Brendan Douglas 1

Theory Survey: Sustainable Development

- Brendan Douglas -

Brendan Douglas 2

Sustainable Development: Economic Impediment or Social Necessity?

The concept of “sustainable development” emerged as the balance between environmental

degradation, social inequality and economic advancement came into question. Somewhere between

preserving environmental vitality, optimizing economic prosperity, and raising the overall standard of

living, informed intellectuals realized that none could be fully accomplished without compromising the

effectiveness of the others. Through this realization, it became understood that either the mitigation or

development of various societal components would result in profound consequences for future

generations. This paper considers the varied perspectives of sustainable development by Simon

Dresner, author of The Principles of Sustainability, Andres R. Edwards, author of The Sustainability

Revolution, and Wilfred Beckerman, author of A Poverty of Reason.

The roots of sustainable development stem from the contemporary environmentalism

movement that began in the 1970’s. In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human

Environment was held in Stockholm, Sweden and addressed anthropogenic environmental impacts.

The most important element produced from this conference addressed “the attempt to find positive

links between environmental concerns and economic issues such as development, growth, and

employment” (Edwards; 15). The next big step came from the World Conservation Strategy of 1980,

published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. This

publication stressed that it may be in the best interests of the human race to consume its resources

wisely and even provided a contrasting definition of ‘sustainable development’ to ‘development’.

‘Sustainable development’ they claimed, was defined as “the integration of conservation and

development to ensure that modifications to the planet do indeed secure the survival and well-being of

all people.” ‘Development’ on the other hand was defined as the “modification of the biosphere and

Brendan Douglas 3

the application of human, financial, living and non-living resources to satisfy human needs and

improve the quality of human life” (Dresner; 30). This hugely significant distinction sets the stage for a

central component of sustainable development as it assumes difference between temporal and spatial

equality, which is discussed later in this paper.

In 1983, the UN General Assembly formed the World Commission on Environment and

Development (WCED) that eventually resulted in the production of a publication titled, Our Common

Future. This publication created the most commonly used definition of sustainable development,

which eventually became known by its overarching name, The Brundtland Report. The publication

cohesively and concisely defined sustainable development as: “development that meets the needs of

the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World

Commission on Environment and Development [WCED] 1987; 43). This definition provides a vague

yet tidy description of sustainable development of which a majority of the populace comprehends.

However, implementation of sustainable development is not so simple: issues such as defining what

sustainability actually is, the degree to which it should be implemented, spatial vs. temporal equity,

and the effects of implementing sustainable practices are all vital constituents to an equation whom

Dresner, Edwards, and Beckerman all provide different answers.

Defining Sustainable Development: The Three “E’s”… (Plus 1)

The concept of sustainability and sustainable development sounds clean and precise in theory,

however its application to the real world results in compounding and often unforeseen complexities. Of

primary significant to sustainable development is the application the precautionary principle: “when

there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as

a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation” (1). Without disregarding the

precautionary principle, sustainable development can be boiled down into three overarching topics: the

environment, the economy, and equity; these are known as the three “E’s”. While these terms are quite

broad in and of themselves, a brief definition of each will help define their applications towards

sustainability.

The environment for example, is not simply the forest in your backyard, the grandeur of the

Appalachian Mountains, or the beauty of exotic wildlife; it is the life sustaining force behind all living

organisms. The environment is a complex web of interrelated systems each functioning symbiotically

Brendan Douglas 4

to produce the biosphere. It encompasses the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the food that

we eat, and the food that our food eats. Ecospheric natural capital (as coined by Dresner; 83) represents

these systems on the macro scale. For example, we cannot supply water to agriculture if the water

cycle fails to supply inland waterways or we cannot breathe if oxygen-producing flora is over-

harvested. Likewise, non-ecospheric natural capital consists of raw materials extracted from the earth,

often times resulting in changes in ecospheric natural capital. For example, depletion of soil minerals

may render a plot of land useless for agricultural purposes.

The economy, simply stated, is the production and consumption of goods and services for a

given population. It comprises of natural, human, and physical capital and ultimately correlates with

GNP. Natural capital is ecospheric and non-ecospheric resources, human capital is the productive skills

and technical knowledge of an individual or society, and physical capital is the amount of constructed

infrastructure capable of producing various goods. Like the environment, the economy is intrinsically

interconnected: An increase in human capital may lead to greater efficiency of physical capital, which

then means a decrease in the amount of natural capital required to fuel the physical capital.

Equity refers to the distribution of wealth over a given population, either on the micro or macro

scale. Many problems arise not from simply a lack of resources, but of a sheer imbalanced distribution

of resources. For example, according to Gro Harlem Brundtland, the keynote speaker at a symposium

hosted by the Norwegian government in 1994, the “average person in North America consumes almost

20 times as much as a person in India or China, and 60 to 70 times more than a person in Bangladesh”

(Dresner; 88).

The “Plus 1” element is an idea endorsed by Edwards and denotes education. It encompasses

educating the community with regard to the “Three E’s” so that their eventual evolution can originate

from societal desire rather than legislative demand: “Through education, sustainability can become

firmly established within the existing value structure of societies while simultaneously helping that

Brendan Douglas 5

value structure evolve toward a more viable long-term approach to systemic global problems”

(Edwards; 23).

Weak, Strong, and Environmental Sustainability

Just as there are components that define sustainability, there are degrees to which its

implementation can be pursued. Weak sustainability is defined by its lack of restrictive policy towards

resource conservation and assumes almost infinite resource substitutability by technology. In other

words, weak sustainability advocates claim there is little incentive to conserve earth’s natural resources

because future technologies will be able to compensate for not only the depletion of non-ecospheric

natural capital, but also the degradation of ecospheric natural capital – “that human-made capital [can]

substitute for natural capital” (Dresner; 77). For this reason weak sustainability is validated by the

Hartwick Principle, because as long as the natural capital inputs are equivalent to the human or

physical capital gains, then net capital remains constant. This belief is thoroughly embraced by

Beckerman and is substantiated by the theory of Adam Smith’s invisible hand. Beckerman believes

that sustainability should not be pursued in part because market forces will encourage the research and

production of substitutes or solutions to problems that technology will always be able to solve. For

example, he believes that if a resource becomes scarce, its market price will rise, thereby encouraging

research into either increased resource efficiency or adoption of resource substitutes: “The main reason

why we will never run out of any resource or even suffer seriously from any sudden reduction in its

supply is that whenever demand for any particular material begins to run up against supply limitations,

a wide variety of economic forces are set in motion to remedy the situation. These forces start with a

rise in price, which, in turn leads to all sorts of secondary favorable feedbacks—notably a shift to

substitutes, and increase in exploration, and technical progress that brings down the costs of

exploration and refining and processing as well as the costs of the substitutes” (Beckerman; 13). Weak

sustainability epitomizes utter disregard for the precautionary principle and relies heavily on

mankind’s ingenuity to solve problems that may be completely unsolvable or require technology that

does not yet exist.

Strong sustainability promotes the conservation of natural resources to a degree, but allows

limited technological substitutability, provided that the result is no net decline in natural capital. The

majority of environmentalists fall under this category because it allows for not only the preservation of

Brendan Douglas 6

the natural environment but also takes the precautionary principle into consideration. For this reason,

strong sustainability advocates claim the moral high ground on the basis that they have the best

interests of future generations at heart. A primary impetus for pursuing strong sustainability resides on

the fact that many ecospheric natural capital stocks encompass a scale too large for current

technologies to fathom any reconstructive efforts in lieu of anthropogenic damage. For example, in the

book Blueprint for a Green Economy by David William Pearce, Anil Markandya, and Edward B.

Barbier of the Great Britain Department of the Environment and The London Environmental

Economics Center, the lack of substitutability for ecospheric natural capital is discussed: “No one has

yet found a way of (feasibly) recreating the ozone layer…the climate-regulating functions of tropical

forests, and the pollution-cleaning and nutrient-trap functions of wetlands…[these] are all services

provided by natural assets…for which there are no ready substitutes” (Dresner; 77). Just as weak

sustainability is corroborated by the Hartwick principle, Herman Daly’s principles of sustainability

corroborate strong sustainability. His fourth principle states that, “non-renewable resources should be

exploited no faster than the rate of creation of renewable substitutes” (Dresner; 83). In other words, for

mankind to justify any extraction of a non-renewable resource, there must be an alternative (substitute)

resource or material readily available for implementation. As such, even though there is inevitably a

decrease in the overall stock of natural capital, the existing availability of a substitute demonstrates

freedom from depending on mankind’s technological ingenuity that may or may not be able to solve

the problems we create. Strong sustainability encourages the preservation of the natural environment

and adherence to the precautionary principle even though it may hinder economic progress. It does

however allow for limited technological substitutability on the basis that net natural capital is

maintained or has a readily available substitute.

Environmental sustainability is perhaps the most radical and implausible of the three degrees of

sustainability. It calls for complete preservation of natural resources and the incorporation of a

biocentric philosophy that largely disregards the importance of the economy and the concerns for

equity. It incorporates a value system similar to that of a deep ecologist: that each living organism

encompasses its own intrinsic value and right to life, comparable to that of a human being. It stresses

that the natural environment becomes tainted by excessive human interaction and that we should not

view nature as a commodity for exploitation, but rather as a living entity with which we should coexist.

Furthermore, it considers the ability of humans to thrive as dependant upon the biodiversity and well

being of the biosphere, which, on moral grounds, should also not be compromised for the sake of

Brendan Douglas 7

future generations. At the very extreme of this perspective lies Francis Fukuyama and his theory of the

‘superuniversalization’ of rights. As science begins to unravel the secrets of nature vs. nurture our

position atop the biological hierarchy comes into question. Traditional thinkers such as Hegel, Kant,

and the original Christian tradition no longer can improperly define humans as unquestionably superior

due simply because they boast rational thought and free moral choice. It is becoming ever more

apparent through observations of environmental influence (one’s upbringing/background) and gene

analysis, that our connection to and derivation from nature is undeniable. Thus, Fukuyama considers it

a logical next step to extend rights to all living organisms and consequently blurring the “distinction

between human and non-human” (Dresner; 147). While none of the three authors in consideration fully

embraces this rather severe perspective of sustainability, recognition of its qualities are most evident in

Dresner and Edwards. Neither of them strictly adhere to its conventions but both acknowledge the

importance of biodiversity and agree with the potential magnitude of disregarding the precautionary

principle.

Spatial vs. Temporal Equality

The degree to which sustainability should be pursued relies heavily on the value applied to

spatial and temporal equity. Spatial equity refers to the distribution of capital wealth across physical

space, whereas temporal equity refers to this distribution across time. These terms of equity consider

the quality and quantity of the environment and economy that will ultimately produce the highest

standard of living, or in other words, the greatest net utility. Equality (in contrast to equity), involves

the possession and enforcement of human rights, with regards to not only spatial and temporal equity,

but also the three E’s. Each of these three authors promotes a distinct opinion that would supposedly

result in optimal net utility, yet surely none reveal an incontrovertible answer.

Edwards, (like Dresner) believes that temporal equity surpasses spatial equity and that it is

morally repugnant to think otherwise; that current spatial inequity is of essential concern and surely

solvable. As such, he believes that by educating the masses with regard to sustainable development, a

new way of thinking will arise that ultimately increases temporal equity. Furthermore, this revolution

will spurn not simply out of societal stimulus but will prove to be economically viable as well. He

claims that “social cohesion, compassion and tolerance are more likely to thrive in an environment

where all members of the community feel that their contribution to the whole is appreciated and where

Brendan Douglas 8

an equitable distribution of resources is recognized as essential for the long-term viability of the

society” (Edwards; 23). His sanguine interpretation of a sustainable revolution fails to embody a

realistic comprehension of market forces and also does not encompass what Dresner refers to as

‘discounting’. Discounting is the tendency for a society to side with short-term thinking, rather than

what may be most advantageous in the long run. In other words, for a society to reach what he believes

is a revolution towards sustainability there needs to be short-term practicality to the situation. Edwards

promotes temporal equity by way of claiming spatial practicality, however this largely utopian

perspective is currently unreachable.

Dresner’s view pertaining to spatial and temporal equity demonstrates a correlation with strong

sustainability and the embracement of the precautionary principle. He believes that sustainable

practices (and consequently the precautionary principle) should be implemented because it helps

guarantee intergenerational equality in both the environmental and economic sectors. Dresner believes

that at the current rate of environmental degradation, resource consumption, and atmospheric pollution,

poor and undeveloped nations will, over time, suffer exponentially greater consequences (via

externalities) than rich and developed nations.

Unlike Beckerman, Dresner exhibits rational thought by siding with the reputable scientific

community and accepts that unmitigated anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emission will

inevitably result in climate change. Towards this regard he cites an assertion by the Global Commons

Institute (CGI) that estimates “the damage to industrialized countries due to global warming [is] only

one to a few percent of their GNP, estimates of damage to agricultural Southern countries [are] several

times higher. This irony is that the responsibility for global warming lies with the industrialized

countries which have been responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions” (Dresner;

111 - 112). Therefore, Dresner believes it is morally unjust to pursue economic optimality (the

continued release of GHG’s and depletion of finite resources) because it would only further propagate

global inequity.

With regard to the economic sector of spatial and temporal equity, Dresner believes that spatial

equity need not be compromised to ensure temporal equity as long as technological advancement is

efficiency-increasing rather than throughput-increasing. This belief derives from another one of

Herman Daly’s four principles of sustainability, and insinuates that for sustainability to be achieved,

future production of physical capital needs to maximize the benefit per unit resource rather than

maximize the consumption of that resource. Dresner’s view was reinforced by the ‘Milieudefensie

Brendan Douglas 9

calculations’ that came about from an assessment called Action Plan Sustainable Netherlands. These

calculations encouragingly “suggest that it could be theoretically possible for a population of several

billion people to live in an environmentally sustainable manner with a broadly Western standard of

living” (Dresner; 87). Dresner ultimately believes that temporal equity supersedes spatial equity and

that consumption rates should be curtailed for this reason. However, via efficiency-increasing

technologies current standards of living are not necessarily substantially reduced.

Beckerman’s stance towards spatial and temporal equity conveys his allegiance to weak

sustainability advocates and an utter disregard for the precautionary principle. It is important however,

to clarify that even though Beckerman does exemplify some ideals of a weak sustainability advocate,

his overall belief system renounces sustainability entirely and therefore he cannot even be classified as

a weak sustainability advocate. He is the epitome of a technological optimist and almost

unconditionally promotes economic prosperity. He believes that all short-term economic gain will

eventually result in a greater standard of living in the long run. In other words, unmitigated extraction

and consumptions of earth’s finite resources results in not only greater spatial equity but also greater

temporal equity.

He argues that the expansion of infrastructure (physical capital) and advancement of

technological and scientific know-how (human capital) would reap benefits for future generations that

would otherwise not be achieved under restrictive policies that promote sustainability. As an example

he cites that known fossil fuel reserves during the 1950’s supplied only 22 years of consumption

(Beckerman; 20-21) and that had we acted on this fear than “not only would many developments that

rely on cheap energy been stifled in the interests of energy conservation but, at the same time, many

technological developments that permitted and vastly expanded discovery, exploitation, and use of

sources of energy would have been banned. The world would be a very much poorer place”

(Beckerman; 44). While even here he disregards the precautionary principle, more significantly he

overlooks the problems associated with what’s known as ‘the potential Pareto’. This economic theory

(to which Beckerman would adhere) argues that even though cost / benefit analysis always produces

‘winners’ and ‘losers’, the losers will, in one way or another, eventually be compensated for by the

winners. However, “in practice [the] loser are not compensated” (Dresner; 117), and temporal equity

suffers tremendously. A simple gander upon modern spatial equity on the global scale exemplifies the

insincerity of the potential Pareto: our current market-based capitalist society has allowed for

developed nations to enjoy gratuitous luxuries while undeveloped nations merely seek food for their

Brendan Douglas 10

people. Beckerman’s stance promoting unmitigated development not only destroys the natural

environment and disregards the precautionary principle but also further extends the disparity of

temporal equity.

Implementing Sustainable Strategies

Spatial and temporal equity are essential factors with regards to any sustainable philosophy, but

what factors lead to and are consequences of its implementation? If sustainability does generate the

most net utility and even necessitates the long-term survival of the human species, how must a society

compensate for and be persuaded to abide by its policies? It is intrinsic human nature to seek out short-

term prosperity and ‘discount’ future needs, particularly if the benefits of the self-sacrifice are

completely intangible. For example, the effects of global climate change will likely not dramatically

affect anyone alive today, therefore, why should we even care? For intergenerational equity and even

equality to exist, market incentives must drive consumer demand on the micro and macro scale. As

Dresner, Edwards, and even Beckerman all agree, long-term sustainability is contingent upon global

cooperation. For sustainability to thrive a keen understanding of social constructs, market forces, and

policy regulation must dominate any future strategy.

The social constructs required for any significant movement towards sustainability

encompasses social cohesion at profound and historically supreme levels. It must be of singular

importance starting from the individual and the regional population, up through the business and

industrial sectors, and onwards to the international community. According to Edwards, there are five

such characteristics required to beget this social revolution: firstly, all advocate groups must be

working harmoniously towards a unified goal that accurately balances the “three E’s”; secondly, a

large number and diversified demographic of these groups needs to exist; thirdly, these groups must

approach their unified goal in a multidirectional and comprehensive fashion; fourthly, this revolution

must be led “by a group of decentralized visionaries rather than a single charismatic figurehead”

(Edwards; 6-7); and finally, these groups must utilize varied modes of action – both oppositional

(using activism and persuasion to renounce trends detrimental to the cause) and alternative (providing

supplementary options favorable on the local scale) (Edwards; 6-9). For Edwards and his almost

infinite optimism towards the benevolence and changeability of humanity, these requirements are not

only attainable but presently underway. While both Dresner and Beckerman would largely disagree

Brendan Douglas 11

and contradict him on the grounds that insufficient fiscal incentives presently exist for such a

movement to be occurring, avoiding potential market failures may permit the foundation for such a

social revolution.

The economy represents perhaps the most critical component of an implementation strategy.

For the common person, the effect on their pocketbook embodies their most significant and palpable

concern, for which the vast majority are not willing to negotiation. Therefore, every strategy should

avoid the three types of market failures: externalities, monopolizations, and the destruction of public

goods. The destruction of public goods and externalities and are the most relevant with regard to

sustainable development because they have the most direct monetary effect on the individual.

The exploitation of public goods is a crucial element for sustainability. The Tragedy of the

Commons explains that unregulated extraction of a finite resource may be advantageous in the short-

term, but overexploitation can be devastating in the long run. The ‘tragedy’ is that each individual

enterprise is utilizing a finite resource of which many are dependant, thus, its depletion has far-

reaching consequences. Therefore, it is essential to understand the concept of ‘environmental space’ in

corroboration with the theory of ‘ecological tax reform’ (ETR). With environmental space, “the idea is

to look at each component [individually] and consider what would be a level of activity that could be

supported by ecosystems without irreversible damage. The total amount of activity that could be

supported in such a way is referred to as the ‘environmental space’” (Dresner; 75). Because a given

finite resource can only provide so much sustainably, the implementation of ETR looks to reduce

unemployment and make industry more internationally competitive by redirecting taxation towards the

consumption of natural capital: “it stops taxing labour out of the market [and] instead taxes energy and

raw material inputs” (Dresner; 93). In this fashion ETR encourages technological progress that is

efficiency-increasing rather than throughput-increasing, which as Dresner proved, is beneficial for

temporal equity, and therefore sustainability.

Externalities, or the indirect rippling effect(s) of an action onto a third party, can negatively

impact numerous facets of the environment and a sustainable philosophy. For example, an oil refinery

may reap the most profit by dumping waste byproducts into nearby waterways. But subsequently, this

pollution may adversely affect agriculture downstream that depends on clean water to nourish its

crops. In this sense, by ignoring the externalities of their enterprise, the oil refinery maximizes market

success by reducing their costs to the consumer. In the current market-based capitalist society, such

action may be frowned upon, but competition encourages, if not necessitates it. Currently, the “shadow

Brendan Douglas 12

price” as its known (i.e. – the ‘real’ cost of a product as defined by its externalities), does not trickle its

way down to the consumer, but rather gets swallowed-up by the unfortunate third party bystander. This

means that consumers are benefiting from a less costly product whose production may encompass

immoral practices that are harmful to the environment. More significantly however, these consumers

purchase that product because it is less expensive, thereby encouraging companies to ignore their

externalities. The Charter of Rights and Responsibilities for the Environment explains that the “ripple

effect of real costs is particularly relevant to sustainability issues confronting communities and

commercial interests” (Edwards; 118). This truism resides on the fact that for sustainability to achieved

and market failures to be avoided internalization of these externalities must be imposed by legislative

policy. This would discourage consumers from purchasing expensive and environmentally destructive

products and consequently encourage producers to pursue environmentally friendly and sustainable

alternatives.

Simon Dresner, Andres R. Edwards, and Wilfred Beckerman, all advocate different approaches

to and necessities for sustainability. Dresner and Edwards generally support the ideals of a strong

sustainability advocate whereas Beckerman fails to believe in the necessity of sustainability at all. The

incorporation of the precautionary principle characterizes each author’s stance regarding temporal and

spatial equity. Beckerman encourages unmitigated resource extraction and consumption because it will

produce the most physical and human capital, and presumably the greatest net utility. Dresner and

Edwards on the other hand, promote intergenerational equity by encouraging a wise consumption of

resources. Dresner’s perspective believes that technological efficiency is at the heart of sustainability

while Edwards believes it to be education. While none of these author’s provides an incontrovertible

answer to the question of sustainability, as a race we are certainly at a crossroads: either pursue

economic prosperity and risk environmental, social, and political collapse, or employ the conservative

principle and prepare for what may or may not occur; the choice is in our hands, but the outcome is

realized by future generations.

Brendan Douglas 13

Works Cited

Beckerman, Wilfred. A Poverty of Reason. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute, 2003.

Dresner, Simon. The Principles of Sustainability. Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2002.

Edwards, Andres. The Sustainability Revolution. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

“Private Per Capita Consumption.” [ ] April 17, 2008. <http://atlas.aaas.org/natres/intro_popups.php?p=percap>

“Sustainability Sphere.” [ ] April 17, 2008. <http://www.scityvt.co.uk/assets/cycle.jpg>

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1990) Bergen Ministerial Declaration on

Sustainable Development, Bergen, UNECE