Reading Materials:
3.1 From dialogue to learning: “sustainability” as a heuristic
Professor John Robinson’s perceptive commentary on sustainable development is concerned with the inherent contradictions within the concept. There is a focus on growth and development on one hand, much appreciated by governments and businesses, and ecological sustainability on the other, a position taken by many NGOs, academic environmentalists and activists.Many critics consequently view the concept as being inherently contradictory and incapable of being effectively operationalized.Others have noted in response that there is a resilient compatibility within the concept and practice of sustainable development.
Social justice has much to do with the satisfaction of human needs, of securing equal opportunity between generations, global partnership and cooperation. It is this that defines the idea of development within sustainable development. A human being, and indeed the planet, is far more than a resource. Indicators must reflect and articulate our values, enabling us to recognize that life is far more than being busy, accomplishing more and more concrete tasks, or securing more and more goods.
The quality of life becomes more important than the commodities our economy produces and we consume. Human life and the environment are not two separate entities: we are on and of the world.
We must think and act wisely.
One of the main reasons why ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’have generated so much discussion is because they tend to reflect the political and philosophical value base of those articulating a given definition or preferred perspective.
Consequently, it is impossible to secure an unambiguous, scientific, technical, discipline-specific or operationable definitions.What the ambiguity surrounding ‘sustainability’ can offer, is the possibility of integration, synthesis and synergy – of a social learning process that bridges the divisions between the social and ecological, the scientific and spiritual, the economic and the political.
In practice, technical fixes are necessary but not sufficient if ecological, economic and social imperatives are to be reconciled.For Robinson, this cannot be done scientifically, only politically – in dialogue and in partnership, making sustainability ‘a conversation about what kind of world we collectively want to live in now and in the future’.
In this way, ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’ may productively function as a heuristic – in other words, a learning process by which people are enabled to find things out for themselves and to fully appreciate the contested nature of knowledge, the environment and sustainability, and the impact that human actions have on the Earth. Sustainable development is politically, economically, ethically, ideologically and scientifically charged.It will not be easy and the dialogue continues.
3.2 Science, politics and climate change
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defines climate change, in Article 1, as ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’.
The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between ‘climate change’ attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition and ‘climate variability’ attributable to natural causes (IPCC, 2004: 4).
Climate change seems to be hitting the headlines more frequently than ever. The scientific, political and ethical debates about the nature and causes of the climate crisis have always been intense and sometimes fraught.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has steadily become a very significant player in this. Established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the IPCC’s role, according to its governing principles approved in 1998, is as follows:
The IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts, and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socioeconomic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.
Early in 2007, the IPCC issued the first of four major assessment reports.Significantly, it concluded that it was at least 90 per cent certain that human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) rather than any natural variations are the cause of global warming.
By 2013, with the publication of the Fifth Assessment Report, the level of certainty had climbed to 95 percent, with global warming likely to exceed the generally recognized danger level of 2°C, or between 3 and 4°C in Australia, by 2100. The IPCC (2007) states that there is a high level of agreement and much evidence to support the conclusion that ‘there is substantial economic potential for the mitigation of global GHG emissions over the coming decades, which could offset the projected growth of global emissions or reduce emissions below current levels’.
These include:
Changes in lifestyles and consumption patterns emphasizing resource conservation can contribute to developing an equitable and sustainable low-carbon economy.
Education and training programmes can help overcome barriers to the market acceptance of energy efficiency.
Changes in occupant behaviour, cultural patterns, consumer choice and use of technologies can result in considerable reduction in CO2 emissions related to energy use in buildings.
Transport demand management’, which includes urban planning (which can reduce the demand for travel) and provision of information and educational techniques (which can reduce car usage and lead to a more efficient driving style).
In industry, management tools that include staff training, reward systems, regular feedback and documentation of existing practices can help overcome industrial organizational barriers, reducing energy use and emissions.
Scientists are always learning more about the factors influencing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, the feedback effects of these gases on the climate system, the nature and extent of local and regional variations, the future use of fossil fuels, the rate of energy take-up by the oceans, likely global and regional temperature rise, and the rate of melting of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, and their effect on sea levels.
However, there is still a great deal of uncertainty within the field of climate science and considerable discussion over measurements and models of change. Predictions are always presented in terms of possibilities and probabilities, with recognition that findings are almost always likely to be provisional. Climate change policies and the goals of sustainable development have clear synergies.
Societies will need to build adaptive capacities to deal with floods, drought, temperature extremes，which will almost certainly affect crop production and food security.Other synergies clearly relate to energy efficiency and economic policy.
Renewable energy can be economically beneficial, improve energy security, reduce local pollutant emissions, create jobs and improve health.Climate change will take on different forms in different places, and cultural values, predispositions and political frames will generate different notions of citizenship and governance, perceptions of nature, legal obligations, and actions that bridge different geographical scales. Climate change is therefore about what we do, most importantly, the meaning we attach to these actions.
3.3 The 2015 Paris Climate Agreement: COP21
The world’s nations met in Paris in December 2015 to hammer out a climate agreement that would replace that produced in Kyoto nearly twenty years earlier.The Paris Agreement was heralded by many in government, business and the media as truly significant, although it is little more than a statement of intent and largely confirmed targets set in Copenhagen in 2009.
A growing number of critics felt that the finance, political will and necessary technological shifts away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy generation were lacking.Whether technology can do the job of saving the planet and our present mode of economic organization and development is a question yet to be answered satisfactorily.Nevertheless, the Agreement remains an important international achievement, for Article Two clearly states:
(1) This Agreement, in enhancing the implementation of the Convention, including its objective, aims to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty, including by:
(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1. 5C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;
(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production; and
(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development.
(2) This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances.”
The problem with the Paris Agreement perhaps can be seen clearly in Article Four with its use of a number of qualifying clauses:
“In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.”
In October 2015, the Paris Agreement was ratified when a sufficient number of countries who were together responsible for at least 55 per cent of global GHG emissions signed the document.
The problem is that by the time the Paris Agreement was ratified, global temperatures had already increased by 1ºC above pre-industrial levels and that, according to researchers at the University of Melbourne, it seems that even if no GHG emissions occurred at all from now on, it would be impossible to restrict that rise to 1.5ºC by 2100.
In addition, the Paris Agreement invited individual countries to make unilateral ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’ (INDCs) which would in turn form the legal background for national climate action.
According to Climate Action Tracker (CAT), an independent body producing scientific analyses of the pledges and action of 32 countries which cover around 80 percent of global emissions, we are currently heading for a rise of around 3.6ºC.
This figure is largely confirmed by UNEP (2016) which states that we are currently on target for a 3.4ºC rise in global temperatures by the end of this century. CAT notes that the USA needs to ‘fully implement’ its Clean Power Plan and its Climate Action Plan if it is to meet its emissions reduction target of 25–28 percent of below 2005 levels by 2025, but at the time of writing this seems unlikely given President Trump’s decision in May 2017 to withdraw the USA from the Paris climate accords.
3.4 The precautionary principle
Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development states:
“In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”
In other words, the precautionary principle suggests that it is wise to act prudently when there is sufficient scientific evidence, where action can be justified on reasonable judgements of cost-effectiveness, and where inaction could lead to potential irreversibility or demonstrable harm to people and the environment now and in the future.
However, the precautionary principle takes on different hues depending on perspectives or worldviews. For example: Weak sustainability – precaution has a place as a spur to innovation and managerial adaptation to make up for losses of environmental resources.Cost-benefit analysis is consequently very important.
Strong sustainability – precaution defines an approach to living that is in harmony with the natural world.
Risk, complexity, uncertainty and the partial nature of knowledge have led to this important guiding principle becoming central to the sustainability debate.
For O’Riordan and Cameron (1994), global environmental change means that the precautionary principle ought to be understood in three ways, as:
the requirement of collective action;
the requirement of burden sharing; and
the rise of global citizenship.
Three other factors are also important:
the need to go beyond scientific understandings;
the need to take proactive anticipatory action; and
the need to become more averse to risk possibilities.
For them, the precautionary principle is most likely to be applied in the following circumstances:
new technologies are proposed in well-regulated regimes and where public opinion is instinctively or knowledgeably risk-averse;
where the principles of regulation allow for judgement as to what is socially tolerable;
where there is a national culture of care for the less fortunate and the defenceless;
where there is openness and accountability in policy formulation and decision-taking.
One major criticism of the precautionary principle is that it is vague and often open to various legal and operational interpretations. By reversing the burden of proof, such that any activity must prove that it will not cause harm, the precautionary principle is seen by some as potentially retarding development and innovation, and consequently as unscientific.
Those who take this view tend to favour narrow risk assessments based on probabilities derived from available but often imperfect evidence.
It is these views that have informed the design of government regulatory approaches to genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
A stronger version of the precautionary principle would suggest that GMO regulation should be based to a great extent on a potential to cause harm rather than on knowledge of actual harm.
In other areas, such as emissions regulations to combat climate change, devising a robust regulatory system may be even more difficult because of the complexities of climate systems. However, the precautionary principle does not tell people what kinds of action to take. Rather, it assumes that the overriding aim is to prevent harm, and steadily policy makers are recognizing the importance of:
setting goals;
examining all reasonable alternatives for achieving those goals, with the expectation that the least harmful approach will be preferred;
shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of new activities or technologies;
involving those who will be affected by the decision in the decision-making process.
3.5 Sustainability science: birth of a new discipline
Independent scholar Kates and others called for the development of a new discipline: sustainability science.
Kates (2001) suggested:
A new field of sustainability science is emerging that seeks to understand the fundamental character of interactions between nature and society. Such an understanding must encompass the interaction of global processes with the ecological and social characteristics of particular places and sectors.
The regional character of much sustainability science means that research will integrate the effects of key processes across scales from the local to the global. Sustainability science will require fundamental advances in our ability to address issues such as the behavior of complex self-organizing systems as well as the responses of the socio-ecological systems to multiple and interacting stresses such as climate change, population movement, economic dislocation and so on.
Combining different ways of knowing and learning will permit different social actors to work in concert, even with much uncertainty and limited information.”
Core questions research include:
How can the dynamic interactions between nature and society be better incorporated into emerging models and conceptualizations that integrate the Earth system with human development and sustainability?
How are long-term trends in environment and development, including consumption and population, reshaping nature–society interactions in ways relevant to sustainability?
What determines the vulnerability or resilience of the nature–society system in particular kinds of places, for particular types of ecosystems and for human livelihoods?
Can scientifically meaningful ‘limits’ be defined that would provide effective warning of conditions beyond which the nature–society systems incur a significantly increased risk of serious degradation?
What systems of incentive structures, including markets and scientific information, can effectively improve social capacity to guide interactions between nature and society in a more sustainable direction?
How can today’s operational systems for monitoring and reporting environmental and social conditions be developed to provide better guidance for a transition toward sustainability?
How can today’s activities of research planning, monitoring, assessment and decision support be better integrated into systems for adaptive management and societal learning?
3.6. Science, knowledge and sustainability
The interrelationship and tensions between industrial practices, business imperatives, public policy, political acceptability, social livelihoods, ways of life, cultural expectations, trust, scientific knowledge and capacity to predict are clearly apparent in many issues，whether we are talking of GM, nanotechnology or even fish farming.
However，one problem for both scientists and non-scientists is how to acquire a perspective on scientific change that encompasses the idea of the whole Earth-as-planet.
We sometimes become mesmerized by the truly amazing advances in scientific research and understanding, and we also, as Dixon (2002) reminds us, sometimes fail to realize how uneven these scientific advances are fast and fantastic in some areas, slow and uncertain in others. This often leads to gaps between the problems we have to deal with and the scientific tools we have at our disposal, because of:
our own limited cognitive capacity to understand highly complex systems;
the intrinsic difficulty of some scientific problems;
the nature of scientific institutions, funding regimes and career trajectories, which tend to make interdisciplinary research and development difficult; and
social and cultural values which are sceptical of the methods, ethical priorities and benefits of modern science and technology.
In some developing countries，this is often compounded by a lack of resources and highly trained scientists.Given so much uncertainty and complexity, sustainable development must be participatory, democratic and inclusive in probably every sphere – knowledge generation, political decision making and policy implementation, risk assessment, environmental management, health, public communication, and so on.
Contrasting forms of knowledge about nature and society derived from community, professional, militant activist and personal experiences are slowly combining to form new theories of and approaches to sustainable socio-ecological development.
These forms of knowledge range from the empirically based notions of bottom-up ‘citizen science’ to the professionalized top-down expertise of international NGOs, universities and think tanks and the knowledge management practices of business and government.
For German philosopher Martin Heidegger, tools and instruments, science and technology are the means by which human beings impact on and perceive, model, and visually and imaginatively construct our view and understanding of the planet.
Technology can allow us to see.
Digital modelling, computer-enhanced imaging and photographs taken by orbiting telescopes or in the lab by electronic microscopes all serve as extensions of ourselves. Science is embodied in technology, and scientific practice is embodied in much of our attitudes and behaviour, but sustainability practitioners have also highlighted the value of other more spiritual or sensual ways of seeing, in many ways reflecting the growing value of traditional ecological knowledge.
