Sustainable development is a form of development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to fulfill their own needs. Quoting from the definition of sustainable development as provided by UNESCO , “..every generation should leave water, air and soil resources as pure and unpolluted as when it came on earth. Each generation should leave undiminished all the species of animals it found existing on earth.” Similar definitions are also provided by U.N. Environment Programme and World Conservation Union.
The famous economist Robert M Solow (also a Nobel laureate in economics) once argued that sustainability is an essentially vague concept. Hence, it cannot serve as an exact guide to policy. But it is nevertheless an important concept. Sustainability is an obligation to the future generations.
What we are obliged to leave behind is a generalized capacity to create well-being, not any particular thing or any particular natural resource.
Sustainability is an obligation to leave the world as we found it. But the point is, it might be unfeasible and undesirable. If we literally follow the definition given by the UNESCO, we cannot make use of any mineral resources and would end up with no permanent constructions, roads, or dams. Do we really want that? Solow argues that we should opt for a different version of sustainability that is an obligation that we leave to the future the ‘capacity’ to be as well off as we are. The problem with sustainability is that we are not aware of the tastes and preferences of future generations, nor do we know the technology that will be available to people 100 years from now. This explains the vagueness of sustainability as a concept.
The sort of environment that we are leaving for the future would include productive capacity (plant and equipment) and technological knowledge. Economists believe in the substitutability of goods and services. They can take the place of each other. We do not owe to the future any particular thing or a specific object. If we want to preserve particular specie or a particular landscape, we will be preserving it for its own sake but not under the heading of sustainability. Sustainability doesn’t require any particular species of owl or any particular species of fish or any particular tract of forest to be preserved.
Our society need not feel guilty about using up aluminium as long as we have a different kind of material that could perform the same function. What we are obliged to leave behind is a generalized capacity to create well-being, not any particular thing or any particular natural resource.
According to economists, a resource that is going scarce is not a problem, because the market price of that resource will rise and it will be used more efficiently. More research would be incorporated to invent a product that could replace it. Scientists would search for new methods of production that would involve less of that scarce resource. The recent example is ‘oil’. USA invented ‘shale oil’ which in coming years would substitute oil, which is a scarce resource.
But the question is, is this approach really acceptable? Don’t we need to worry if the forests get cut or the minerals get used up or the global temperature rises? The fact is that the mere existence of green forests and fresh clean water provides us certain utility in terms of happiness and satisfaction which cannot be measured in monetary terms. But it does exist. One cannot deny that.
Such an anthropocentric approach might be good for the present generation. But what about the future generations? We genuinely don’t want our kids to starve and suffocate to death. Is giving them a better technological know-how enough to sustain them? I believe they also deserve to breathe the fresh air, eat food that is not contaminated and enjoy the scenic beauty that our planet offers. Had our ancestors thought about it, we would probably have been in a better position.
Certainly, such an economic approach towards environmental sustainability raises a question mark on its credibility when we actually try to employ it. So, we should weigh all aspects while taking decisions regarding our environment and its sustainability. What we can do for economic growth and environmental sustainability depends on the way we frame our policies.
For sustainability, we should ensure ‘responsible consumption pattern’. For example, people talk about ‘eco tourism and development’, at the same time they forget that if tourism will be there consumption will be more. Naturally consumption generates waste. So, without responsible tourists or “eco-tourists” eco-tourism is irrelevant. Definitely eco-tourism will add up to the investment, saving and income but what about the environment?