ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY AND SOCIETY

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A CONTESTED CONCEPT

The concept of sustainable development has multiple interpretations, embraced by different

stakeholders such as businesses, governments, social reformers, and environmental activists. Many
organizations and individuals with concerns about social issues support sustainable development,
while being critical of companies who are members of the World Business Council for Sustainable
Development (WBCSD). The classic definition of sustainable development was produced by the
Brundtland report, which aimed to combine socio-economic and environmental concerns. However,
there is no common philosophy for sustainable development, and it can be interpreted in many ways.
This has led to debates about its meaning, with some arguing that it lacks any clear rigor of analysis or
theoretical framework. Some suggest using other phrases, such as sustainability or sustainable
livelihoods, to avoid conflicts between economic growth, social equity, and the environment.
Ultimately, the philosophy underlying a proponent's point of view influences what is considered the
main priorities and choices about what policies should be implemented and actions taken.

THREE SECTORS: ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY

The three sector model of sustainable development, dividing the economy, environment, and society,
has limitations as it assumes their separation and autonomy from each other. This compartmentalized
approach can distract from or underplay the fundamental connections between the three sectors and
lead to assumptions that trade-offs can be made between them. This ignores the fact that natural
resources and systems cannot be replaced by built capital, and technical solutions in the economy may
not tackle the deeper issues of sustainable development. The model often results in debates where
either the environment or the economy is given priority, and the concentration on environmental
issues can be a weakness as it is often treated as peripheral by both local and national government. A
sectoral approach can divert attention from asking important questions about the nature of our
society, policy priorities, and decision-making in whose interest. Therefore, a more holistic and
integrated approach is needed for sustainable development, recognizing the interconnectedness of
the economy, environment, and society.

POLITICAL REALITY: PRIORITIZING THE ECONOMY

The passage highlights the dominance of the economy over the environment and society in today's
world, where large corporations influence decision-making at national and international levels.
Governments prioritize economic growth over an integrated approach to sustainable development and
often justify inequality as necessary for economic growth. The focus on economic growth has led to a
decline in human welfare and environmental issues, as measured by the Index of Sustainable
Development for Britain. Urban policy and business practices have also largely focused on economic
benefits, neglecting environmental and social concerns.

The passage also raises questions about the externalities of business activities, such as pollution and
damage to biodiversity, and how they are compensated for. Social externalities, such as unemployment
and damage to health, are also not adequately addressed. The passage notes that the capitalist
economy, as defined by the production and exchange of goods and services through the market, does
not give equal consideration to non-market activities that provision people and satisfy their needs.
Capitalism is also commodifying knowledge, caring for people, entertainment, and nature, and
reducing everything to the "cash nexus," which some argue may move society further away from
sustainable development.
Overall, the passage highlights the need for a more integrated approach to sustainable development
that considers economic, environmental, and social concerns equally and addresses externalities and
non-market activities.

MATERIAL REALITY: NESTING ECONOMY IN SOCIETY AND ENVIRONMENT

The material reality of our existence is that the economy, society, and environment are interconnected
and interdependent. The traditional view of the economy as the central force ignores the fact that it
relies on resources and labor from society and the environment. Society is composed of human actions
and interactions, which include both economic and non-monetary activities. The environment is the
source of the materials and energy required for economic production, as well as the foundation of
human culture and leisure.

The economy is a subset of society and is dependent on non-monetary activities, such as indigenous
knowledge and the environment. Placing the economy in the center of the three-ring model is
misleading because it is dependent on the other sectors. Instead, the economy should be nested
within society, which in turn is nested within the environment. This model emphasizes the
interdependence and interconnectedness of these sectors and encourages a holistic outlook that is
crucial for sustainable development.

Achieving sustainable development requires integration and cooperation between different sectors
and disciplines. While this nested model is a simplified representation of the complex reality, it is a
useful framework for thinking about the interconnections between society, economy, and
environment.

MULTI-LAYERED AND MULTI-FACETED

The passage highlights the limitations of treating the environment, economy, and society as separate
and unified entities. It argues that this approach oversimplifies reality and ignores the diversity and
complexity that exists within each sector.

The passage also points out that presenting society as a single entity tends to give precedence to
dominant power structures and western culture, while marginalizing other cultures. Similarly, claiming
that there is a single economy ignores the informal economy, subsistence economies, and other
sectors that are not part of the globalized economy.

The author suggests that recognizing diversity and difference within each sector is important for
human sustainability, as it stimulates change and innovation. Furthermore, the over-simplification of
the three sectors risks reinforcing the idea of a static world, where present dominant structures and
priorities have always existed and will remain.

Overall, the passage emphasizes the need to be aware of the limitations and dangers of abstraction
and over-simplification, and to recognize the multi-layered and multi-faceted nature of reality in order
to move towards sustainable development.

CHANGE OF VIEWPOINT: BREAKING DOWN THE BOUNDARIES

The passage argues that while the move from a three-ring model to a nested view is an improvement,
it still has limitations. The author suggests that the separation of the economy from other human
activities should be removed, as it inflates the importance of the market and assumes it is autonomous,
neglecting the meeting of human needs. Instead, the author proposes an integrated view where
human activity and well-being, both material and cultural, should be viewed as interconnected and
within the environment.
The boundary between the environment and human activity is fuzzy and constantly interacts with each
other. For instance, poverty, work conditions, and social circumstances affect people's health, along
with the quality of their immediate and wider environment. Thus, sustainable development should be
based on an integrated view, where human well-being is the primary aim. The focus should be on
human provisioning and satisfying needs, which can be done in many more ways than those described
within the economy. Theories of sustainable development stress the need to take a whole systems
approach that appreciates emergent properties, complexity, and interactions.

In conclusion, the passage argues for an integrated and holistic approach to sustainable development,
using analogies with ecosystems rather than linear systems. This approach would encourage a "win-
win" outlook and prioritize human well-being rather than the economy as a means to an end.

PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The passage discusses the need for sustainable development principles that would apply to all issues,
whether they are environmental, social, economic or any mix of the three. The author highlights that
the redefinition of sustainable development to focus on human well-being and removing the
separation of economy and society still has drawbacks, as nowhere are there clear ethical values or
guidelines to indicate the basis for decisions or what are priorities. The author proposes five equity
principles to base sustainable development principles for human relations, including futurity, social
justice, transfrontier responsibility, procedural equity, and inter-species equity. These principles would
move society beyond present approaches based on monetary cost/benefit analysis or a utilitarian view
that can justify the suffering of some by the benefits of others. Finally, the author suggests that basing
sustainable development on principles would mean that similar questions could be asked about any
policy or action to ensure that benefits and losses are shared fairly, quality of life is improved in an
equitable manner, and decision-makers carry responsibility for their decisions.
 Environmetalism of the poor-main
1. Introduction

The article discusses the concept of the "environmentalism of the poor" and how it relates to
environmental justice. The growth of the capitalist world economy has led to more conflicts over
environmental resources and services, particularly in poor or indigenous communities. Political
ecology has studied environmental conflicts in Southern countries since the 1980s, and
researchers are now starting to generate statistics on conflicts related to resource extraction and
waste disposal. The article provides examples of such conflicts and how they often involve NGOs
and include a range of actions from dialogue to direct confrontation. The environmentalism of
the poor does not assert that all poor people feel, think, and behave as environmentalists, but
rather that in many resource extraction and waste disposal conflicts, the poor are often on the
side of preserving nature against business firms and the state.

2. Causes of environmental conflicts

The clash between the economy and the environment is caused by population growth and the
social metabolism of industrial economies. Energy cannot be recycled, so new supplies must be
obtained from "commodity frontiers." Similarly, materials are only partially recycled. While
wealthier people in the North have lost the idea of the environment as their source of livelihood,
the poor and largely rural populations of the South are more connected to the environment. In
the US, the environmental justice movement began in the 1980s among poor and minority
communities who faced disproportionate burdens of pollution and lack of voice in environmental
policy implementation. The fight against "environmental racism" became successful in public
policy making when President Clinton issued executive order 12898 in 1994, asking all
departments in the administration to make achieving environmental justice part of their mission.

3. Indigenous rights

Indigenous territories in many countries are often at the forefront of resource extraction, leading
to territorial and environmental struggles. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples defends their territories against resource extraction without prior consent.
Representatives of indigenous peoples object to the term "environmentalism of the poor" as
they have lived in harmony with nature and have been impoverished due to land grabbing and
forced labor. Different languages of valuation are used in these struggles, such as livelihood,
human rights, the sacredness of the land, and environmental justice. The question arises as to
who has the right or power to impose a particular valuation language.

4. Conclusion

Indigenous territories in many countries are often at the forefront of resource extraction, leading
to territorial and environmental struggles. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples defends their territories against resource extraction without prior consent.
Representatives of indigenous peoples object to the term "environmentalism of the poor" as
they have lived in harmony with nature and have been impoverished due to land grabbing and
forced labor. Different languages of valuation are used in these struggles, such as livelihood,
human rights, the sacredness of the land, and environmental justice. The question arises as to
who has the right or power to impose a particular valuation language.
 HOW MUCH SHOULD A PERSON CONSUME GUHA
CONSUMPTION: THE UNASKED QUESTION
The Conservationist Approach
The essay "Consumption: The Unasked Question" argues that the focus of conservation movements
and environmentalism in the US has been too narrowly focused on protecting natural environments
and wilderness, while failing to address the underlying problem of overconsumption that is driving
environmental degradation. The author of the essay is historian Ramachandra Guha. He draws on the
work of economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who identified the worship of growth and skepticism of
the state as the main reasons why consumption was not addressed in the US in the 1950s. Guha
argues that even as the modern environmental movement gained momentum in the 1960s with the
publication of Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," consumption continued to be ignored as the root of
the problem. Instead, environmentalists focused on protecting wild species and habitats, while failing
to challenge the underlying consumerist culture that drives consumption.

The Population Factor

The passage discusses the views of biologists, such as Paul Ehrlich and Garret Hardin, who identified
human population growth as the single most important reason for environmental degradation. They
believed that exploding numbers of people were responsible for increasing pollution, air quality
issues, and technological obsolescence. During the 70s and 80s, Neo-Malthusian interpretations of
their ideas gained wide currency, and countries such as India and Bangladesh were commonly
blamed for causing an environmental crisis. However, activists in these countries pointed out that the
West, particularly the United States, consumed a far greater proportion of the world's resources per
capita than their countries did. The passage also highlights the insularity among the historians of
North America, particularly in the field of environmental history, where none have seriously studied
the global consequences of the consumer society, the impact on land, soil, forests, climate, etc. of
the American way of life. Finally, it touches upon the Gulf War and how no American historian has
revealed the ecological imperialism of the sole superpower in the world.

THE GERMAN MODEL OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The German model of sustainable development is characterized by a strong emphasis on ecological
and social sustainability, as well as a critical stance towards the consumer society and the global
spread of industrial economic policies and lifestyles. The German Greens, in particular, have been
vocal in their criticisms of the economic and ecological exploitation of the Third World by the
industrialized countries of Europe and North America, which they argue has made possible the
economic growth of these regions. They call for voluntary commitments to restraint by wealthy
nations, the cancellation of international debt, the banning of trade in products that destroy
vulnerable ecosystems, and the freer migration of people from poor countries to rich ones.

The German Greens' program was forged as an alternative to the policies promoted by the two
dominant political parties in Germany, which are committed to economic growth. As of October
1998, the Greens found themselves in a coalition with the Social Democrats at the Federal level, but
they were junior partners in the coalition. While in power, the Greens were expected to work
towards incremental change, rather than the wholesale restructuring of the consumption and
production system advocated by some of their members in the past.

GANDHI’S CODE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

This passage discusses Mahatma Gandhi's environmental ethics and his critique of Western
industrialization. Gandhi argued that the Western model of economic development is unsustainable
at a global level and that India should not try to emulate the West. He believed that modern
civilization's defining characteristic is an indefinite multiplicity of wants and that this mad desire to
destroy distance and time, increase animal appetites, and go to the ends of the earth in search of
their satisfaction is satanic. Instead, he advocated for a code of voluntary simplicity and the
minimization of wants, which he himself practiced.

Gandhi's arguments have been revived and elaborated by the present generation of Indian
environmentalists. India is facing a severe ecological disaster, marked by deforestation, species loss,
land degradation, air, and water pollution. The consequences of this abuse of nature have been
chiefly borne by the poor in the countryside, who have seen their resources snatched away or
depleted by more powerful economic interests. India has attempted to industrialize like England and
America without the access to resources and markets enjoyed by those two nations, resulting in the
exploitation of its own people and environment.

Indian environmentalists have pointed to the inequalities of consumption within a society or nation.
They have complemented the work of their German counterparts, who have documented and
criticized the inequalities of consumption between societies and nations. Overall, Gandhi's
environmental ethics and critiques remain relevant today and offer a sustainable alternative to
modern lifestyles.

THE SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL MODEL OF CONSUMPTION

The article discusses an analytical framework to explain the asymmetries in patterns of consumption
between two groups of people in India: the omnivores and ecosystem people. The omnivores,
including industrialists and the middle class in cities, have the capability to draw upon the natural
resources of the whole country to maintain their lifestyles, while the ecosystem people, mainly rural
populations, rely on resources in their vicinity. The process of development in India has favored the
omnivores, concentrating political power and decision-making in their hands, diverting natural
resources to them, and leading to environmental degradation and displacement of ecosystem
people. The framework divides the Indian population into three socio-ecological classes: omnivores,
ecosystem people, and ecological refugees. It helps understand nature-based conflicts and socio-
ecological change at different spatial scales and can potentially explain asymmetries and inequalities
at the global level too.

FUTURE PROSPECTS
The Fallacy of the Romantic Economist
The alternative proposes that globalization will allow everyone to adopt American styles of
consumption, but this is not feasible due to ecological limits. The idea that everyone can become an
omnivore through the market is an illusion, and the idea of a global consumer society with one
billion cars or an India with 200 million cars is unsustainable.

The Fallacy of the Romantic Environmentalist

This passage is discussing the fallacy of the romantic environmentalist, which is the belief that people
in traditional or indigenous communities are content with their way of life and do not want to
participate in modernization or development. The author argues that this belief is a fallacy because
many people in traditional communities do want access to modern technology, consumer goods, and
improved resource consumption. The author cites Raymond Williams, who wrote about the benefits
of the Industrial Revolution in his boyhood in Wales, as evidence that people generally desire
progress and modernization. The author also describes an anecdote about a Dalit poet who spoke
about the significance of B R Ambedkar's suit, arguing that Ambedkar's achievements allowed him to
escape the fate that society had assigned to him as a Dalit. The author suggests that this anecdote
illustrates how people desire to improve their social position and not remain in traditional or
indigenous communities.

HIERARCHIES OF RESOURCE CONSUMPTION

The text discusses hierarchies of resource consumption and how they can be used to address
asymmetries in consumption, focusing on India as an example. Moving towards a more reliable,
efficient, and sustainable mode of consumption generally means moving towards a more intensive
and possibly unsustainable use of resources. The author suggests a new development strategy based
on five central elements: genuinely participatory democracy with a strengthening of the institutions
of local governance, open, accessible, and accountable natural resource use, decentralization,
shifting to private enterprise while ensuring no hidden subsidies, and ensuring India is a far more
equitable society. These measures could help bring population growth under control and enhance
the social power of ecological refugees and ecosystem people.

The charter of sustainable development outlined in the text applies only to one country, but the
problem of excessive resource consumption and its impact on the environment is a global issue. The
text discusses a study of the prospects for "Sustainable Germany," which shows how the excessive
use of nature and resources in the North is a principal block to greater justice in the world. The
report identifies how Germany can reduce its overconsumption and make space for improving the
lives of an increasing number of people. Overall, the text emphasizes the need for responsible
politics to address the asymmetries in consumption and promote sustainable development globally.

QUALIZING CONSUMPTION: EQUALIZING CONSUMPTION: THE POSSIBLE SOLUTION

The passage highlights the issue of inequality in consumption and suggests a solution that involves
both national and international efforts. The author argues that the provision of basic necessities,
such as clean cooking fuel, can greatly improve the quality of life for the poor in developing
countries. To achieve this, the rich in developed countries could be moderately taxed, while subsidies
could be provided for the use of clean fuels in poorer countries. However, the author notes that any
proposal that involves redistribution may be met with resistance in the current climate. The author
predicts that conflicts over consumption will increase and that questions about how much a country
and a person should consume will become a dominant issue in intellectual and political debates in
the future.
 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: MAPPING DIFFERENT
APPROACHES
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: A CHALLENGING AND CONTESTED CONCEPT
The article discusses the evolution of the concept of sustainable development, which is in contrast to
the dominant outlook of the last couple of hundred years. It highlights that for most of the last
couple of hundred years, the environment has been largely seen as external to humanity, mostly to
be used and exploited. Environmental problems were viewed mainly as local, and the relationship
between people and the environment was conceived as humanity's triumph over nature. However,
the concept of sustainable development recognizes the dependency of humans on the environment
to meet needs and well-being in a much wider sense than merely exploiting resources. It strongly
links environmental and socio-economic issues and recognizes that social justice is a crucial
component of sustainable development. The article concludes that sustainable development is a
means to eradicate poverty, meet human needs and ensure that all get a fair share of resources.

MAPPING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The interpretation of sustainable development is confusing due to the different viewpoints.
O'Riordan's categorization of environmental views as ecocentric or technocentric, which
combine with socio-economic viewpoints, can provide a framework for mapping sustainable
development viewpoints. However, sustainability and social justice do not always go hand in
hand, and linking environmental and social concerns can be based on a moral outlook rather
than a material one. To provide a generalized view of sustainable development trends, a
mapping methodology can be used with two axes covering socio-economic and
environmental views. The shaded area represents views within the sustainable development
debate, with some views focusing on only environmental or socio-economic issues. Overlaid
on this map are three broad views on the changes necessary for sustainable development:
status quo, reform, and transformation. This framework is a simplification, and exact
locations are open to debate.
Status Quo
Supporters of the status quo believe that adjustments can be made without fundamental changes to
society, decision-making or power relations. They argue that economic growth is part of the solution
to sustainable development, and that business is the driver towards sustainability. Increased
information, changing values, improved management techniques and new technology, all operating
through the market, are seen as the best means to achieve sustainable development. Most
Ecological Modernizers support the status quo and advocate for the market and technology in a
partnership of government, business, moderate environmentalists and scientists with much less
concern for equity, justice or human well-being.

Reform
This passage discusses the various approaches to addressing environmental problems, specifically
the reform approach. The reform approach acknowledges the issues and problems facing the
environment but does not believe that a collapse in ecological or social systems is likely or that
fundamental change is necessary. They believe that the present social and economic structures can
bring about the necessary changes over time, with persuasion of governments and international
organizations to introduce major reforms. The reformers focus on technology, good science and
information, modifications to the market, and reform of government.

The reformers believe that technology can bring benefits to protecting the environment, with
widespread support for a dramatic increase in energy efficiency and a change in energy use from
fossil fuels to renewable sources. Green economists argue that the market needs modification to
achieve ecological sustainability, urging the internalization of environmental costs and a recalculation
of environmental benefits.

Reformers recognize that the government has a key role in moving towards sustainable
development, with business needing pushing and controlling, taxes and subsidies changing, and
research targeting and disseminating of information. Most reformers also assume that there will be a
reform of the political system to increase democracy and participation.

The growing environmental concerns of the 1960s and 1970s had by the 1980s become part of
mainstream debates on development and economics, with reports such as The Limits to Growth
report and the World Conservation Strategy pushing environmental issues up the world’s political
agenda. The Limits to Growth report challenged the idea that growth, as defined by capitalist
economics, was the way to improve environmental quality and argued that it was damaging the
environment. The Brundtland report, on the other hand, rejected the idea that there were
environmental limits to growth. The World Conservation Strategy was one of the first to use the term
sustainable development, and its 1991 report discussed changes in socio-economic structures and
distribution.

Transformation
The passage discusses different approaches to addressing environmental and socio-economic issues,
focusing on the views of transformationists. Transformationists argue that the root cause of
environmental and socio-economic problems is the current economic and power structures of
society. They believe that fundamental changes are needed to avoid a future collapse, and this
requires social and political action involving those outside the centres of power such as indigenous
groups, the poor and working class, and women.

There are also different views among transformationists regarding sustainable development. Some
transformationists are not concerned with sustainable development and prioritize the environment
over human needs. Others prioritize social transformation to overcome social and economic
inequality, with little attention to environmental issues. However, there are also those who adopt a
transformatory approach that embraces both social and environmental questions, recognizing that
the mounting crises in the environment and society are interconnected and that the social and
environmental systems risk breakdown if radical change does not occur.

Transformationists who take a sustainable development perspective have a strong commitment to

social equity, believing that access to livelihood, good health, resources, and economic and political
decision-making are connected. They argue that in the absence of people having control over their
lives and resources, inequality and environmental degradation are inevitable. The passage also
discusses specific perspectives associated with ecoanarchist Murray Bookchin, ecofeminists, and
deep ecologists, and how they relate to the transformationist view of sustainable development.

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

What is sustainable development and what are some of the major debates surrounding it?
Sustainable development is a concept that seeks to meet the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
It is a philosophy that recognizes the interdependence between the economy, society, and
the environment, and seeks to promote balance between them.
However, there are major debates surrounding sustainable development, such as the nature
of sustainable development, the changes necessary, and the tools and actors needed for
these changes. There is no single unified philosophy of sustainable development, and people
bring their existing political and philosophical outlooks to the debates.
Further confusion arises because people use the same words to mean different things, and
there is a fundamental divide between the supporters of the status quo and a
transformation in their concept of and approach to sustainable development. The status quo
approach sees change through management, top-down, and incremental, while the
transformation view is that change will be mainly through political action working both in
and outside the existing structures.
In most of the world, the issues of sustainable development are not at the top of the world's
policy agenda, but the challenges at the core of sustainable development, the environment
and equity, will force it up the political agenda. There is growing evidence of human-caused
climate change, loss of biodiversity, and the salinization of soil, largely due to the present
production and marketing methods.
If the status quo vision of world development were true and at some future date the poor of
the world had the same living standards as those of the USA or Europe, the world would not
be able to cope. The trend is away from sustainable development, and there is no sign of an
increase in global equity; in fact, the world is becoming more unequal. The gap between the
richest 20% and the poorest 20% has widened substantially, and even within the richest
countries, inequality has increased.
In conclusion, society needs to change to achieve sustainable development, but there are
major debates as to the nature of sustainable development, the changes necessary, and the
tools and actors for these changes. The issues of sustainable development are not at the top
of the world's policy agenda, but the challenges at the core of sustainable development, the
environment and equity, will force it up the political agenda.