citizens. Whether or not this is precisely true is a hotly-debated issue, and this study
makes no attempt to settle the issue (World Bank 2002: 4).
In practice this means that an indicator of zero or more is viewed as sustainable
development, whereas negative savings indicate that total net wealth is in decline
and policy change is necessary (ibid.: 5). The most successful role models from this
point of view are all those countries that apply high royalties on the extraction of
their natural resources and use these to improve the social and human capital of
their population, which will then spur further growth.
The 2011 World Bank report, The Changing Wealth of Nations, calculated how
high the “hypothetical produced capital” of several countries would be, had they
reinvested the royalties from their environmental capital accordingly. Trinidad and
Tobago and Gabon could have tripled the social, human, and manufactured capital
they produced between 1995 and 2005 (World Bank 2011: 16). By contrast
Norway and its oil industry is always cited as the exemplary star performer.
So while Adjusted Net Saving acknowledges the growth/environment trade-off
to a certain degree, its assumption of easy capital substitutability does not provide
many warning signals on Planetary Boundaries. Instead it champions development
role models that cannot continue if sustainable development is to be achieved.
Norway is impressively rich in all forms of capital because it possesses and sells a
lot of oil. The IEA predicts that about two-thirds of the oil that could be extracted
and used needs to stay in the ground if climate protection goals are to be reached.
How can a country win the best practice sustainability prize if its current development strategy is costing the earth?
Only monetary abstraction allows for the measurement of progress on sustainability while ecosystems are threatening to tip out of balance.
Yet, this translation of all value assets into capital is one of the explicitly
mentioned advantages of the indicator. According to a World Bank manual on
Adjusted Net Saving, “it presents resource and environmental issues within a
framework that finance and development planning ministries can understand”
(World Bank 2012: 2). But, if the outlooks on the world and the language spoken in
those ministries are not conducive to finding solutions for sustainability, are they a
good standard to which to convert?
3.2.5 Summary: Governing Human–Nature Relations
Successfully Depends on Understanding Them
Market prices and indeed the economistic way of viewing the world clearly have
their limits when it comes to respecting the environmental and social dimensions of
sustainable development. This is why many scientists have argued for strong sustainability in which different forms of capital cannot simply be exchanged for others
in measures of growth and progress. The clearest expression of this difference in
paradigm is the replacement of the three-pillar image born at the 1992 Rio Summit
96
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …
makes no attempt to settle the issue (World Bank 2002: 4).
In practice this means that an indicator of zero or more is viewed as sustainable
development, whereas negative savings indicate that total net wealth is in decline
and policy change is necessary (ibid.: 5). The most successful role models from this
point of view are all those countries that apply high royalties on the extraction of
their natural resources and use these to improve the social and human capital of
their population, which will then spur further growth.
The 2011 World Bank report, The Changing Wealth of Nations, calculated how
high the “hypothetical produced capital” of several countries would be, had they
reinvested the royalties from their environmental capital accordingly. Trinidad and
Tobago and Gabon could have tripled the social, human, and manufactured capital
they produced between 1995 and 2005 (World Bank 2011: 16). By contrast
Norway and its oil industry is always cited as the exemplary star performer.
So while Adjusted Net Saving acknowledges the growth/environment trade-off
to a certain degree, its assumption of easy capital substitutability does not provide
many warning signals on Planetary Boundaries. Instead it champions development
role models that cannot continue if sustainable development is to be achieved.
Norway is impressively rich in all forms of capital because it possesses and sells a
lot of oil. The IEA predicts that about two-thirds of the oil that could be extracted
and used needs to stay in the ground if climate protection goals are to be reached.
How can a country win the best practice sustainability prize if its current development strategy is costing the earth?
Only monetary abstraction allows for the measurement of progress on sustainability while ecosystems are threatening to tip out of balance.
Yet, this translation of all value assets into capital is one of the explicitly
mentioned advantages of the indicator. According to a World Bank manual on
Adjusted Net Saving, “it presents resource and environmental issues within a
framework that finance and development planning ministries can understand”
(World Bank 2012: 2). But, if the outlooks on the world and the language spoken in
those ministries are not conducive to finding solutions for sustainability, are they a
good standard to which to convert?
3.2.5 Summary: Governing Human–Nature Relations
Successfully Depends on Understanding Them
Market prices and indeed the economistic way of viewing the world clearly have
their limits when it comes to respecting the environmental and social dimensions of
sustainable development. This is why many scientists have argued for strong sustainability in which different forms of capital cannot simply be exchanged for others
in measures of growth and progress. The clearest expression of this difference in
paradigm is the replacement of the three-pillar image born at the 1992 Rio Summit
96
3 Why the Mainstream Economic Paradigm Cannot Inform …