YEARPLAN - definition of sustainable development

The Environmental Working Group has been founded at the Agora Valletta, Spring 2007. It will cover environmental issues.

Moderator: Forum Admin

YEARPLAN - definition of sustainable development

by Kadri Kalle » 05 Jul 2007 13:22 UTC

I found this subject very interesting and as the theme of the future Yearplan Project is sustainable development, then I see discussion over the definition quite important.

Please share your ideas.
László Tamás wrote in EnWG list:

Sustainable development means nothing, it s nonsense and never could be reached. Why?
The earth is a closed ecosystem, it has its limits, there are resources which can be depleted, even if we use them very carefully. The way, the most people think about development is the growth. If I satisfy more needs, I've "developed". As E. F. Schumacher said "The world economy is growing for growth". Sustainability means a "very very long time", but we are already pushing the limits of our ecosystem, so I think the development/growth is not possible for a long time anymore.

What I suggest, that we should change our goals. Don't fight for sustainable development but for "sustainable living conditions".

I'm curious about your reactions, what do you think about this.
Kadri Kalle

by Kadri Kalle » 05 Jul 2007 13:31 UTC

And so, here come my first thoughts:

I agree that the focus of "sustainable development" is a bit wrong, concentrating on growth just as Tamas said. And yes, living in a closed sytem we cannot hope for a eternal growth.

I know that IUCN in one of their meeting last year brought up the subject that "sustainable development" as such should be re-defined. That the 3 parts: economy, society and environment can't actually be taken equally, as environment in the end is the resource basis for the other 2.

And another thing is that the term "sustainable development" is just a meaningless term to many people, to those who should actually implement it.

Could this be one of the next Yearplan Project aims: to try to redefine "sustainable development", to put it into real frames (I kinda liked the "sustaining our living conditions") and bring the meaning "to the people"?

Waiting for more ideas and feedback.

Kadri Kalle

by Fatih Tunca » 08 Jul 2007 04:35 UTC

Dear all,

My thoughts about the definition of "Sustainable Development" is softer than the others. I think we should not see and explain this definition too exaggeration and comment on like "since our resources are limited we can not hope eternal growth".

With such kind of explanation we charactarize the issue as if it is the hardest part of the continuity. When we have restricted lifes we should intensify to work for the better future on the restricted time period such as eternity. Because it is fact that we can not ensure the "Sustainable Development" in this restricted human life and world life. But we can struggle for ensuring this developments and taking over the experences we have to the new generations.

In this sense we can call all these works we do as sustainable. Because not only we work for the beter future but also we ensure that there are more people are willing to work.

I don't see the end of the sources of the world my concern. The god created all of these things limited and the only thing we can do to use them in a better way.

So, the definition "Sustainable Development" means a lot for me and i don't see it as meaningless for the others.

Greetings from Eskisehir,
Fatih Tunca

by Tamas Laszlo » 22 Jul 2007 12:04 UTC

Dear all,

I'm happy, that we started this negotiation about this topis, it would be much better if everybody would share its oppinion.
Now, I would like to tell my oppinion again from another point of view.

If we look at the global economy as a huge company, what can we see? This company uses resources. These resources are stock kind of resources, because they can be depleted. Like in every company, the stock is the capital, because the capital can be depleted also. But our global economy uses these stock resources like an income - flow resources.
Can you say, that this company which lives from its capital is succesfull? Would you invest in a company which is "eating itself"?
As long as a company lives from its capital, which is collected through lots of years, never will be succesfull for a long time. Our global economy needs changes, if we want sustainable economy, we have to return to flow kind of resources. This means, that the way of our living can not be sustainable, because its based on the waste of the capital/stocks of the Earth.
Easy to say...hard to act.
Tamas Laszlo

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests