The concept of
sustainable development has been criticised for its somewhat fuzzy
content, which has brought some people to call it a catchword or a shallow
concept (Luke 2005). Indeed, critics towards sustainable
development come from various backgrounds.
There was initially criticism from the corporate sector, especially industrial
producers who claimed that sustainable development was a threat to their
competitiveness. These criticisms have lowered at the beginning of the 21st
century as corporations have more and more endorsed sustainable development
at least in their public discourse.
The concept of sustainable development is also being criticised by
environmentalists who claim that it does not give enough priority to the
protection of nature. By balancing environmental aspects with social and
economical, it is especially lowering support for strategies of environmental
conservation. Others state that sustainable development does not
challenge the idea of development, which represents the real threat to
the Earth's resources (Latouche 1999).
According to them, the expression sustainable development is an oxymoron and
it is only by turning away from the idea of development that a sustainable
use of earth resources can be achieved.
Some also
criticise the fact that, because of the importance given to
negotiations, more powerful actors such as corporations are able to redefine
sustainable development and what it means in line with their own
interests.
There are also ethical and practical problems associated with the implementation
of sustainable development. The arguments for sustainable development claim
that it is necessary because if the current trends of development are
maintained, earth resources will be insufficient for all humanity and negative
consequences such as the greenhouse effect associated with C02 emissions will
increase. What has led to this situation is mainly the fast industrialisation
of developed countries within the 20th century. Developing countries claim
that sustainable development puts constraints on their ability to develop and
offer their population the same standards of living than more developed
countries have reached. The Brundtland Report foresaw special conditions for
developing countries by indicating that they had a right to development.
These specific conditions have been taken in account for instance in the
Kyoto Protocol on the mandatory
reduction of greenhouse gasses which states that "The
share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet
their social and development needs" (UN (United Nations) 1998). Countries such as China and
India are considered as developing countries and must therefore exonerated of
the mandatory reduction although they are currently undergoing fast economic
growth and are accountable for about 22% of the world's CO2
emissions in 2003 (UNDP (United Nations Development Program) 2006).
Despite these criticisms, other authors affirm the notion of sustainability is
interesting precisely because of its openness and lack of rigid
definition. No single actor or group of actors can claim to have found
the "true" definition of sustainability, even though some do try to.
This limits the room for top-down expert-based decision-making.
Decisions must be the outcome of a process involving all actors
(Stengers 1999).
This openness in decision-making has become unavoidable because of the
complexity of the matters. When reasoning in terms of sustainable development,
all aspects of life are intertwined and even the most mundane action are
linked to global matters such as ozone depletion:
"Press the most innocent aerosol button and you'll be heading for the Antarctic,
and from there to the University of California at Irvine, the mountain ranges
of Lyon, the chemistry of inert gases, and then maybe to the United Nations,
but this fragile thread will be broken into as many segments as there are pure
disciplines. By all means, they seem to say, let us not mix up knowledge,
interest, justice and power." (Latour 1993, p. 2)
As it is shown with this example, many of the global problems with which
humanity is confronted cannot be classified as purely natural or social.
They are what authors such as Bruno Latour have labelled hybrids, which mix
social and natural aspects regardless of human defined categories. Neither
can they fully be grasped by only one array of activity usually used to found
a decision such as science, the economy, the law or polity.
Sustainable development, because it takes into account environmental,
economical and social aspects and also focuses on the relationships between
these aspects offer possibilities to cope with those hybrid matters.
|
In your opinion, are the risks that the concept of
sustainable development might be exploited higher than its
benefits?
|