3
According to Wackernagel and Rees (1996),
debates regarding sustainable development partly
originated from the general fault that we cannot
separate real development from pure growth. The
authors of the present book fully agree with this
statement. Even Brundtland’s report is not completely consistent in interpreting and using development. It recognises that the growing population
of the third world can be supplied with goods
only with increasing the quantity of products but
it also declares states that the classic economic
considerations for increasing production have to
be limited. To increase and limit at the same time
is of course impossible, regulations steering
towards smaller environmental impacts of production, however, are possible.
The definition, however, contains an element
which neither the authors nor their critics considered in detail, namely, time. Regarding the definition, “future generations” suggest time for
sustainability. In other settings time also appears
in the definition of sustainable development, like
“Earth is a loan from our grandchildren”. These
phrases are nice, sonorous and clear for everyone
but are aimed for the wider public instead of scientists as these can be interpreted in multiple
ways. In one case “future generations” suggest
that sustainable development has no time constraints while “a loan from our grandchildren”
extends over only two generations.
The most important elements of the decade long
debate associated with sustainable development
are summarised in the work of Mebratu (1998).
Over one or two decades, in many cases, the
term development disappeared from the term sustainable development and not only in common
speech but also in professional analyses of high
standard the term sustainability became independent with various scales. According to Williams
and Millington (2004),
sustainable development is a notoriously difficult,
slippery and elusive concept to pin down.
They analyse in detail the essence of humanfocused weak sustainability and biospherefocused strong sustainability perceptions. They
consider the holistic view of geography to be
adequate to study the issue.
Constanza and Daly (1992) analyse the relationship between sustainable development and
natural capital and criticise economists who talk
about sustainable growth. According to them,
development is: improvement in organization
without size change.
The essence of weak sustainability (soft interpretation of sustainable development) is that various “capital types” (economic, human, natural,
cultural, etc.) may replace each other. In the opinion of the authors, this idea is based on a fundamental mistake. According to certain economists,
natural capital losses can be compensated with
human capital of the same quantity or value. For
example, if one hectare of tropical rainforest is
cleared, man can plant a new forest in the place
making—according to the above concept—forestry sustainable. However, the quality of natural
and that of planted rainforests is different because
the biomass of planted forest reaches that of a
natural one later. The abundance of species in a
natural forest cannot be matched by that of a
planted one, and the same is true regarding the
diverse ecological functions.
The distorted view of the theory is even more
apparent when it states that other type of produced capital could also be used to replace
cleared woodlands (e.g. money on an account
equalling the financial value of the forest).
Those who support this idea have not recognised yet that frequently the money of rich countries comes from exhausting the natural capital of
other countries, ultimately from the common
(natural) property of the world. The seeming economic sustainability of Japan or the Netherlands
for example is dependent on a high grade of
import (Wackernagel and Rees 1996).
If we accept the above soft interpretation and
act accordingly in the future to sustain the society,
the global ecological system is going to collapse
in time. Unfortunately, we do not know the thresholds of our acts exceeding which irreversible processes would be triggered in the living system of
the Earth causing the tragedy of humanity as our
life is fundamentally dependent on the biosphere.
According to a slightly modified interpretation of sustainability, the substitution of differ1.2 Sustainable Development
According to Wackernagel and Rees (1996),
debates regarding sustainable development partly
originated from the general fault that we cannot
separate real development from pure growth. The
authors of the present book fully agree with this
statement. Even Brundtland’s report is not completely consistent in interpreting and using development. It recognises that the growing population
of the third world can be supplied with goods
only with increasing the quantity of products but
it also declares states that the classic economic
considerations for increasing production have to
be limited. To increase and limit at the same time
is of course impossible, regulations steering
towards smaller environmental impacts of production, however, are possible.
The definition, however, contains an element
which neither the authors nor their critics considered in detail, namely, time. Regarding the definition, “future generations” suggest time for
sustainability. In other settings time also appears
in the definition of sustainable development, like
“Earth is a loan from our grandchildren”. These
phrases are nice, sonorous and clear for everyone
but are aimed for the wider public instead of scientists as these can be interpreted in multiple
ways. In one case “future generations” suggest
that sustainable development has no time constraints while “a loan from our grandchildren”
extends over only two generations.
The most important elements of the decade long
debate associated with sustainable development
are summarised in the work of Mebratu (1998).
Over one or two decades, in many cases, the
term development disappeared from the term sustainable development and not only in common
speech but also in professional analyses of high
standard the term sustainability became independent with various scales. According to Williams
and Millington (2004),
sustainable development is a notoriously difficult,
slippery and elusive concept to pin down.
They analyse in detail the essence of humanfocused weak sustainability and biospherefocused strong sustainability perceptions. They
consider the holistic view of geography to be
adequate to study the issue.
Constanza and Daly (1992) analyse the relationship between sustainable development and
natural capital and criticise economists who talk
about sustainable growth. According to them,
development is: improvement in organization
without size change.
The essence of weak sustainability (soft interpretation of sustainable development) is that various “capital types” (economic, human, natural,
cultural, etc.) may replace each other. In the opinion of the authors, this idea is based on a fundamental mistake. According to certain economists,
natural capital losses can be compensated with
human capital of the same quantity or value. For
example, if one hectare of tropical rainforest is
cleared, man can plant a new forest in the place
making—according to the above concept—forestry sustainable. However, the quality of natural
and that of planted rainforests is different because
the biomass of planted forest reaches that of a
natural one later. The abundance of species in a
natural forest cannot be matched by that of a
planted one, and the same is true regarding the
diverse ecological functions.
The distorted view of the theory is even more
apparent when it states that other type of produced capital could also be used to replace
cleared woodlands (e.g. money on an account
equalling the financial value of the forest).
Those who support this idea have not recognised yet that frequently the money of rich countries comes from exhausting the natural capital of
other countries, ultimately from the common
(natural) property of the world. The seeming economic sustainability of Japan or the Netherlands
for example is dependent on a high grade of
import (Wackernagel and Rees 1996).
If we accept the above soft interpretation and
act accordingly in the future to sustain the society,
the global ecological system is going to collapse
in time. Unfortunately, we do not know the thresholds of our acts exceeding which irreversible processes would be triggered in the living system of
the Earth causing the tragedy of humanity as our
life is fundamentally dependent on the biosphere.
According to a slightly modified interpretation of sustainability, the substitution of differ1.2 Sustainable Development