Economy and sustainable development

Environment Minister Champika RANAWAKA

Most people use two words, development and growth of the economy, synonymously. Others give a wide definition for development, incorporating it with social values, social status (health, education, technology and literature) and political structure. So under normal circumstances development means growth in any aspect of the economic or social spheres. Nowadays people are questioning the validity of the measuring rod used for determining growth since using different parameters gives an entirely different picture of the status of growth in a country. Sticking to the oft used measuring rod can give a false sense of prosperity for some countries at the cost of others.

Here we tried to evolve a new definition for development. We redefine development on a comprehensive world view value system or paradigm in relation to the environment.

In its simplest form “paradigm” means a world view or sort of an all-pervading structure which is based on fundamentals, values, hypotheses or episteme. So, according to this meaning there can be many models within the same paradigm (for example, the Newtonian paradigm of physics contains both particle and wave models which are quite distinct from each other).

If we look at the history of humankind we could recognize at least three types of development paradigms.

1. Primeval development

In this paradigm, the relationship between humankind and the environment was in dynamic equilibrium, without disturbing the ecosystem locally or globally. The people worshipped environmental phenomena as Gods. Humankind based on that culture formed an integral part of the environment.

2. Coexistent development

In this paradigm the relationship between humankind and the environment affected the dynamic equilibrium of the eco system locally but maintained it globally. That was done consciously. Even urban development did not cause serious damage to the environment. Sustainable cities were built. Diverse social systems based on economic, technological and cultural models existed.

3. Predatory development

This development paradigm bloomed in Western Europe and later spread to the whole world. It changed the dynamic equilibrium of the ecosystems locally, regionally and, more importantly, globally. This development is totally based on fossil fuels and in the belief that human knowledge and technological innovation would solve any problem or crisis that arises (technological optimism), so that human kind would be able to achieve infinite growth. Within this paradigm, there existed a few social models. The capitalist model based on private property and the communist model based on State owned property were the two most competitive models. After 1989, the market based private property system dominated the world but, to an extent, State intervention too played an important role (China, Russia and Singapore).

Now we are living in the predatory development paradigm. But it was also hailed as a modern development paradigm because it incorporated modernization - the scientific outlook, rapid industrial growth, market based competition an democratically elected governance systems. There are various social models dependent on nationality, religion and ideology. But it is now accepted that the mainstream social model is based on market phenomena. There are debates on the extent to which the State should intervene. Now, due to the economic recession, the State becomes more involved in prioritizing and managing market trends.

The question is: would it be possible to sustain this development model? In 1968, the Club of Rome clearly identified two limiting factors - scarcity of resources and pollution due to growth-oriented development, and they predicted that due to these limits humankind will be compelled to abandon its growth-oriented development and associated life patterns by 2050. That means this development paradigm is not sustainable.

As far as the global environment is concerned, all the abiotic resources - land, minerals, fuels, water and atmospheric gases are limited in nature, and excessive use of these resources causes scarcity. In addition, pollution of waterways, erosion of the soil, and pollution of the atmosphere further restrict the use of these resources. Hence, scarcity of resources coupled with pollution causes serious environmental destruction.

In the present-day humankind’s ecological footprint - that is the resource base needed to sustain the demand - is about 2.23 global ha per person annually, whereas the bio capacity - that is the actual capacity of the Earth to supply resources - is 1.78 global ha per person annually. That means we are running at an ecological debit of 0.45 ha per capita, or we consume resources at a rate that is 25 per cent more than the rate at which they are being replenished. From 1976 that deficit has been widening. Like what led to the global credit crunch, we have limited time to address the issues, and postponing corrective measures may lead to an ecological credit crunch on a global scale.

E.F. Schumacher (of small is beautiful fame) clearly showed to the world that the resource of paramount importance is energy. If we are able to have an infinite energy source for production, then we would be able to recycle material from generation to generation overcoming the scarcity. But the quantity of energy is limited. It could not be recycled either (due to entropy and other reasons). Eighty-six per cent of the global economic activities are based on fossil fuels. Now we are experiencing the oil peak. After 1989 or consumption was greater than the rate at which new oil reserves were being discovered. After 2015 oil production might decrease. From 2050, oil will no longer be an economically viable energy source.

Burning of fossil fuels causes other global problems. The IPCCC reported that 70 per cent of the global warming is due to burning of fossil fuels. Heat pollution from this source would be the greatest environmental catastrophe that humankind would ever face. To avoid this, IPCCC suggested a Carbon Budget of 1456 trillion tons of carbon for the whole century, but at the present rate of carbon emissions it will expire in 2032. If we are to avoid an environmental disaster and at the same time continue business as usual we will need another two planets to sustain this development model! So it is clear that heat pollution is far more serious and immediate problem than the impending scarcity of energy, although the two issues linked.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change presented for signature at the Rio conference (UNCED - 1992) and its legal instrument, the Kyoto Protocol - 1997, are limited to conventions and discussions. The so-called developed world or the global worst polluters (annex 1 countries) acknowledged that global warming is the result of their excessive emissions and promised to cut their emission levels by five per cent relative to the 1990 level of emission threshold world average is 4110kg C02 per capita. Various mechanisms and time-frames have been discussed and agreed upon. But nothing substantial has happened. Therefore, they have now to cut their emission levels by 25-40 per cent from 2009-2020. Ironically, the effects of climate change would skew towards the low emitting countries. Environmental justice is denied. The right to live of the people of the low emitting countries is being violated.

The criteria relating to the Kyoto Protocol are now outdated. The proposed emission cuts (the Bali road map) are not enough to save humanity. There should be objective criteria to save our planet. According to IPCCC’s Carbon Budget, the environmentally permissible carbon quota per person for 2009 is 2,170Kg. In Sri Lanka, each person emits 660Kg annually. In USA and Canada it is 22,000kg per person - well over 10 times the permissible level. The world average is 4700kg, that is, twice the permissible level. What these data show is that low emitting countries like ours could not emit more because our space has already been exploited by developed or global worst polluter countries without our consent. And, more importantly, they are exploiting future generations’ quota as well. If we adopt the scientific criteria of IPCCC, these so-called developed countries should cut their emission level by at least 70-90 per cent by 2020. Alternatively, as they owe environmental or carbon debt to others they should compensate those countries by establishing an adaptation fund. Now these developed countries adopt delaying tactics by setting out long-term goals (eg. by 2050 we will cut emissions by 50 per cent), a pledge which could only be honoured by their children, while at the same time blaming developing countries for increasing emission.

In order to fight climate change, we need new criteria for emission cuts based on IPCCC’s Carbon Budget and there should be an adaptation fund estimating the actual cost of climate change, new monetary institutions, and a new international climate change court where culprits could be brought to book and environmental justice ensured. Failing this, a new form of global terrorism could emerge, that is, climate change related terrorism.

Another very important limiting factor that the Club of Rome did not recognize properly was the limits in human knowledge and science.

This is because of the Eurocentric ideology. European ideologists generally tend to believe in hidden reality or essentialism. That may be their religious consciousness, in their belief in absolute gods, spirits and other things. Derrida identified this as a logo centrism where European people need absolute categories to explain the world. And also they believe that the world has been built upon a grand plan and human beings slowly progress towards revealing these objective truths by using scientific methodology.

Thomas Kuhn and Paul Ferabond showed to Europe that there was no one method to gather knowledge, and diverse sciences could exist within a given paradigm. So there are diverse methods to gather knowledge which could not be hierarchical.

Debate on space time in the macro world and the existence of objects in the micro world revealed that there is no objective reality or space and time as such and they are relative to the knowledge, mind, instruments and culture! That means everything should possess a different existence in different contexts. So dismissing the myth about objective reality and generalization of everything is a necessary condition to develop new concepts.

Due to various reasons world leaders are now, at least verbally, using the term sustainable development. They all agree to explore the possibility of ensuring that development remains sustainable. So we too should explore it as a new paradigm of development.

“Sustainable” means long lasting, that is, over hundreds of thousand years. But modern or predatory development could not be sustained after 50-100 years. It has been operating since the mid 19th Century. It will be destined to collapse in the mid 21st Century. As far as the history of humankind is concerned, this is like a lightning strike occurring within a day. Various criterias are put forward to redefine sustainable development in the modern context.

One such definition says that sustainable development means that “per capita utility or wellbeing is increasing over time”.

Another view of sustainable development is that “it is likely to achieve lasting satisfaction of human needs and improvement of the quality of human life” - (Robort Allen - How to save the world) Sustainable development is also defined as development that “should meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. - (Edward Narzior Economics, Natural resources scarcity and development)

So we can define sustainable development as a new development which treats all living beings equally and where they share its capital as well as natural wealth equally among the present and future generations while maximizing the wellbeing and happiness of humankind. Ecologically it would be the new development which would preserve the dynamic equilibrium of the planet while enhancing ecosystem diversity.

This kind of development could not be achieved locally or nationally. Whether we like it or not greedy people integrated our civilisation tightly. Therefore, we need to reach world consensus on this. And also we need to take practical steps to ensure a smooth transition from present development to sustainable development. Intermediate or interim structures are needed to have that kind of transformation.

The new paradigm should be based on new ideology. Humanity, while preserving its identity, is nevertheless a part of the environment and could not be separated from it. Ideas such as humanity being able to conquer the planet or that it is ecologically superior to other forms of life should be abandoned. That type of thinking creates humans as cancers of the environment. Global ecosystems are like self-sustaining organisms. They include biotic forms as well as abiotic components like water and atmospheric gases and the different components of the ecosystem interact with each other. They undergo changes depending on their role in the ecosystem. Relationships and relational reality exist. That kind of holistic approach is needed to evolve the new sustainable development. Sustainable development is constructed on three pillars, based on green consciousness.

1. Green Economy

2. Green Governance

3. Green culture and society

Green Governance means that democracy should be practised having due regard to the aspirations of other living beings and future generations - those who do not have votes. So the democratic values should be extended to represent these unrepresented groups’ rights as well.

Everything could not be controlled in monetary terms. So, a strong legal framework should be introduced that will curtail excessive use of resources and the environment by individuals and nations. International conventions, protocols and national constitutions should reflect a new human rights charter and a living rights charter based on environmental justice. For instance, the carbon footprint and an ecological index should be recognised as a measure of human rights.

Green Culture and Society includes a few important features.

1. Green technology and green knowledge systems.

2. Cultural diversity based on a simple life pattern. Extreme poverty and extreme affluence should be eliminated - on more meta narratives and mega cultural patterns. Equity and diversity should be the guiding principles.

3. Each religion and ethnic custom should be given new reading so that people could happily live in harmony with nature. Any ideology which preaches otherwise should be suppressed.

Legal punishment could control people but to achieve a long lasting solution human beings themselves should exercise self control and change their behaviourial patterns for the sake of future generations.

 (Courtesy: Towards a New Green Era)