Discussion > Is there such a thing as sustainability and is it even a good thing?
As Mike Jackson noted above, regarding a "definition" (for want of a better word) of "sustainable development"
the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations on March 20, 1987: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
This is the definition that I am most familiar with. And to someone who might encounter it merely in passing, it seems almost intended to put one to sleep. How could one possibly object to such a "definition"?!
The problem is - as with so many United Nations turns of phrase, it seems - that the phrase has taken on a life of its own.
For the record, Brundtland's definition was part of a document called Our Common Future. One thing I had not realized (until I checked today!) is just how frequently the phrase was used in Rio 1992's grand accomplishment, the acceptance (or whatever the "official" designation word of that era might have been) of Agenda 21.
Believe it or not, "climate change" rated a mere 33 mentions while "sustainable/sustainability" - for all intents and purposes - seemed to totally overwhelm "climate change" with ... wait for it ... 689 mentions!
Again, for the record, at Rio+20 (held two years ago) as I had noted the score was "climate change" 22 mentions, while sustainable/sustainability again overwhelmed with a score of 400 mentions.
FWIW, Agenda 21 consists of 351 pages, while the more recent "The Future We Want" was a mere 283 pages.
One document (.pdf) that is eminently shorter (and more readable), was produced by the (admittedly biased, but not blatantly so) IISD. Their 2010 "Sustainable Development: From Brundtland to Rio 2012" was "prepared for consideration by the High Level Panel on Global Sustainability".
IMHO, it's worth a read ... or at least a reasonable skim. The two authors keep their eyes on the prize, so to speak, but they do not shy away from exposing the weaknesses and warts along the way. A few interesting quotes, at least to me, YMMV [paragraph breaks inserted by me for ease of reading-hro] from p. 9:
At and since the Rio Summit, sustainable development has found its most prominent “hook” (at least in terms of media and political attention) around the issue of climate change. Responses to address climate change, both mitigation and adaptation, are linked to sustainable development.The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007, chapter 12.1.1) pointed out the iterative relationship between climate change and sustainable development, and that the two can be mutually reinforcing.
In many respects, the UNFCCC has become an international proxy for discussions around sustainable development, and a potential means to channel required funding and technology from developed to developing countries.
While climate change is certainly one manifestation of the broader challenge of sustainable development, the scale and complexity of the broader sustainability challenge means that it cannot be adequately addressed in the confines of the climate change negotiations.
[...]
The nearly universal adoption of sustainable development as a guiding principle is, in part, due to its flexibility. It allows various stakeholders to adapt the concept to their own purposes. This strength, however, is also a liability because various interpretations have led to confusion and compromised implementation.
All of which kinda makes one wonder how in Gaia's name did we get so diverted from this supposedly BIGGER "challenge" to the purported perils of our dreaded CO2 emissions - not to mention the mediocrity and sheer divisiveness the latter has engendered over the years?!
As a footnote, I think it might be worth watching what comes out of the "historic" first meeting of the new, improved and expanded empire of UNEP's head honcho, Achim Steiner. The "United Nations Environment Assembly of the United Nations Environment Programme” (UNEA) which is now underway. [See my recent post for some interesting details ... and videos].
Hilary Ostrov
Hilary Ostrov “All of which kinda makes one wonder how in Gaia's name did we get so diverted from this supposedly BIGGER "challenge" to the purported perils of our dreaded CO2 emissions”
The simple answer is – nobody give a flying f*** about CO2. Sustainability is code for ‘slowing white man’s success/greed/advantage’. The fondness for CAGW is merely a tool for pressuring us into it. If you read warmist web sites, you’ll find almost nothing about personally cutting CO2. Loads about how others, especially businesses, should do it but very little about what they’ve done or experienced themselves. Talk about being in denial. Even their discussions about forcing CO2 reduction on others is lodged firmly in the broad abstract and doesn’t get into the pluses and minuses, let alone the tricky details. Their mental block about cutting CO2 is extended to their leaders, which means they’re largely uncritical of even the most egregious hypocrisy.
One doesn’t have to support cutting CO2 to realise that doing so is a wicked problem. The closest issue in terms of complexity that I can think of is obesity. Despite knowing and agreeing that weight is a problem, society and individuals are slowly losing the war. It should act as a cautionary tale for those who expect technology to come up with a magic solution once Big Oil stops interfering. We’ve wanted a miracle diet pill for as long as there’s been a weight problem but it’s still not available. The key difference is people talk about weight loss. We know what makes us fat. We know how we could lose weight if we wanted to. Even the most overweight person has considered dieting at more than one point in their lives. Where are the CO2 loss forums? Where are the discussions about the best low energy light bulbs… other than WUWT?
While there is a streak of guilt running through the western world, it’s unlikely that will be enough to radically change the future. Whatever the activists call it, sustainability or CO2 reduction has to start with the campaigners and right now I don’t see it.
TinyCO2
Of course I've read the above and I think I've expressed that the word sustainable means nothing to me. However it means a lot to those who would put a break on development. Sustaining, humanity, prosperity and some portion of the natural world is also not the same as leaving habitats and species un touched. I think the it's inevitable that certain large or specialist flora and fauna will go extinct. While trying to stem the inevitable, environmentalists will fail to set priorities and lose more because they ask for too much.