Time to Ditch Sustainababble?

Egalitarian

The World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg 2002 aimed to restore the momentum to the sustainable development process, ten years after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. The WSSD message was that the environment must be preserved in order to prevent poverty. The poor of the developing world, it is argued, experience environmental degradation more than anyone else, as they eke their living directly off the land. Effective environmental management is therefore said to be essential to prevent them sacrificing the resources they depend upon.

Summiteers were suggesting that the way to reduce poverty is to save the environment. An impoverished community will have an impact on the natural habitat as a matter of course. This is because they are utterly dependent on it. Preserving the environment intact won’t remedy this destitution. The solution to that predicament lies in serious development that transcends subsistence life in the developing world.

So if the summit was really about solving poverty, why retain a focus on sustainability?

It seems the emphasis on poverty is not about solving it. It is not about making the poor rich. It is not about everyone enjoying Western levels of wealth. Saving the environment, in order to eradicate poverty, is an absurdity. It assumes the rural poor should not build homes, highways and hospitals, move to urban centres or construct new ones. It says they should continue to scratch a living off the land, stay in rural isolation and preserve the natural landscape. Tying poverty into an environmental agenda, which is precisely what sustainable development involves, not only blames the poor but promises sustained poverty.

This isn’t development, it’s the status quo.

Sustainable development is the antithesis of human progress. Its advocates find the idea of industrial development applied internationally an appalling prospect. Yet that is the form of development that has given Western society high standards of living and a superior quality of life. The alternatives being prescribed for the developing world would never be acceptable in the West. No one here would accept subsistence living, appropriate technology, basic education, and only their most basic needs being met. No one in the West would accept the poor in the developing world dictating what we can and cannot have either.

Elmar Altvater, the German Green economist, suggests the poor should oppose unlimited economic development and favour sustainable development, because it gives them work:

'The substitution of fossil energy consumption by living labour and the increase in employment would reduce the consumption of resources and emissions and reconcile policies of full employment and of ecological sustainability.' (1)

What sort of work is this? Perhaps Altavar thinks unemployed workers in the West should not expect to develop new IT skills and jobs but move onto waste ground, use hand tools to till it all day for food, only to go home and recycle enough waste to heat hand built huts. Development has always involved a division of labour, increased productivity and technological progress to ensure our whole lives are not taken up with the arduous tasks of basic survival. Why should the people of the developing world accept anything less?

Curing the blight of rural poverty cannot be achieved by proposing that the world’s poor worship at the shrine of nature. It entails harnessing the environment until people are relieved of their crippling dependence upon it. If we are serious about our intention of helping the world’s poor to have decent living standards, we must ditch the absurd notion of sustainable development and put serious development on the agenda instead. Serious development means industry, infrastructure and the best possible environment to live in – just as the West itself enjoys.

davros

I think this topic might get a better response in another forum - Green Issues or Business/Economy/Finance or Politics perhaps. I'm struggling to see what the Skeptical angle is - it's not the usual "Science v. Ignorance/Superstition" debate. Or am I missing the point?

I can magic this thread over to the forum of your choice - just let me know.

DadaKopf

I'll give you the skeptical angle. Afterall, I'm doing my thesis on what succeeded it.

In the 1970s, the 'Deep Green' movement was gaining political ground globally. When all the analysis was in, the planet was doomed. The Conservation movement informed us all that if we didn't cut back on growth, industrialisation, pollution and environmental degradation ASAP, we'd never be able to reclaim the planet's failing ecosystem.

Like so-called anti-globalisation, it was an extremely widespread global movement.

Corporate interests, oil barons and the like quaked in their boots. They realised if this discourse consolidated, if it got out of hand, there'd be a limit placed on their expansionist activities. They reckoned they'd be put out by trillions of dollars.

What did they do? They mobilised their powerful buddies to literally change the way we think about development - it wasn's less industrialisation we needed, it was more! But more slowly. They they started adding things like human development required freer markets with less restrictions, otherwise these poor people in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East would never solve their problems. These guys went about positioning their key operators - corporate businessmen, bought off scientists, corporate politicians, globalizing bureaucrats and globalizing media execs - in key locations and gradually transformed the discourse of 'conservation' into 'sustainable development'.

The result? Why, a Houdini-esque escape act of course!

While it looked as if the good guys had made big business change their mind, big business in fact constructed an elaborate theory of development that actually made industrial expansion part of human and environmental regeneration. The hippies could go off and tell everyone about their great victory over big business, while, in reality, the powerful CEO's and their politician friends slapped each other on the back for yet another coup of a business deal.

The whole 'sustainable development' thing is a hoodwink. The planet is dying, but the powers that be in this world have concocted a story that's only taking us closer to that precipice.

Yes, this post isn't exceptionally scholarly or factually specific, but I'd rather Leslie Sklair say it for me instead. I highly recommend this paper. He describes how this happened much better than I ever could.

williamgrogan

Of course this is suitable for discussion on an ISS site. Maybe it’s the best place.

Questioning the Holy Grail, asking has the Emperor any clothes and being skeptical of absolutely everything. Isn’t that what we do? Attacking Homeopathy & Spoon Bending is too easy.

Its one of the biggest issues there is. The perceived wisdom on every angle is suspect. This entire debate is about assumptions, most of which have not been tested. The BS factor is enormous.

I am skeptical about the notion that our fellow man should live in a zoo so we feel better. I am skeptical that “aid” to Africa actually works. I think a lot of it is racialist.

Man is part of nature and until we appreciate that and live with the consequence of that fact we cannot solve the planet’s problems.

Was Leslie Sklair’s paper actually written by Ben Elton?

PS

The guy who started Greenpeace is now a campaigner for Nuclear Power.

PPS

Is the Green Party a religion?

PPPS

Don’t panic, I intend sitting this one out. (Unless it gets interesting)

Sparks

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Questioning the Holy Grail, asking has the Emperor any clothes and being skeptical of absolutely everything. Isn’t that what we do?

So long as it's not electronic voting you're being skeptical of....
:rolleyes:

DadaKopf

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Of course ... I am skeptical about the notion that our fellow man should live in a zoo so we feel better. I am skeptical that “aid” to Africa actually works. I think a lot of it is racialist.

Man is part of nature and until we appreciate that and live with the consequence of that fact we cannot solve the planet’s problems.

Was Leslie Sklair’s paper actually written by Ben Elton?

Was that just hot air that passed me by?

Hey, here's an idea, why don't you actually make an educated point? If this was in the Politics or Humanities forum, you'd be accused of trolling.

So I'm challenging you: justify your 'opinion'.

davros

OK, hold it right there - I don't want yet another thread descending into a shouting match. wg was answering my query as to whether this is an appropriate topic for this board. I don't see any trolling - in fact, there is no obvious disagreement here at all.

GuanYin

Originally posted by davros
OK, hold it right there - I don't want yet another thread descending into a shouting match. wg was answering my query as to whether this is an appropriate topic for this board. I don't see any trolling - in fact, there is no obvious disagreement here at all.

WG continues to reply to posts disagreeing with the content without ever giving any sort of educated reason why. He just disagrees and dismisses what previous posters have said but never contributes anything himself, usually what he does post that passes for content is googled off topic nonsense.

In just about every other forum this is trolling or threadspoiling. Its disagreeing with or provoking a poster without making any point yourself.

Let someone follow up every post you make with "I disagree" and see how tired you get.

As Dadakopf said, in humanities or politics, the mods would have warned/banned him by now. He's already been banned from other forums for it.

Egalitarian

Originally posted by Syke

WG continues to reply to posts disagreeing with the content without ever giving any sort of educated reason why. He just disagrees and dismisses what previous posters have said but never contributes anything himself, usually what he does post that passes for content is googled off topic nonsense.

I am concerned that the only poster who seems to have read the original post and replies, WG, seems to stand accused of trolling. This is absurd. This poll asks whether you think sustainability, i.e. the sentiment of cynicism towards technology, industry and science, is a conservative mood which privileges 'nature' above human innovation and activity. The distinction between skeptical enquiry and cynical distrust is key to this debate.

Originally posted by Dadakopf I'll give you the skeptical angle. Afterall, I'm doing my thesis on what succeeded it.

Unfortunately, Dadakopf's reply is the usual bar room cynicism that big business and political elites have 'hoodwinked' us to accept industrial expansion as 'sustainable development'. While I am no naif when it comes the shenanigans of multinationals, the conclusion of Dadakopf's riposte is to argue that we are not doing enough to limit the impact of industry and technology. This misses the point. The concept of sustainability grew out of a common disillusionment with future economic growth in the mid-1970s, exacerbated by the fuel crisis. The green bestsellers, Rachel Carson's 'The Silent Spring' and Schumacher's 'Small is Beautiful', profoundly reflected the growing fear that prosperity was finite - a sentiment popular among political elites who were in the throes of a massive wage and job offensive. Eco-doommongers and business elites shared a common fear of 'unreasonable' expectations of higher living standards. This underlies the genesis of sustainability.

There exists two strands in sustainablistas even now although of far greater influence, those marginal greens who believe the end is nigh and mainstream opinion which demands precautionary regulation. Outside of a handful of dedicated scientists and old-fashioned modernists, the orthodoxy of sustainability retards every aspect of industry, public policy and technological innovation. What is clear, is that there is little new evidence after three decades that we need to restrain human activity. But there is clear evidence that the positive impact of human innovation is degraded by the prejudices against novel techniques (GM crops), large-scale infrastructure (dams, water sewerage, incinerators) and proven technologies (nuclear power, aviation, DDT and mechanised agriculture).

The suggestion that modern life is worth fighting to achieve for all is scornfully dismissed today. Why? Sustainability privileges the natural equilibrium of our so-called eco-system and/or the natural equilibrium of supply and demand over and above the real benefits possible from existing and future technologies. The common refrain that we are consuming too much of the world's resources is patent nonsense.

Are we running out of water?

The simple answer is an emphatic NO. There is an almost maniacal fear of impending water wars despite the infinite abundance of sea water and generous resources of naturally renewable freshwater in all but 1 in 25 countries on the planet. Only 3.7% of the world’s current population live in ‘water scarce’ countries. What is a ‘water scarce’ country? Well, the UN defines a country as water scarce if there is less than 2,740 litres PER PERSON PER DAY of renewable water available. That’s a hell of a lot higher than the miserly targets of 20 litres of water use which those in poor countries are expected to accept as a target for 2025. How can we believe that in countries where there is over 2740 litres available naturally every single day and personal consumption is only proposed to increase to 20 litres that water scarcity is a problem? Or where ‘water scarce’ countries identified today are primarily in the Middle East where oil-rich states have no problems overcoming the infrastructural hurdles of water supply for personal, industrial and agricultural consumption. Kuwait, the basket case of water availability, can make up for its poor water endowment through technological solutions by processing saltwater and treating wastewater. Let’s face it. The problems today and in the future with regard to the use of water do not occur because of natural limits, but man-made constraints of infrastructure.

So where do skeptics fit in?

Well, I strongly recommend that a start can be made by reading Bjorn Lomborg's impressive reference text on the subject, 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'. And secondly, I think more thought needs to be devoted to avoiding the trap of cynicism. The misanthropic cynic should be given no succour, the benefits of detached scientific
enquiry are ultimately not enough. In the contest with the advocates of sustainability and precautionary principle, we need to ask why accpet that modern life and the advance of industry and technology will not improve others' lives as it has done so already in the developed world. And when they give their answer, climate change or water wars or transgenic contamination or whatever. Skeptics should consult the authority of the scientific community and then ask why the conflicting scientific consensus matters little to the sustainablistas. As in the MMR debate, we need to go beyond the science to question cynicism.

I would be delighted if those who do believe we should bow down to the altar of sustainability would back up their reasoning with scientific evidence, meanwhile I'll continue arguing for equal access to modern technology and Western consumption levels for ALL.

GuanYin

*sigh* I'm not gonna go through your post, some of the points you make I agree with (and this even applies to WG), but the point is, you never show why you make them.

Most posters make an argument for a case or point of view. In a previous thread on science, I basically (although very provisionally) spoke in favour if GM, for instance, but I gave my reasoning and an overview that led to my opinion based on scientific facts.

Posters like Sceptre, Dadakopf and Ecksor are masters at this and I only wish I had the ability to express my own knowledge with that clarity that they do.

WG and some of the other so called skeptics are very poor at this. They tend to say "you should read this book" (as if it is the bible on the issue) and it comes across that that is where their opinion stems from. They accuse people who disagree andmake very valid points of "luddism" and backwards view points without ever making a case of their own.

And thats the failing, they always attack the viewpoint and never deal with the science, fact or reasoning behind it. That is not skepticism, that is wholesale propaganda. A skeptic *should* have an open mind, they should be able to take in new evidence and data and work it through in their heads. Science and scientists change their viewpoints and opinions very very regularly (except the old ones, who seem to want to protect the viewpoint they built their careers on, no matter how wrong it proves to be). The skeptics I seem here, seem deep rooted in propaganda fueled beliefs on how they are told they should think. This I feel is ironic, as its exactly the sort of thinking that skepticism should be fighting against.

What frustrates people about WG and other posters is that even though this is pointed out to them, they ignore it, continuing on the same straight blinkered line. The mods here seem to think thats ok. This leads to the forum losing alot of credibility in the eyes of the more scientifically minded boards.ie members.

williamgrogan

Let someone follow up every post you make with "I disagree" and see how tired you get.

I completly agree with Egalitarian's previous post.

Egalitarian

Originally posted by syke

*sigh* I'm not gonna go through your post, some of the points you make I agree with (and this even applies to WG), but the point is, you never show why you make them.

I am at a loss as to how to reply to your vague criticism. If you'll clarify a particular example, I will be glad to elaborate.

I think both the original post and today's earlier reply sufficiently explain why I am concerned at sustainability as a criterion of technical and social progress, since economic activity to transform our natural environment is the surest way to consistently transcend natural limits. I do not intend to write a book on all the ecological warnings, but I'm happy to debate those that sustainability supporters wish to present.

Sparks

Originally posted by Egalitarian
I think both the original post and today's earlier reply sufficiently explain why I am concerned at sustainability as a criterion of technical and social progress, since economic activity to transform our natural environment is the surest way to consistently transcend natural limits.

*sigh*
You cannot transcend limits unless you're a new-age writer.

Typedef

I think perhaps you misinterpret the thrust of treaties like Kyoto.

Simply, less well developed countries get can increase their carbon output, while 'other' more developed countries must cap their own pollution in contrast.

Here is a link to a html conversion of a pdf.

The Kyoto Protocol - any benefit to the poor?
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:RNsJ7wE1FbkJ:europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/publications/courier/courier189/en/en_042.pdf+Kyoto+protocol+carbon+production+poor+countries&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The fact is that fossil fuels are running out, with speculation arife that peak production will be reached this year or next year and total depletion of Oil by 2040/2050. Investing billions in fossil fuel technology for poor countries is a misnomer of logic, since the fuel is almost gone anyway.

Curing the blight of rural poverty cannot be achieved by proposing that the world’s poor worship at the shrine of nature. It entails harnessing the environment until people are relieved of their crippling dependence upon it.

A strange proposition.

The President of the most developed country, which arguably has the most ability to shirk itsel of fossil fuel dependency, has recently lied, broken long standing US foreign pre-emptive war foreign policy and violated the authority of the UN, over fossil fuels.

Tell me, how did the prosperity America has achieved from wholesale exploitation of fossil fuels, 'relieve' America of it's oil addiction? Right now, the US, seems like a crack addict committing burglaries, to feed it's habit.

You propose we create more crack addicts and that somehow, when all the crack runs out, it will be the junkie with no cash, as opposed to the addict with 'all' the money, who will easily supplant it's addiction?

Egalitarian

Originally posted by Typedef

I think perhaps you misinterpret the thrust of treaties like Kyoto.

A brief inspection of all posts in thread reveals no interpretation of Kyoto treaty.

Originally posted by Typedef

The fact is that fossil fuels are running out, with speculation arife that peak production will be reached this year or next year and total depletion of Oil by 2040/2050. Investing billions in fossil fuel technology for poor countries is a misnomer of logic, since the fuel is almost gone anyway.

Further, I have not claimed that fossil fuels are infinite. I prefer to avoid speculating on the depletion timeframe, since technological improvements are likely to expand current economically-feasible extractive capacity. Unfortunately, you are conflating two separate issues:

1) Finite limits to fossil fuel reserves.

The first issue does not suggest dismissing fossil fuel technologies in the here and now, but recommends that we explore new fuel techniques and improve existing energy sources like nuclear power or hydroelectric which have a proven record in delivering energy consistently and on a national scale. This short-term project is best delivered by research and development in improving the efficiency of fossil fuel energy production and consumption, while in the long run we do need to diversify energy supply.


2) Greenhouse emmisions and global warming.

The second issue suggests we reduce fossil fuel energy due to adverse impact on the climate. This lies behind the Kyoto targets of reducing energy consumption from hydrocarbons, and the allocation of emmisions credits. Whilst there is evidence that CO2 emissions are associated with climate change, there is no consensus that global warming will be significantly altered by the drastic reductions in CO2 emissions proposed. Meteorologists' modelling is highly speculative, although sustainablistas always select the worst-case scenarios and ignore the less apocalyptic forecasts.

So what about poor countries?

If there is coal or oil available to extract for energy supply, it is unacceptable to deny poor countries the opportunity to benefit from these resources. This does not exclude the long-term rationale of diverisfying energy supply towards, say, nuclear, gas or hydro. Other alternatives such as biomass, solar and wind may well be able to deliver national energy efficiently and consistently in the future, but today they are inadequate substitutes.

As for the argument to cut off the fossil fuel fix to the addicts based on 'speculation', I would be happy to ignore the sustainablistas if and only if there was no cost to following the Kyoto restrictions. But the costs are very high - in developing and developed countries. The limits to CO2 emissions severely restrict energy options for poor countries, when it is the industrialised countries who hold the purse strings for substantial infrastructure projects like power stations and dams. These industrialised countries are capable of buying poor countries credits, whilst coaxing them of the benefits of renewables like photovoltiac cells that wouldn't even heat the water for a bath.

The costs and benefits of Kyoto simply do not add up.

williamgrogan

The following is from Spiked and is relevant to this thread. A book has been written that suggests that growth in the developed world should be curtailed. This is a rebuttal.


http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA483.htm

I'm thinking of doing some sort of Venn diagram that links who thinks what together. It strikes me as interesting that one can group people by their opinions even when they do not seem related.