ideals of Sustainable Development
"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
|
The Brundtland Report to the United NationsThe 1987 report of the World Commission on Development and Environment - commonly known as the Brundtland Report - is one of the most influential ways in which sustainability has been understood in recent years. Their conception of sustainability is a function of three intersecting concerns: economic growth, social development and environmental preservation. Built into this conception of sustainability is the assumption that these three aims can be harmonized, or balanced well enough to speak meaningfully of a single objective.
But as critics have long noted, there is no guarantee that economic development will parallel social and institutional development (e.g., democratic, accountable governance), or that economic development will not come at the expense of environmental degradation. Indeed, the metrics for assessing progress are different for each domain. The major worry is that environmental concerns are often subordinated to economic development concerns while paying lip service to a deliberately vague ideal of sustainability. A more positive assessment of the Report focuses on the fact that its often quoted definition of sustainability (see text at right) puts the moral accent on the needs of future generations, and in particular, the Report gave priority to the needs of the global poor and the importance of the kind of economic development that alleviates severe poverty. |
The Intersection of Three Aspects of Sustainability
|
The Problems in Defining and Measuring Sustainable Economic Activity and Social Practices
click image for link
As the Brundtland Report's three pillar approach shows, there are lots of complex ways defining the highly intuitive but notoriously imprecise notion of sustainability. Not surprisingly, many who have thought systematically about sustainability have been economists, especially those who work at the intersection of economic theory and environmental studies. It is here that the potential for slippage in meaning is most significant.
For example, we often encounter definitions of sustainability that seem to be concerned exclusively with economic considerations, for example, the long-term durability of some kind of productive activity such as mineral extraction. Economic sustainability on this account reflects the singular concern about whether some productive activity can be a long-term basis for economic prosperity, say, within a country that is heavily dependent upon a single, but dwindling commodity.
However, definitions of sustainability focus upon environmentally sustainable activities, such as use of non-renewable sources of energy, or renewable but scarce resources such as groundwater and forests. On this kind of conception, the sole concern is might be preserving the quality of the overall natural environment, or with use of resources at a pace that allows their replenishment. Sustainability, on this account, is defined in relation to environmental goals exclusively.
Indirectly, of course, the pursuit of environmental sustainability suggests a need for attention to economic and moral implications. Thus, one might want to build into an account of environmental sustainability some ancillary goals, such as the aim of using resources in ways that leave enough stocks of natural resources to support some standard of living in the future. Environmental sustainability and economic sustainability are thus captured in one, inclusive definition, as the Brundtland Report proposed.
As economists Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi argue in chapter 3 of Mismeasuring Our Lives, "there can be as many indices of sustainability as there are normative definitions of what we want to sustain" (p. 123). Perhaps more to the point is a compound question: Sustainability of what, for what purposes? The bottom line is that when we think about sustainability we need to ask a number of more basic, often inadequately articulated questions about what we want to sustain and for what ends. We may want to sustain some features of the natural environment, a bundle of resources, a way of life, an economy, or some species. Our purposes for wanting to sustain them can be as diverse as concerns about fairness to future generations, the importance of some enduring mode of economic activity for poverty reduction, concern for the planet or the well-being of other species, and so on.
Even though perpetual optimists such as Thomas Friedman never tire of citing the opportunities for "win-win-win" policies that achieve both economic development and environmental preservation aims simultaneously (plus making a profit for green businesses), we know quite well the challenges. Sustaining the existing basis of a national or global economy may be incompatible with sustaining biodiversity, preventing species loss, or ensuring a high standard of air or water quality. Sustaining a current pattern of resource distribution where there are many resource-intensive users may conflict with the aim of sustaining a similar aggregate standard of living across generations. Sustaining an economic standard of living across generations may be in competition with the goal of sustaining the proper functioning of Earth systems such as the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycles, or climate stability.
For example, we often encounter definitions of sustainability that seem to be concerned exclusively with economic considerations, for example, the long-term durability of some kind of productive activity such as mineral extraction. Economic sustainability on this account reflects the singular concern about whether some productive activity can be a long-term basis for economic prosperity, say, within a country that is heavily dependent upon a single, but dwindling commodity.
However, definitions of sustainability focus upon environmentally sustainable activities, such as use of non-renewable sources of energy, or renewable but scarce resources such as groundwater and forests. On this kind of conception, the sole concern is might be preserving the quality of the overall natural environment, or with use of resources at a pace that allows their replenishment. Sustainability, on this account, is defined in relation to environmental goals exclusively.
Indirectly, of course, the pursuit of environmental sustainability suggests a need for attention to economic and moral implications. Thus, one might want to build into an account of environmental sustainability some ancillary goals, such as the aim of using resources in ways that leave enough stocks of natural resources to support some standard of living in the future. Environmental sustainability and economic sustainability are thus captured in one, inclusive definition, as the Brundtland Report proposed.
As economists Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, and Jean-Paul Fitoussi argue in chapter 3 of Mismeasuring Our Lives, "there can be as many indices of sustainability as there are normative definitions of what we want to sustain" (p. 123). Perhaps more to the point is a compound question: Sustainability of what, for what purposes? The bottom line is that when we think about sustainability we need to ask a number of more basic, often inadequately articulated questions about what we want to sustain and for what ends. We may want to sustain some features of the natural environment, a bundle of resources, a way of life, an economy, or some species. Our purposes for wanting to sustain them can be as diverse as concerns about fairness to future generations, the importance of some enduring mode of economic activity for poverty reduction, concern for the planet or the well-being of other species, and so on.
Even though perpetual optimists such as Thomas Friedman never tire of citing the opportunities for "win-win-win" policies that achieve both economic development and environmental preservation aims simultaneously (plus making a profit for green businesses), we know quite well the challenges. Sustaining the existing basis of a national or global economy may be incompatible with sustaining biodiversity, preventing species loss, or ensuring a high standard of air or water quality. Sustaining a current pattern of resource distribution where there are many resource-intensive users may conflict with the aim of sustaining a similar aggregate standard of living across generations. Sustaining an economic standard of living across generations may be in competition with the goal of sustaining the proper functioning of Earth systems such as the hydrologic cycle, nutrient cycles, or climate stability.
Agenda 21: The next chapter of the Sustainable Development Bandwagon
The first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held in 1972 in Stockholm, Sweden. It led to the establishment of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and it secured the international prominence of ways of thinking about the linkage between development and the environment. In 1983, the UN General Assembly set up the World Commission on Environment and Development, known as the Brundtland Commission, and published its report, Our Common Future in 1987. In 1992, Rio de Janeiro hosted another United Nations Conference on Environment and Development which concluded with the Earth Summit. Perhaps the most well-known accomplishments of the 1992 UNCED was the Convention on Climate Change and a Convention on Biodiversity.
But the delegates also reached agreement on Agenda 21, a document described as an action plan for developing the planet sustainably through the twenty-first century. It was devised to deal with some of the problems of resource degradation and aid to the developing world. Although it is not a legally binding document, the hope was that it would provide the basis of internationally coordinated actions for achieving several key goals.
Issues that were not agreed upon at the conference include forest protection, desertification, financing, and who would oversee implementation of Agenda 21. Nonetheless, the International Commission on Sustainable Development emerged as a standing organization, in many ways similar to the research and advisory role of the Brundtland Commission, and because the Agenda is not legally binding, the Commission has no powers of enforcement and no large sums of funds with which to incentivize behaviour in the ways initially envisioned.
But the delegates also reached agreement on Agenda 21, a document described as an action plan for developing the planet sustainably through the twenty-first century. It was devised to deal with some of the problems of resource degradation and aid to the developing world. Although it is not a legally binding document, the hope was that it would provide the basis of internationally coordinated actions for achieving several key goals.
- to ensure that "the system of incentives and penalties which motivate economic behaviour must be reoriented to become a strong force for sustainability."
- to eliminate poverty throughout the world through better management of energy and natural resources and improvement of the quality of life by ensuring access to shelter and clean water, sewage and solid waste treatment.
- to achieve the sustainable use of global and regional resources such as atmosphere, oceans, seas and freshwater, and marine organisms.
- to improve global management of chemicals and wastes.
Issues that were not agreed upon at the conference include forest protection, desertification, financing, and who would oversee implementation of Agenda 21. Nonetheless, the International Commission on Sustainable Development emerged as a standing organization, in many ways similar to the research and advisory role of the Brundtland Commission, and because the Agenda is not legally binding, the Commission has no powers of enforcement and no large sums of funds with which to incentivize behaviour in the ways initially envisioned.
OECD's Sustainable Consumption Guidelines
click image for OECD pdf
Everyone seems to have gotten onboard with the basic ideas behind sustainable development. The buzzword is “green growth”– economic growth that doesn’t hurt the environment, consumer products that are made from sustainable materials and produced under conditions that don't pollute the air and water and don't poison the workers. All of this is part of the win-win strategy in which economic growth goes hand in hand with environmental virtues. And it is a triple win situation when multinational corporations make profits - everybody wins. What could be better?
Aren't the only real questions now ones about how best to effectuate the implementation of this new green vision? In the decade after Agenda 21 the Organization of Economic and Cooperative Development published guidelines for best practices for member countries. The 2008 report highlights a number of OECD government initiatives to promote sustainable consumption, with particular emphasis upon what can be done to promote and increase public awareness of the products they buy and to empower consumers on behalf of environmental values. In the words of the preface, "Sustainable consumption policies increasingly take into account the social and ethical dimensions of products and how they are produced as well as their ecological impacts."
The report also adopts the same three pillar framework from Brundtland through Agenda 21: "In this study, sustainable refers to both the environmental (pollution, waste, resource use) and social (health, welfare) characteristics of products. It focuses on consumption by households and governments." The overall emphasis is upon two kinds of government policies with examples of best practices from member countries.
The first kind of government policies are ones that shape production decisions, such as product standards, taxes, and subsidies. These policies can be seen as responsive to Agenda 21's aim of ensuring that "the system of incentives and penalties which motivate economic behaviour must be reoriented to become a strong force for sustainability."
The second set of policies are designed to inform the consumer and prevent the dissemination of false, misleading or incomplete information. They rely upon informational strategies meant to arm individual consumers with what they need to know to make value-based consumer decisions. They include such things as public communications campaigns, education programs, labeling laws, advertising and corporate reporting requirements.
Aren't the only real questions now ones about how best to effectuate the implementation of this new green vision? In the decade after Agenda 21 the Organization of Economic and Cooperative Development published guidelines for best practices for member countries. The 2008 report highlights a number of OECD government initiatives to promote sustainable consumption, with particular emphasis upon what can be done to promote and increase public awareness of the products they buy and to empower consumers on behalf of environmental values. In the words of the preface, "Sustainable consumption policies increasingly take into account the social and ethical dimensions of products and how they are produced as well as their ecological impacts."
The report also adopts the same three pillar framework from Brundtland through Agenda 21: "In this study, sustainable refers to both the environmental (pollution, waste, resource use) and social (health, welfare) characteristics of products. It focuses on consumption by households and governments." The overall emphasis is upon two kinds of government policies with examples of best practices from member countries.
The first kind of government policies are ones that shape production decisions, such as product standards, taxes, and subsidies. These policies can be seen as responsive to Agenda 21's aim of ensuring that "the system of incentives and penalties which motivate economic behaviour must be reoriented to become a strong force for sustainability."
The second set of policies are designed to inform the consumer and prevent the dissemination of false, misleading or incomplete information. They rely upon informational strategies meant to arm individual consumers with what they need to know to make value-based consumer decisions. They include such things as public communications campaigns, education programs, labeling laws, advertising and corporate reporting requirements.
Is the notion of "Sustainable Development" really sustainable?
click image for link to ebook
The Worldwatch report, State of the World 2013: Is Sustainability Still Possible? offers a sobering assessment of the sustainable development movement and its emphasis on green consumerism. In their brief description they offer the following challenge:
"Every day, we are presented with a range of “sustainable” products and activities—from “green” cleaning supplies to carbon offsets—but with so much labeled as “sustainable,” the term has become essentially sustainababble, at best indicating a practice or product slightly less damaging than the conventional alternative. Is it time to abandon the concept altogether, or can we find an accurate way to measure sustainability? If so, how can we achieve it? And if not, how can we best prepare for the coming ecological decline?"
Eco-labeling, taxes on water and energy consumption, recycling incentives, education and communication campaigns, and advertising are examples of methods to promote sustainable consumption, all of which are endorsed by the OECD.But do they really pay off? Or do they even do harm or stand in the way of better policy options and a more informed public debate? The papers collected in this volume consider first some alternatives to the currently dominant ones, including geoengineering, corporate transformation, and changes in agricultural policy, that could put us on the path to prosperity without diminishing the well-being of future generations, and second, some ideas about what to do if in fact we continue with policies having limited impact and we face an avalanche of social and environmental disasters.
Some critics focus on the possibility that current green consumerism policies block chances for real progress. One contributor to the volume characterizes the problem as follows: the focus on sustainable consumption “distracts us from identifying and demanding change from the real drivers of environmental decline…. Describing today’s environmental problems and solutions as individual issues also has a disempowering effect, leaving people to feel that their greatest power lies in perfecting their daily choices.”
One project that has been collecting empirical evidence for evaluating consumer awareness and information strategies is a Nordic research team that attempts to dispel what they call "myths of sustainable consumption." Among their claims are these:
Worldwatch contends that "the reason that these myths are so dangerous is that they place the burden of responsibility on consumers instead of producers," and they stand in the way of governmental implementation of the kinds of collective actions that are likely to be far more efficacious than the hope that millions and billions of individual choices among conscientious consumers will add up to the kind of changes necessary to confront environmental challenges.
Other critics similarly focus on the need for structural change in the ways in which consumption on a global scale is organized. In a policy brief (containing a nice historical account of international efforts) prepared by Rebecca Gresh of the Center for Global Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, one important way to think about the present situation is to see that "the US is a “debtor empire” that relies on consumer-citizens to purchase surplus goods from allied countries in exchange for global dominance. Thus, material throughput is dependent upon US interests, and for any form of consumption to become sustainable, trade relations and global empire will need to be confronted."
"Every day, we are presented with a range of “sustainable” products and activities—from “green” cleaning supplies to carbon offsets—but with so much labeled as “sustainable,” the term has become essentially sustainababble, at best indicating a practice or product slightly less damaging than the conventional alternative. Is it time to abandon the concept altogether, or can we find an accurate way to measure sustainability? If so, how can we achieve it? And if not, how can we best prepare for the coming ecological decline?"
Eco-labeling, taxes on water and energy consumption, recycling incentives, education and communication campaigns, and advertising are examples of methods to promote sustainable consumption, all of which are endorsed by the OECD.But do they really pay off? Or do they even do harm or stand in the way of better policy options and a more informed public debate? The papers collected in this volume consider first some alternatives to the currently dominant ones, including geoengineering, corporate transformation, and changes in agricultural policy, that could put us on the path to prosperity without diminishing the well-being of future generations, and second, some ideas about what to do if in fact we continue with policies having limited impact and we face an avalanche of social and environmental disasters.
Some critics focus on the possibility that current green consumerism policies block chances for real progress. One contributor to the volume characterizes the problem as follows: the focus on sustainable consumption “distracts us from identifying and demanding change from the real drivers of environmental decline…. Describing today’s environmental problems and solutions as individual issues also has a disempowering effect, leaving people to feel that their greatest power lies in perfecting their daily choices.”
One project that has been collecting empirical evidence for evaluating consumer awareness and information strategies is a Nordic research team that attempts to dispel what they call "myths of sustainable consumption." Among their claims are these:
- the belief that small individual actions will have a spill-over effect;
- if everyone does a little we will collectively achieve a lot;
- more information leads to sustainable behavior.
Worldwatch contends that "the reason that these myths are so dangerous is that they place the burden of responsibility on consumers instead of producers," and they stand in the way of governmental implementation of the kinds of collective actions that are likely to be far more efficacious than the hope that millions and billions of individual choices among conscientious consumers will add up to the kind of changes necessary to confront environmental challenges.
Other critics similarly focus on the need for structural change in the ways in which consumption on a global scale is organized. In a policy brief (containing a nice historical account of international efforts) prepared by Rebecca Gresh of the Center for Global Studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, one important way to think about the present situation is to see that "the US is a “debtor empire” that relies on consumer-citizens to purchase surplus goods from allied countries in exchange for global dominance. Thus, material throughput is dependent upon US interests, and for any form of consumption to become sustainable, trade relations and global empire will need to be confronted."
Rio+20 in 2012
The most recent United Nations Conference on Environment and Development was held in 2012, again in Rio. The main outcome of Rio+20 was an agreement among 192 countries to launch a process to develop a set of sustainable development goals (SDGs). It reiterated the commitments of the Brundtland Report to "address in a balanced way all three dimensions of sustainable development," and the aspiration is in that whatever emerges would complement and cohere with the UN development goals that will replace the Millennium Development goals that expire in 2015. A 30-member Open Working Group of the General Assembly was tasked with preparing a proposal on the SDGs and its ongoing work can be found here.
The statement resulting from Rio+20 is The Future We Want, and it contains 283 numbered paragraphs largely devoted to reaffirmation of principles emerging from Stockholm, Brundtland, Rio 1992, and many other international meetings along the way. Moreover, the delegates agreed to establish a high level political forum to replace the Commission on Sustainable Development.
The statement resulting from Rio+20 is The Future We Want, and it contains 283 numbered paragraphs largely devoted to reaffirmation of principles emerging from Stockholm, Brundtland, Rio 1992, and many other international meetings along the way. Moreover, the delegates agreed to establish a high level political forum to replace the Commission on Sustainable Development.
Recommendations for the New Sustainable Development Goals
click image for link to pdf
In May 2012, in advance of the June meeting in Rio, the UN Secretary General charged the High Level Panel on the Post 2015 Development Agenda with providing recommendations on the goals to succeed the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and in May 2013 it published its final report. The report begins with the observation that it is possible to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030, and the Panel agreed on 5 major aims:
Moreover, the panel proposed 12 measurable goals and 54 targets around which to build and implement these five major aims. The plan going forward is for a final list of post-2015 goals will be negotiated and agreed upon within the UN by September 2015.
A remarkably frank discussion of the history, political machinations, and progress and perceived impediments to implementation of sustainable development goals can be found in a 2010 background paper found in the document collection of the UN's climate change website. See Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012.
- Ending poverty by 2030;
- Putting sustainable development at the core of action;
- Transforming economies for jobs and inclusive growth;
- Building peace and effective, open and accountable institutions for all; and
- Forging a new Global Partnership that includes not just national governments but also businesses, community groups, donors, local governments and others working together to eradicate extreme poverty.
Moreover, the panel proposed 12 measurable goals and 54 targets around which to build and implement these five major aims. The plan going forward is for a final list of post-2015 goals will be negotiated and agreed upon within the UN by September 2015.
A remarkably frank discussion of the history, political machinations, and progress and perceived impediments to implementation of sustainable development goals can be found in a 2010 background paper found in the document collection of the UN's climate change website. See Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012.
Critics of the Three Pillars Framework: Sustainability in The Age of the Anthropecene
click image to enlarge
A March 21, 2013 commentary in Nature (Volume 495, pp 305-307) co-authored by a group of scientists responding to the call for ideas about sustainable development goals for the post-2015 global development agenda called for abandonment of the three pillars model of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental. The old definition from Brundtland - “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” should be abandoned and replaced with a new definition for sustainable development: “development that meets the needs of the present while safeguarding Earth’s life-support system, on which the welfare of current and future generations depends.”
What's the difference? We need to replace the model that puts the economy on a par with environmental concerns with a nested model that recognizes that an economy is situated within society, and society is situated within Earth’s life support system. As the authors put it, a healthy planet comes first and foremost because it is a prerequisite for healthy, thriving, prosperous lives. The underlying rationale for putting the health of the planet in a privileged position above other considerations is simply the fact that
human beings are changing Earth’s life support system so rapidly and profoundly – the atmosphere, oceans, waterways, forests, ice sheets and biodiversity that allow us to thrive and prosper - that we need a whole new understanding of the place of humans in nature. That change, they says, is encapsulated in the concept of the Anthropocene – that we have pushed Earth into a new geological epoch of our own creation. The pace and consequences of environmental change is so dramatic that economic development goals cannot proceed along the lines of business as usual, with growth being the primary objective, tempered by an glacial, incremental increase in localized efforts to minimize the damages to the environment.
In an important way, the authors are pushing us to view the locus of environmentalism itself differently. We tend to think locally, of environmental damage to this river, that city's air, or the loss of soil or groundwater in one country or region, and so on. The point of thinking in terms of the Anthropocene is that the stakes are far higher than ordinarily articulated, even within many environmental policy circles that grow out of local problems and the need for local solutions. We now have to turn our attention to the "stable functioning of Earth systems - including the atmosphere, oceans, forests, waterways, biodiversity, and biochemical cycles." And that approach requires thinking about global targets for limiting damage to the atmosphere, hydrologic cycles, nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient cycles, and biodiversity.
The six goals (shown in the graphic above) – thriving lives and livelihoods, food security, water security, clean energy, healthy and productive ecosystems, and governance for sustainable societies - are accompanied with measurable environmental targets established on the basis of scientific judgments about critical loads of planet-altering human activities. For example, one target related to thriving lives sets limits on certain industrial chemicals while sustainable food security sets limits on global annual nitrogen extraction and phosphorous flow into the oceans.
These specific goals are endorsed on the basis of what the authors call "twin priorities: protection of the Earth's life support system and poverty reduction." Why include poverty reduction as one of the twin priorities? The authors are not explicit, but embedded in their arguments seem to be deeper value judgments about the normative grounds of their concern about protection of the Earth's life support systems, namely a commitment to an environment that secures the basic needs and serves the interests of all human beings, including those currently most left out of the prosperity created by the ongoing global economic order. Moreover, the authors note that protection of the life support systems in turn is not "possible without changes to the economic playing field."
If you don't have access to the original commentary in Nature, you can find a useful summary from the International Council for Science.
What's the difference? We need to replace the model that puts the economy on a par with environmental concerns with a nested model that recognizes that an economy is situated within society, and society is situated within Earth’s life support system. As the authors put it, a healthy planet comes first and foremost because it is a prerequisite for healthy, thriving, prosperous lives. The underlying rationale for putting the health of the planet in a privileged position above other considerations is simply the fact that
human beings are changing Earth’s life support system so rapidly and profoundly – the atmosphere, oceans, waterways, forests, ice sheets and biodiversity that allow us to thrive and prosper - that we need a whole new understanding of the place of humans in nature. That change, they says, is encapsulated in the concept of the Anthropocene – that we have pushed Earth into a new geological epoch of our own creation. The pace and consequences of environmental change is so dramatic that economic development goals cannot proceed along the lines of business as usual, with growth being the primary objective, tempered by an glacial, incremental increase in localized efforts to minimize the damages to the environment.
In an important way, the authors are pushing us to view the locus of environmentalism itself differently. We tend to think locally, of environmental damage to this river, that city's air, or the loss of soil or groundwater in one country or region, and so on. The point of thinking in terms of the Anthropocene is that the stakes are far higher than ordinarily articulated, even within many environmental policy circles that grow out of local problems and the need for local solutions. We now have to turn our attention to the "stable functioning of Earth systems - including the atmosphere, oceans, forests, waterways, biodiversity, and biochemical cycles." And that approach requires thinking about global targets for limiting damage to the atmosphere, hydrologic cycles, nitrogen and phosphorus nutrient cycles, and biodiversity.
The six goals (shown in the graphic above) – thriving lives and livelihoods, food security, water security, clean energy, healthy and productive ecosystems, and governance for sustainable societies - are accompanied with measurable environmental targets established on the basis of scientific judgments about critical loads of planet-altering human activities. For example, one target related to thriving lives sets limits on certain industrial chemicals while sustainable food security sets limits on global annual nitrogen extraction and phosphorous flow into the oceans.
These specific goals are endorsed on the basis of what the authors call "twin priorities: protection of the Earth's life support system and poverty reduction." Why include poverty reduction as one of the twin priorities? The authors are not explicit, but embedded in their arguments seem to be deeper value judgments about the normative grounds of their concern about protection of the Earth's life support systems, namely a commitment to an environment that secures the basic needs and serves the interests of all human beings, including those currently most left out of the prosperity created by the ongoing global economic order. Moreover, the authors note that protection of the life support systems in turn is not "possible without changes to the economic playing field."
If you don't have access to the original commentary in Nature, you can find a useful summary from the International Council for Science.
|
|
A little video on the futility of shopping for changeThe message of this video is that collective action, not individually conscientious behavior, is the key to significant social change, whether environmental or other matters such as civil rights movements. More from the producers of The Story of Change can be found at the website, StoryofStuff.org.
A persistent message of the opponents of the green consumer movement is not only that it is unlikely to be effective as an instrument of environmental change, but that it misses the point of more basic changes that are necessary. It is often said that the point is not to maximize personal moral integrity within an unjust and morally unresponsive framework but to work to dismantle the framework itself. In short, you might feel better about your purchases but you can't shop your way to social justice. |
Adding Public Health Issues into the Sustainability Matrix: The IOM Roundtable Discussions
click image for link to pdf
On July 25-26, 2011, the IOM hosted the first of an ongoing series of workshops and webinars designed to examine the linkages between sustainability and health. These discussions have explored the "intersections between sustainability and toxicology, noncommunicable diseases, energy options and air quality, food and water resources, occupational and childhood health, and the role of climate change and urbanization". Their report from July 19, 2013 summarized those discussions.
For more on the ongoing series of webinars and roundtable discussions, you can follow the activities of
the IOM Global Environmental Health and Sustainable Development Innovation Collaborative here on the IOM's website. These conversations are likely to prove important as additions to the extended public conversation about the way we think about the business of creating new Sustainable Development Goals.
For more on the ongoing series of webinars and roundtable discussions, you can follow the activities of
the IOM Global Environmental Health and Sustainable Development Innovation Collaborative here on the IOM's website. These conversations are likely to prove important as additions to the extended public conversation about the way we think about the business of creating new Sustainable Development Goals.