By Jason Manning

Mostly Harmless

Introduction

The concept of sustainable development has received much attention in the past decade. The interest in sustainable development results from the growing concern over the depletion of natural resources that we humans need for our survival. As our population continues to grow to unprecedented numbers, our environment’s resources are being stretched thinner than ever, and are unevenly distributed among the population. How can we manage to provide the best life for the most people while making sure nature’s life support systems remain intact for our children? In this paper I will show that sustainable development is a necessity by examining the scope of the problems involving the human population and our environment. Then I will examine some of the issues and concepts that lie at the heart of sustainable development. Finally, I will present some suggestions for achieving sustainability.

The Population

Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have multiplied at increasing speed, with the greatest increases occurring just in the past century. In 1927, there were 2 billion people on Earth. The human population now numbers over 6 billion. The growth rate has been slowing down since the 1970s, declining from a peak of 2.04 percent in the interval 1960-70 to 1.3 percent in 1995-2000 (Mega, 1999). While the rate of growth is now shrinking, the growth increments are still extremely large. There are still a quarter million new people every day (Pimental and Pimental, 1999). This is the size of the net increase, of births minus deaths. The vast bulk of these new people are born to developing countries. Between 1950 and 1998 the growth rate for developed regions was 0.4 percent per year, compared to 1.8 percent for less developed countries (Mega, 1999). Projections for future growth based on current trends put the human population between 7.1 and 8.0 billion in 2020 (Mega, 1999), and around 12 billion within fifty years (Pimental and Pimental, 1999).

Food production has kept pace with the population growth so far, but it may be reaching its limits. Lovejoy (1996) notes that yields of major crops are leveling out, though they are still well below the theoretical maximum (calculated according to the efficiency of photosynthesis given the needed amount of nutrients and water). Freshwater supplies are being used faster than they can be replaced by rainfall. The Ogallala aquifer, and underground source that provides water for the agriculture of the Great Plains, is being depleted 140% faster than it is recharged (Pimental and Pimental, 1999). Aquifers, unfortunately, are not bottomless. There are also limits on what the ocean can provide, as indicated by declining fish catches (Lovejoy, 1999). Even if food production can be further increased to meet the demands of an additional 6 billion people, this does not mean that such production can be sustained. While cereal production has increased along with other indicators of well-being, such figures cannot show the state of natural resources (Daily, et al., 1998). That is, increases in production may require the depletion of resources that are needed for future production. A farmer who produces a higher yield of corn by consuming all the groundwater and soil nutrients will not be able to grow another crop the next season. Pimental and Pimental (1999) argue that during the past 40 years 30 percent of the world’s cropland has been lost to erosion and overuse. It takes 500 years for 25 mm of fertile soil to form naturally; 150mm is needed to grow crops. Soil fertility is declining in many countries, and every year 21 million hectares of cropland is lost (Mega, 1999). Increasing food production means putting more stress on the ecosystems we depend on. If the current amount of cropland is not enough, and is itself being lost, then this forces people to cultivate new land. Over 60 percent of the world’s deforestation is caused by the need for cropland (Pimental and Pimental, 1999), contributing to a loss of 150 million hectares of forest between 1980 and 1990 (Mega, 1999). Increasing the use of fertilizers and pesticides to achieve higher yields brings with it other problems. The affect of fertilizer runoff on aquatic ecosystems has become a matter of concern, and the notorious pesticide DDT provides an example of the potential dangers of these chemicals. Furthermore, though fertilizer use is increasing, many crop varieties are becoming less responsive to it (Lovejoy, 1996).

Global Resource Depletion

The human population’s rate of consumption is threatening our planet’s finite resources. Already mentioned is the loss of croplands and forests, as well as the overuse of freshwater sources and the exhaustion of fish populations. According to Raven (2002), “Over the past half century, we have lost a fifth of the world’s topsoil, a fifth of its agricultural land, and a third of its forests” (p.954). Other natural resources are being consumed as well. Of great importance to energy-dependent industrialized countries is the rapid depletion of fossil fuels. Worldwide, humans use 8,000 million tons oil equivalent each year as fuel. At present consumption rates, Earth’s remaining oil should last about 40 years. Without new energy sources, fossil fuels will be used up by the end of the 21st century (Lovejoy, 1996). Often not thought of as a resource, biodiversity is being lost at a frightening rate. Up to 1000 species per million (0.1 percent) are lost each year, the highest rate since the extinction of the dinosaurs (Raven, 2002). Given the complex relationships between species, this destruction may have enormous consequences. The extinction of so many life forms constitutes a loss of potentially valuable genetic resources as well as a threat to the stability of ecosystems. Also being damaged from overuse are the natural systems (sinks) that absorb our waste. Release of CFCs has caused serious damage to the planet’s ozone layer, which protects terrestrial life from ultraviolet rays. Even if no more were released it would take as long as 100 years for the ozone layer to recover to a pre-industrial state (Goodland, 1995). Also altering the atmosphere is the buildup of CO2, released during the burning of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide blocks radiation from the sun as it leaves Earth, trapping it instead of allowing it to radiate back into space. This leads to the greenhouse effect- the warming of Earth due to trapped solar radiation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that if current output trends last another fifty years, the global temperature could increase by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius (Lovejoy, 1996). Such an increase would alter weather patterns and damage ecosystems whose species need a certain temperature range to survive and reproduce. This could also lead to melting of glacial and polar ice, causing rising sea levels and coastal flooding.

Technological Optimism

There are many optimists who insist that new technology can save humanity from exhausting our life-support systems. While technological innovations certainly have the potential to make our management of resources more efficient, and will probably be instrumental in achieving sustainability, they should not be relied on as a solution in and of themselves. A “technology will provide” attitude fails to recognize the nature of environmental constraints. It should be realized that production of technology itself is ultimately limited to the natural resources available. Also, once resources are depleted, they become the limiting factors to production. Fishery production is limited by the number of fish to be caught, not the size, speed, or number of fishing boats (Pimental and Pimental, 1999; Goodland, 1995). The Earth is a system containing a fixed amount of material, into which a relatively steady amount of energy flows by way of the sun. Increases in technology may allow us to better manage our resources, but they can by no means make a finite Earth become infinite.

What is Sustainable Development?

Out of these realities comes the concept of sustainable development. The exact definition of sustainable development is hard to pin down, as those with conflicting agendas use the term differently. In the 1987 United Nations report “Our Common Future” (also called the Bruntland Report) defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Willers, 1994, p.1146). The World Wildlife fund defines it as “Improvement in the quality of human life within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems” (Goodland, 1995, p.4). The idea of sustainable development thus includes not only ensuring that there are enough resources for the human population as a whole, but also that these resources are distributed to benefit as many as possible.

Willers (1994) asserts that the political and business elites have turned the concept of sustainable development into a way to promote their own short-term interests. He cites passages from the Bruntland Report stating that faster economic growth is desired and that “A five to tenfold increase in manufacturing will be needed output will be needed” (p.1146). These goals do not seem in line with the definitions of sustainability given above. The Clinton administration’s Council on Sustainable Development was well stocked with representatives of large corporations. One member, Kenneth Derr, was chairman and CEO of Chevron. Chevron happens to fund several anti-environmental groups and was fined $6.5 million for criminal violation of the Clean Water Act (Willers, 1994). Though a1992 UN commission conference reversed the call for growth of the Bruntland Report (Goodland, 1995), one truly wonders if the worlds elites will be willing to sacrifice profits now for long-term goals.

The writings of many economists who discuss sustainable development are optimistic, for their equations are concerned with keeping up levels of profit and production despite shrinking resources. But as Goodland (1995) states, “Any consumption that is based on depletion of natural capital is not income and should not be counted as such” (p.14). To destroy natural capital for short term profit is to liquidate one’s assets, and will result in a net loss of total capital. Corporations and economists seem to be using the term sustainable development to mean “sustainable growth.” Goodland (1995) argues that growth is by definition not sustainable. Logically, a finite planet cannot tolerate infinite increases in human population or manufacturing output. To develop something is to make it better, to grow is merely to get bigger. With a shrinking resource base and flooded waste sinks, further growth is not a viable option.

Goodland (1995) makes a point to distinguish between environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Social sustainability requires maintaining human and moral capital, increasing community participation, and reducing poverty. Economic sustainability is defined as keeping economic capital stable. Environmental sustainability requires that the source and sink capacities of our planet not be exceeded. These three types of sustainability are related, and none can fully succeed without the others.

Reducing global inequality is an important feature of sustainable development. Currently, 20 percent of the human population uses 80 percent of the resources (Raven, 2002; Mega, 1999), and one-eighth to one-half of the global population is malnourished (Raven, 2002; Pimental and Pimental, 1999). Keep in mind that the total production of food has so far kept above the total demand. These people are malnourished for socioeconomic and political reasons. Daily, et al. (1998) point out that food shortages are a local problem, not a global problem. Succeeding in keeping global food production ahead of population growth does not ensure that everyone will be fed. Food, sanitation, and medical technologies are not evenly distributed. Life expectancy in the year 1995 was 12 years higher in the developed countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) than it was in less developed non-OECD countries (Mega, 1999).

To summarize, the goals of sustainable development are to keep human consumption at rates that can be sustained indefinitely, and to reduce inequality and improve the quality of life for as many people as possible.

What Does Sustainability Require?

How does humanity sustain its resources? One vital step is to limit our population growth. Population growth is no more sustainable than any other kind of growth; it can’t continue forever on a planet that has boundaries. More than just keeping our population from exceeding the carrying capacity, the above definition of sustainable development requires the population be kept at an optimal level. While the Earth might tolerate a human population at two to three times its present size, it is estimated that it can only support 2 billion at a relatively high standard of living (Pimental & Pimental, 1999). Logically, to achieve the goal of limiting consumption while at the same time achieving the goal of improving the quality of life, population must be below the theoretical maximum. The same amount of resources shared more ways means less resources for all.

What would be required to halt population growth? Growth has already slowed, stopped, or declined below replacement levels in many OECD countries. The fertility rates of wealthy countries are twice as low as those of poor countries, to the effect that 75 percent of the population growth of the European Union is due to in-migration (Mega, 1999). Many demographers take it for granted that since currently wealthy countries experienced declines in birth rates coinciding with increases in industrialization that the same pattern will hold true for all countries. In other words, as developing countries become developed technologically and economically, their fertility will decline. The theory behind the assumption is that birth rates declined in industrialized urbanized nations due to declines in infant mortality (less children were needed to ensure that one survived) and decreasing economic value of children (children were no longer valuable as farm labor or social security). Will currently developing countries follow this pattern as well?

Cook and Repetto (1982) examined the historical demographic transition in Hungary, a country that resembled current third world nations when it began its transition in the nineteenth century. They found that rather than urbanization or industrialization, reductions in inequality had the greatest impact on Hungary’s fertility. Others have suggested that elevating the status of women will help. Lovejoy (1996) observes that the state of Kerala, India, achieved declines in growth similar to China’s (famous for its one-child-per-couple policy) but though increased health, education, and female equality rather than coercion.

Reducing global inequality and helping poor nations develop may help reduce fertility. What is required to for this goal? For many, the preferred way to reduce inequality would be to elevate the income and standards of living of poor countries to that of rich countries. The question arises: if 20 percent of the people are using 80 percent of the resources, how many resources will be needed for the other 80 percent of the people to live like them? It is estimated that two extra planets would be required for the current world population to have the living standards of industrialized countries (Raven, 2002). Once again, environmental constraints come into play. Goodman (1995) argues that environmental sustainability does not allow for continued economic growth, and that the unpopular idea of lowering inequality through redistribution of wealth is much more realistic. A $2000 level of per capita income, a realistic possibility for poor nations, may provide 80 percent of the welfare that the $2100 average of wealthy nations provides. If true, this means that developed nations should be able to get by on significantly less income. To bring about better conditions for all requires a restructuring of our current institutions and economic systems.

Here inequality and consumption are entwined. While poor nations make up the bulk of the word’s population growth, it is the rich nations that consume most of the resources. Because of this industrialized nations must lead the way toward sustainability by bringing their own activities within the bounds of the environment. Human settlements don’t just damage the ecosystem they are built on. As cities and countries import resources and export wastes, they develop “ecological footprints” that expand well beyond their boundaries. The ecological footprint of London, for example, is 125 times larger than the city itself, while that of the Netherlands extends to 14-15 times the nation’s size (Mega, 1999).

Giving the increasing urbanization of the population, sustainable development requires changes in cities. Mega (1999) insists that in addition to urban planning, changes in lifestyle are necessary to lower consumption. Cities should be designed for increased efficiency in energy and water use. A system of monitoring and repairing leakages could reduce water loss from rates that currently reach as high as 30 percent. The prevention of waste must take a priority, and the waste that is produced must be viewed as a resource and utilized for whatever uses possible.

The sustainable city will likely be car-free. Cars lead to traffic, fossil fuel consumption, and production of greenhouse gases. A city without private cars would be not only less damaging to the environment but two to five times cheaper. Getting rid of cars would require that efficient public transportation be developed. As far as the actual structure of the city goes, small, compact cities would be more efficient than large urban sprawl. Cities constructed in this way would grow like living cells, by multiplication rather than just increases in size. These small cells would each contain all that the residents need within walking or biking distance, and would be linked to each other by efficient public transport (Mega, 1999).

Finding new sources of energy is a must for sustainability. Use of wind, solar, and geothermal generated power is increasing. Most of this growth has taken place outside of the US, which still consumes 59 percent of the oil (Raven, 2002). The ultimate source of fuels on our planet is the sun. Until now we have utilized the sun’s energy mostly indirectly through non-renewable fuels formed from the remains of long dead plants and animals. Given the limited amount of and environmental damage caused by these fossil fuels, we must learn to do what plants have been doing for millions of years and directly harness solar energy. A mere .01 percent of the solar energy that reaches Earth would be enough to maintain global energy consumption at present levels (Lovejoy, 1996).

Implementation

How then is sustainable development to be implemented? How are local food shortages to be addressed? Who will work to halt population growth and redress global inequality? When and how will we make the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy? How can citizens of developed nations be convinced to cut their consumption?

Here unfortunately the proposed answers are more vague. Daily et al. (1998) propose that public investment in the local technologies and institutions of poor countries is needed, thought exactly what this constitutes this investment is not mentioned. The researchers also propose the creation of what they call “foresight institutions” (p.90) to inform both higher and lower policy makers of local trends in food production.

Goodman (1999) stresses the need for changes in how economic costs and benefits are calculated. Currently liquidation is being called profit, which it is not. Often only the immediate costs of policies are taken into account, not total costs. For instance, when one considers the military costs of obtaining oil from the Middle East, the price of oil rises from $18-20 per barrel to $50-100 per barrel (Lovejoy, 1999). To say that switching to solar power or other alternative forms of fuel is unprofitable is to completely ignore the fact that the US spends approximately $21.4 billion to maintain our hold on oil from the Persian Gulf (Raven, 2002). How high would the cost of oil be if one considers the cost of destruction caused by rising sea levels due to global warming?

Raven (2002), addresses the need for cooperation between scientists in different nations, both rich and poor. Direct partnerships are necessary to reduce the gaps in knowledge and technology and to address global and local problems. Likewise Mega (1999) suggests that partnerships between the public and private organizations had the potential for great change, and calls for increased citizen participation.

Lovejoy (1996) promotes the transition to solar energy along with an increase in energy efficient buildings and transport. The transition seems to be technologically possible, but is blocked by the current economic structure and powerful oil companies. As Willers (1994) notes, vested interests motivated by short-term profit seem to have much influence on governmental sustainability programs.

It seems unlikely that real progress toward sustainability will come from the world’s political leaders. As Goodland (1995) remarks, politicians consider the consequences of accepting the need for sustainability to be unacceptable. Who would get elected on a platform of curbing consumption, population growth, and fossil fuel use? Certainly no petroleum companies would supply campaign donations. Consider President Bush’s rejection of the Kyoto Protocols, an international treaty aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The implementation of sustainability seems to demand capable supranational authority. If the United Nations were a true world-governing body, international laws regarding resource use and inequality could be enforced, and even powerful nations could be brought into compliance.

Responsibility will also have to rest on the people, as individuals and groups. To truly achieve sustainability will require a fundamental change in many human cultures. The right of citizens of the US to drive fuel-inefficient SUVs will have to be categorized with yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. Rights end where they impinge on the rights of others, in this case the right of the world to have an ozone layer. Conspicuous consumption will have to cease being a status symbol and become a taboo. Developing nations will have to come to value small families over large ones. Living within the environments limits and cooperating with foreign nations will have to become a permanent part of every nation’s culture. The world must be acculturated to accept these concepts. How this is to be done is beyond the scope of this article.

Conclusions

To summarize, the human population is continuing to grow and increase consumption while resources are being used faster than they can be replaced. The total amount of production and consumption masks huge inequalities between the world’s wealthy and poor nations. Out of these problems comes the concept of sustainable development, which has as its goals the improvement of quality of life in a way that can be sustained long-term. There is much research examining what changes will be necessary to achieve sustainable development’s goals, but there is little agreement on how to implement these changes on local and global scales.

Sustainability is no longer an issue of the future, but one of the present. As Goodman (1995) observes, the question is not whether sustainability will be achieved. It most certainly will be. The question is whether humanity will bring itself into equilibrium within its ecosystem, or whether the ecosystem will do it for us. The first option requires sacrifice, but the second will surely be worse.

References

Goodland, R., 1995. The Concept of Environmental Sustainability. Annual Review of Ecological Systems. No. 26, p.1-24

Raven, P., 2002. Science, Sustainability, and the Human Prospect. Science. Vol. 297, No. 5583, Issue 9, August. p.954-958

Daily, G., Dasgupta, P., Crosson, P., Bolin, B., du Guerny, J., Folke, C., Jansson, A.M., Kautsky, N., Kinzig, B.O.A., Levin, S., Males, K.-G., Pinstrup-Anderson, P., Siniscalco, D., Walker, B., 1998. Food Production, Population Growth, and the Environment. Science. Washington. August 28, Vol. 281, Issue 5381, p.1291-1292

Willers, B., 1994. Sustainable Development: A New World Deception. Conservation Biology. Vol. 8, No.4, December. p.1146-1148

Mega, V., 1999. Environmental, Demographic, and Territorial Dimensions of Sustainable Development. Ekistics. Vol. 66, January, p.63-81

Pimental M., & Pimental, D., 1999. Population Growth, Environmental Resources, and the Global Availability of Food. Social Research. Vol.66, No. 1. Spring. p.417- 428

Lovejoy, D., 1996. Limits to Growth? Science and Society. Vol. 60, No.3, Fall. p.266- 278.

Cook, M.S.L., & Repetto, R., 1982. The Relevance of the Developing Countries to Demographic Transition Theory: Further Lessons From the Hungarian Experience. Population Studies. Vol. 36, Issue 1. March. p.105-128

Sourced from http://www.angelfire.com/biz3/mostlyharmless/sustainable.html [broken link] with permission of the author.