It was not intended that ‘Sustainable Development’ would be an oxymoron when it was defined by
the Bruntland Commission in 1987 as ‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. In the context of examining how to encourage the development of poorer countries, it was argued that this should be according to the paradigm of sustainability. Making the assumption that underdeveloped countries will need to develop was a reasonable assumption at the time. Over recent years, the term ‘sustainable development’ has been used (and misused) as a term to justify further development in the belief that sustainable development must be good.
The deeper understanding of sustainability that is slowly emerging recognises that the assumption that there must be continual development (meaning expanding the industrial and built environment) is the wrong foundation on which to build policy. The term ‘sustainable’ is now, in many cases, a contradiction when used in conjunction with ‘development’.
Sustainability is about the effective management of resources now and for future generations. That means retaining a functioning eco-system; which means preserving bio diversity; which means keeping a sufficient proportion of land for nature. Development that slowly encroaches on the bank of natural land has to be constrained before lasting damage is done. ‘Sustainable development’ now fits the definition of an oxymoron: a phrase in which two words of contradictory meaning are used together for special effect; examples from the dictionary are 'wise fool' and 'legal murder'. To these we can add ‘sustainable development’.
Benjamin Franklin supposedly said, "Happiness is spending less than you earn". Looked at in this way, sustainable resource utilisation means harvesting or extracting any resource at less than the rate at which it can be replenished.
ReplyDeleteFrom fish to forests and from fossil carbon to rare earth metals, this test should define our use and reuse of resources.
Frighteningly, the word is used by economists and politicians in completely different ways. So, a sustainable business model is one with ongoing profitability and a sustainable planning policy is one which creates employment and homes. Both uses ignore all externalities, resulting in the destruction of global commons such as wilderness, biodiversity and clean air.
It is indeed frightening how economists use their blinked view of the world to drive the policy agenda. Economists have a valuable role in designing tools that achieve the objectives of society but politicians and world leaders have a responsibility to put the economists in their correct place in the hierarchy of policy formulation. Economics should be a tool to deliver improvement and economists our servants, not our masters.
ReplyDelete