- Email: [email protected]
Contradictions in the concept of sustainable development: An analysis in social, economic, and political contexts
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev
Contradictions in the concept of sustainable development: An analysis in social, economic, and political contexts
T
Christiano Nogueira Federal University of Paraná – Litoral Campus, Jaguariaíva Street, 512, Matinhos 83260-000, State of Paraná, Brazil
A R T IC LE I N F O
ABS TRA CT:
Keywords: Ecological economics Environmental economics Human-nature relations Sustainable development
This article presents a brief analysis of sustainable development in the context of contemporary productive forces and production relationships, as well as their contradictions regarding the limits of nature. For this particular evaluation, it was necessary to present a logical critique of ecological economics and environmental economics. To corroborate this inherent contradiction, certain data were included, such as surplus food production, the use of agrochemicals, the increasing average temperature of the planet due to the emission of greenhouse gases, and inequality in the distribution of income. Subsequently, an analysis of these data was performed. Finally, some general elements related to a new way of thinking about the productive forces and production relationships were proposed, which focus on a production dynamic directed toward basic human needs instead of market needs.
1. Introduction The human beings are one of a lot of species living in nature. When interacting with nature, human beings have transformed it dramatically, and nature, in turn, has also transformed human beings through an evolutionary process. In their interaction with nature, human beings use their intellectual abilities and physical strength to employ instruments and objects in a context involving the conditions in which they organize themselves socially and culturally with one another. Thereby enabling our species to create conditions that ensure that it not only survives but also thrives. These characteristics are specifically human, are part of their ontology, and define the productive forces and the relationship of the production of conditions for the existence of humanity. Historically, human beings have gone through different stages of productive forces and relationships, which generally include the primitive, slave, feudal, and capitalist phases, with the latter being the current stage of evolution. Because of their different characteristics, these phases have different degrees of interaction with, and use of, natural resources. To analyze the relationship between humans and nature nowadays, this discussion considers the capitalist mode of production. From this, the concept of sustainable development (SD) is examined, including its possibilities, limitations, and contradictions, based on the theoretical foundations of ecological and environmental economics. Additionally, certain environmental problems; their relationships with SD; and the foundations of ecological and environmental economics, which may be associated with the regeneration capacity of our planet, are analyzed through experimental information. Finally, we offer a number of possibilities for rethinking the relationships regarding production that would enable human beings and nature to engage in a new type of relationship that might prove to be effectively sustainable.
E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.04.004 Received 31 July 2018; Received in revised form 6 April 2019; Accepted 9 April 2019 2211-4645/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
2. SD and the economic approach Environmental issues that affect society have always been a concern of the United Nations (UN), which has held several conferences on rethinking the relationship between human beings and nature. The first and one of the most important of these was the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which was held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. It was considered to be a reference point for the use of natural resources and economic development because it presented initial conceptions regarding what would become SD. The Brundtland Report was formalized and published by Commission on Environment and Development (1987), propagating the following notion: “Sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland Report, 1987). The core insight of this report was based on enabling people now and in the future to achieve a satisfactory level of social, economic, and cultural development. Also, the reasonable use of land resources, while preserving natural species and habitats. Thus, according to the concept of SD, a healthy relationship between human beings and nature is possible if we consider the present stages of productive forces and the production relationships associated with humanity. In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio 92), which used the Brundtland Report as a reference document to concentrate efforts to meet the premises of SD, was held in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years later, in 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio + 10) was held, and in 2012, again in Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio + 20) was held. Finally, in 2015, the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit took place at the UN headquarters in New York City. At that meeting, all UN countries defined new SD objectives in line with the general principles outlined in the Brundtland Report. An analysis of the SD concept described in the Brundtland Report has denoted the same understanding as that presented by the World Bank. That is to say, one in which the whole wealth of a society is maintained or increases (World Bank, 2006). On the other hand, authors such as Biermann et al. (2012) argue the case for a fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions for more effective governance of the terrestrial system and planetary management. These authors are of the view that scientific research indicates that human activities are transforming various terrestrial subsystems beyond the reach of the natural variability that has been typical of the last 500,000 years. In addition, human societies must change their relationship with the terrestrial system that can lead to rapid and irreversible changes. On the basis of these arguments, Griggs et al. (2013) addressed the goals for the SD of people and the planet, while also addressing the goals for humanity in relation to nature, as a new paradigm that ensures the stability of terrestrial systems and is in line with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (2012). However, it would not be possible to achieve these goals without a change in economic relationships (Biermann et al., 2012). Griggs et al. (2013) proposed the strategy of national policies establishing the price of carbon—a value in natural capital and a cost in actions that are unsustainable. In other words, the proposal consists of actions taken by the state in the economy through control over pricing that is not sustainable without a change in the structures that support the productive forces and the production relationships that exist today. For ecological economists, the current patterns of consumption and production have a limit because many of the most used natural resources of our planet are finite (Barbosa and Marques, 2015; Cavalcanti, 2015; Cechin and Veiga, 2010; Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). Interestingly, this concept is at least partially based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law, in a closed system, when there is a transformation of one type of energy into another, energy is always dissipated in the form of heat that is not recoverable. This dissipated energy is essentially a measurement of entropy, the degree of irreversibility of the system. Thus, the Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that there is degradation and a limit to the process of energetic transformation causing entropy to constantly increase in a closed system. The Earth can be considered to be a closed system because the conditions include energy exchange, in this case solar energy but not exchange of matter. Models that explain this type of structural organization are known as circular flow diagrams. Such a diagram of the fundamental relationship between production and consumption intends to show how products, input, and money circulate in the economic system, essentially providing a view of a circular closed system in which nothing new enters and nothing leaves (Cechin and Veiga, 2010). As Georgescu-Roegen (1971) pointed out, this economic paradigm does not recognize the inflows and outflows of matter and energy that are related to the economic process or the qualitative difference in the process of energy input and output. “Economic processes constitute material and energy transformations that are irreversible and do not occur in a circular way, as it is assumed by economic theory” (Altvater, 1995, 123). Thus, in this economic paradigm, the productive system transforms natural resources into products that have value for society, and in this transformation, there is always some type of waste that does not return to the productive system. This is because there is a thermodynamic limit regardless of how efficient power generation and the recycling processes in the economic process may be. If the economic system extracts resources from nature and discharges waste (i.e., products that have no value to society) back into nature, it is implied that the economic system cannot be treated as a cycle that is closed and isolated from nature (Cechin and Veiga, 2010). For the ecological economist, the economy must be treated as an open process within an ecosystem. “An obvious implication of the economic-ecological perspective is that the economic system, when expanding, incurs positive environmental opportunity costs (the environment is scarce). Whether or not these costs were so small that they could be ignored, the fact is that more economy means less environment. It would be good if it were not so” (Cavalcanti, 2015). In other words, from an ecological economics perspective, metabolism occurs with matter and energy in the economic processes of a low entropy for high entropy that is within the limits imposed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. One of the implications of ecological economics is that there is no generation of wealth, which is in stark contrast to the current economic paradigm. Another approach to aspects related to environmental issues is the application of environmental economics, where the dynamics 130
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
of social and environmental relationships are based on conventional economic thought. This conventional thought studies the formation of prices, the production process, and the distribution of income according to the traditional market rules of supply and demand. What distinguishes environmental economics from other economic issues is the focus on how economic activities affect the natural environment and how economic, and political decision-making by individuals, corporations, and governments can lead to deleterious effects on the natural environment (Field and Olewiler, 2011). Contrary to ecological economics, environmental economics approaches the current paradigm through principles such as profits, investments, and wealth generation using SD principles, which is commonly referred to as the green economy. Although ecological economics and environmental economics have their fair share of differences, it is worth remembering the warning that is often used to argue against the conventional economy: one cannot negotiate with nature (Chu, 2009). 3. The limits of the Earth To contribute to the debate on the approaches to ecological and environmental economics, Wackernagel et al. (2002), published by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, argued that humanity reached its regenerative capacity on the Earth in 1980. They go on to say that in 1999, humanity exceeded this capacity by 20%, meaning that it would require 1.2 Planet Earths, or that it would take 1.2 years, to regenerate what humankind consumed in the single year of 1999. In 2013, the Global Footprint Network indicated that humanity had consumed 70% of the available resources. That is to say, 1.7 Planet Earths would be required to sustain the economic system in place. The Brazilian context, with all the social inequalities that reflect the different conditions of consumption by the population, showed that, if all of humanity had the average standard of living of the average Brazilian, 1.8 Planet Earths would be required. In the case of the United States, sustainability would require five Planet Earths. A study by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations revealed that as one of the factors used to extrapolate the regeneration capacity of the planet, food production in the world is significantly higher than demand. In 1992, the production of human food was 13% higher than needed. In 2008, the production was 18% higher than the need, and in 2016, the excess production reached 23%. These values sound as absurd as the 2016 data that show around 780 million undernourished people and more than 800 million people living the reality of hunger in the world (FAO, 2016). The factors responsible for these contradictions, as pointed out by the FAO, are related to losses and waste of a significant portion of the food produced. Inherent factors in the context of productive forces and production relationships, such as how to treat food in the context of a marketplace principle and not as a basic need, were not addressed by the FAO report. These data allow us to conclude counterintuitively that the problem of hunger is not due to the high population growth rates in the world. This holds true although continuous population growth would be impossible as the planet does not have unlimited resources. Food production is related to the extraction of natural resources through increased use of planting and pasture areas, increased energy consumption, and increased emissions of polluting gases in the processes of transportation and generation of energy, among others things. The production processes related to agriculture and livestock also contribute to a discussion regarding the limits of the planet when using pesticides. According to Pignati et al. (2014), Brazil, as one of the world's largest agricultural producers, cultivated 95 million hectares in 2012, and on average 12 L of pesticides were sprayed in each hectare of soybeans, 6 L in each hectare of corn, 4.8 L in each hectare of sugar, and 24 L in each hectare of cotton. In total, approximately 1.05 billion liters of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides were sprayed in 2012. It is known that all pesticides are toxic, and according to studies, only 30% of them are able to reach the goal, while the rest pollute the soil, water, air, and the crops themselves (Chaim, 2004; Pignati et al., 2014). This is not new—Rachel Carson (2002), in her classic book Silent Spring, had already pointed to these problems as beginning in the first half of the last century. It is true that not all agriculture and livestock production is channeled to the production of food; however, as mentioned above, the production of human food exceeds the amount that is needed, and the use of pesticides, which adds to this complex problem of humanity, exceeds the regeneration capacity of the planet. That is to say, overproduction of food uses more pesticides, which, in turn, worsen the condition of terrestrial systems, thereby further hampering the regeneration capacity of the planet. Another relevant phenomenon pertaining to the limits of the planet is the emission of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Successive data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) revealed that the increasing trend in the Earth's average temperature when compared with levels prior to industrialization is a result of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are produced from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and oil, in addition to the wildfires caused by deforestation. The decomposition of organic matter with a high concentration in landfills, dumps, reservoirs of hydroelectric dams, and even livestock rearing produces methane (CH4) gas emissions. In Brazil, livestock accounts for 11% of all methane-related greenhouse gas emissions (Cerri et al., 2009). About 87% of these emissions are related to the burning of fossil fuels between 1959 and 2011 and show an increasing trend (Le Quéré et al., 2013). Between 2000 and 2010, emissions increased faster than they did in the previous decade, mainly due to the increased use of coal for power generation. Until 2014, the concentration of gases related to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere was the highest in the past 800,000 years. If appropriate measures are not taken in this regard, the forecast is that by 2100, the average global temperature will increase by 4.8 °C (IPCC, 2014). Two other studies were conducted separately and independently, one by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and another by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, both from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). They also show this trend since 1880. The five hottest years were recorded as of 2010, and the surface temperatures in 2016 and 2017 were the highest in recorded history (NASA, 2018). Consequent to this increase in temperature, the IPCC Report (2014) points to possible risks of violent conflict such as wars, violent protests, and immigration caused indirectly by climate change, which may lead to increased poverty, hunger, and homelessness. 131
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
Climate change can also cause floods, particularly in Europe and Asia, and the lack of water in arid countries is likely to lead to disputes over this resource. Health risks abound due to an increase in mosquito-borne diseases, contamination, or a decline in the quality of nutrition; and the extinction of terrestrial and freshwater species looms large as a result of the drastic alteration of their habitats. Regarding the effects of temperature on food resources, Lesk et al. (2016) estimated a loss of 3 billion tons, which is of the order of 9%–10% of total production, of 16 types of cereals in 177 countries between 1964 and 2007, which was caused by a rise in the average temperature of the planet. One factor that has a very close relationship with the other types of data mentioned above is income distribution. Data from Oxfam Brazil (2017) show that the richest 1% of the world's population has an income equal to the total income of the other 99% and that the world's eight richest men collectively own as much wealth as the total income of the poorest half of the global population. If income distribution presents itself on such an unequal global scale, one of the consequences of this can be unequal access to goods produced for people. These data were corroborated when carbon emissions of the richest 10% and those of 49% of humanity's total emissions were found to be equivalent. Together with the damning statistic that 50% of the world's poorest people being responsible for just 3% of carbon emissions (OXFAM, 2015). Because of the extent of inequitable distribution of the wealth produced by humanity, the carbon emissions are also unequal, which allows us to draw parallels with the data of the Global Footprint Network presented previously. It shows the dynamics of the environmental problems that are related to the extraction of the planet's resources at a rate that exceeds its sustainable limits. Also, the availability of these resources that fluctuates with the needs of a market—as the richest consume and pollute more—and not really to the human needs. These contradictions, among others, need to be rethought to develop effective actions aimed at a new relationship between human beings and nature. 4. A critical analysis for a new course With such consistent data about the limits of our planet, a new way of thinking and achieving a transformation of the practices of humanity in relation to nature is a pressing need. Griggs et al. (2013) address goals for the relationship between humanity and nature; however, they still have their limitations. Presenting a new paradigm that ensures the stability of the Earth System, these authors do not consider structural changes in economic and social relationships as they move to a new level in the context of productive forces. In other words, they treat the relationship between humanity and nature as products involved in purchase and sale in a commercial relationship with a view to a market and not to basic human necessities. Following the logic of the planned obsolescence of products and services, much of what is produced is directed toward overconsumption in order to maintain the wealth production process for a few people and hence perpetuate the unnecessary degradation of nature. Although the basic reason for food production is to meet basic human needs, it has been treated as part of a market-based system. In this kind of production, what really matters is the market values of certain foods or the value of stocks on the stock exchanges of companies that produce some type of food or product related to agriculture or livestock. According to FAO data, in 2016, 98% of starving or undernourished people live in developing countries, confirming that food production is directed toward market needs, that is, for those who have income. This is also the logic related to the use of pesticides. Human needs for food, clothing, and housing, among others, are not treated as priorities. The priority is to produce commodities in large amounts for the established market. Pesticides play a key role in productivity despite causing health problems and the contamination of, and reduction in the quality of, air, soil, forests, rivers, and oceans by means of the residual portions in applications of these products. According to UN data for the progress in 2018 of Goal 2 for SD on the eradication of hunger in the world, despite a prolonged decline, hunger appears to be rearing its head again (UN, 2018). This demonstrates that problem-solving policies should be reviewed continuously. Increases in the average temperature of our planet is a great challenge for humanity as it is caused directly and/or indirectly by the problems described previously, among others. With regard to the reduction of food production, there is a contradiction between the current production model and the production relationship. Reducing this production within an economic logic in which supply and demand would be a condition for the high or low value of a product, would imply an increase in food prices. Thus, the seriousness of the problem of hunger in several regions of the world would become even greater. It is important to remember that production is directed to the market and not to basic human needs. As discussed previously, the income distribution demonstrates this problem associated with the decrease in food production. The share of the population with the highest income would not be significantly affected when compared with a majority of the population that has a low income as the richest 1% of the world has the equivalent of the rest of the world's population. UN data on the progress of the first SD objective, which deals with poverty eradication, shows that there has been a considerable decrease in extreme poverty since 1990 although there are still areas that continue to suffer the worst forms of poverty (UN, 2018). According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Report (2013), income transfer programs in countries such as India, Brazil, and Mexico have contributed toward reducing income disparity and the health and education in poor communities has been improving. This document also points to China's growth as being market-driven and state-sponsored. This is an information that shows an advancement considering aspects of environmental economics that are according in the current economic paradigm. The consequences of temperature increase fit perfectly in this analysis as the lack of food could contribute to violent conflicts such as wars, protests, and insurrection movements. According to Diamond (2011), these characteristics are linked to the collapse of societies such as the Maya, the inhabitants of Easter Island, and the Anasazi. This author also points out that the societies that collapsed in the past did not have the same problems as contemporary societies. These such as climate change caused by human activities; the accumulation of toxic products in the wild; the lack of energy and total 132
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
utilization of the photosynthetic capacity of the planet. On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that the collapse of a society would not necessarily be caused by the human environmental impact. But it could also occur through natural factors or even these factors often work in concert with human causes (Diamond, 2011). By noting that the carbon emissions of the richest 10% are equivalent to the total emissions of 49% of humanity and that the poorest half of the world's population is responsible for only 3% of emissions, we can conclude that such data resemble the characteristics of societies that have collapsed. “Just as the Easter Island chiefs erected ever larger statues, finally crowned with a pukao, and just like the Anasazi elite, wearing necklaces with two thousand turquoise gemstones, Mayan kings sought to outdo each other by building more and more impressive temples, covered with ever thicker layers of plaster—which in turn reminds us of the extravagant and conspicuous consumption of modern corporate American culture. The passivity of the Easter leaders and Mayan kings in the face of the great threats that surrounded their societies completes our list of disturbing comparisons” (Diamond, 2011, 218). In other words, it is possible to make an analogy between the societies mentioned above and the current world, where a proportionately small group of subjects consume overwhelmingly large quantities of products. These evidenced by the carbon emissions of the richest 10% being equivalent to the total carbon emissions of 49% of humanity, and with another predominantly large group having varying degrees of difficulty in meeting their basic needs. These aspects are related to Goal 13 of the SD objectives. According to the UN (2018), with regard to the progress of this goal, the data shows that 2017 was one of the three warmest years on record and saw an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. This information shows the limitation of the approach of environmental economics, as well as bringing us face to face with the limits of our planet from the perspective of ecological economics. These contradictions suggest that SD in the context of contemporary productive forces should not be tied to economic growth, that is, the very concept of economic growth implies producing more products and services, which, in turn, implies extracting more natural resources. Let's consider, for example, Goal 8 of the SD objectives addressing sustained growth with inclusion, as well as full and productive employment in which all have decent work. To contemplate these conditions, it is necessary to extract more from nature. Moreover, the implementation of that employment and inclusion itself implies the transformation of natural resources for better life conditions. This extraction occurs through the acquisition of input and the generation of energy for the functioning of the economic system, according to Georgescu-Roegen (1971), under the condition that the economy is treated as a closed system and that it is open due to its dependence on nature. In the words of Altvater (1995, 26), “development and environment are in a reciprocal relationship: economic activities transform the environment and the changed environment constitutes an external constraint for economic and social development.” We need policies to implement a reorientation of what is produced in societies. According to ecological economics, a planet with limited resources would tend to arrive at an environmental collapse sooner if the policies that aim to increase the income of the poorest population did not consider that the income of the richest should decrease. Eradicating poverty implies the further extraction of the already limited natural resources from the planet. And the limits to the accumulation of wealth are not set, which also comes from the extraction of natural resources by a small fraction of the world's population. From the foregoing discussion, there is a relationship with Sato (2008), which describes that this concept was eventually incorporated by international organizations, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and UNESCO, which made discussions on the concept take an environmental and social approach with emphasis still on the current economic development model. From the arguments presented, SD should not have the same meaning as economic growth. The term SD makes sense for economy but only if it is understood as development without growth. That is to say, the qualitative improvement of a physical economic base that is maintained in a steady state by the movement of matter or energy that is within the regenerative and assimilative capacities of the ecosystem. Currently, the term SD is used as a synonym for sustainable growth, which is an oxymoron. (Daly, 2017). Thus, the sustainable development approach of Daly and the discussions presented until now show the importance of the political dimension of SD. These political aspects are in agreement with Frey (2001, 2) because SD is a political problem and an exercise of power, which addresses the issues of political–administrative institutions, participation, and the political process. This paradigm could be considered in studies of ecological economics and environmental economics as they have objectives that are consistent with SD. 5. End considerations Considering the approaches of this brief discussion, SD can be reinterpreted as a new paradigm of society. The construction of SD must point to the interests of a collectivity, which considers equal and environmentally compatible relationships with the limits of the planet. And which requires effective action through the political mobilization of everyone, particularly those belonging to the most disadvantaged layers, through an effective democratic process. To this end, we need to undergo a metamorphosis that allows us to construct a new way of relating to nature and subjects. The present stage in which the productive forces are found would enable the construction of SD through a new paradigm of the relationships of production conditions. A paradigm aiming at a democratic society that would environmentally allow the existence of, and respect, the diversity of the most varied forms of life. Processes that consider the contradictions of the current production system and the different realities of the various peoples with their different cultures make it possible to rescue the relationship between human beings and nature (Nogueira, 2018). Or, in the words of Altvater (1995, 284), “an efficiency revolution is claimed and considered feasible as modern technologies would be available, needing only to be reoriented toward environmental protection.” This new paradigm must question how we sustain our existence, considering what human needs really are and what the necessities tied to the market relationships that covertly present themselves as human needs are. On the one hand, the data of UNDP (2013) depict economic growth coupled with the income transfer policies presented above as showing that we are on the way to achieving Goal 8 of the SD objectives. On the other hand, the data of Wackernagel et al. (2002) and Global Footprint Network (2017) show that this same growth has indicated that consumption by 133
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
humanity is increasing, exceeding the regeneration capacity of the planet even more. Thus, there is a problem in reaching Goals 13, 14, and 15 of the SD objectives. In this new paradigm, social, economic, and environmental relationships are modified through a dynamic and historical process, which, at the same time, in each of them, modifies itself. Consequently, their modifications change the whole, and in the course of time, these modifications are continually perpetuated. These aspects show that an approach that involves different areas of knowledge is paramount. The social and environmental problems require in-depth studies for the referrals proposed here and in interdisciplinary studies to mature. Learning through different disciplines enables us to recognize and analyze the disciplinary differences, allowing the search for a common territory and a common language that makes possible the understanding of the roles of each one in problem resolution and also the search for bridges to integrate the knowledge (Haapasaari et al., 2012). This kind of learning is essential, particularly regarding the knowledge of the social sciences, so much so that Sjöstedt (2015) considers that the aspects that involve interdisciplinarity should think about resilience through the scientific advances of the existing social sciences more seriously. It is a new perspective of social and environmental relationships in which nature is a part of humans, who interact with it to transform it within its ability to remain resilient, which should necessarily accord with basic human needs besides being just directed at other living beings. This new perspective, when considering a way for humanity to produce for its existence on the basis of basic needs, does not imply the precariousness of people's living conditions. Because, the present stages of the productive forces can make possible a redirection of all science and technology developed for new social and environmental relationships. It implies conditions that include justice regarding what humanity produces both in the relationships among human beings and in relation to other living beings. However, it is important to point out that such changes imply profound changes in the current economic logic, which could generate a different set of social, economic, and environmental problems and could even aggravate attempts to reach SD goals. This points to the need for more in-depth studies of both ecological economics and environmental economics considering knowledge as an interdisciplinary construction to promote socially egalitarian and environmentally balanced societies. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.04.004. References Altvater, E., 1995. O preço da riqueza. Editora UNESP, São Paulo. Biermann, F., et al., 2012. Navigating the anthropocene: improving Earth system governance. Science 335, 1306–1307. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217255. Brundtland, G., 1987. Brundtland Relatory. Our Common Future, United Nations. Carson, R., 2002. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Cavalcanti, C., 2015. Socio-environmental thinking and ecological economics: a new perspective to think about society. Desenvolv. Meio Ambiente 35, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v35i0.43545. Cechin, A.D., Veiga, J.E., 2010. A economia Ecológica e Evolucionária de Georgescu-Roegen. Braz. J. Pol. Econ. 30 (3), 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1590/S010131572010000300005. Cerri, C.C., et al., 2009. Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions:the importance of agriculture and livestock. Sci. Agric. 66 (6), 831–843. https://doi.org/10.1590/S010390162009000600017. Chaim, A., 2004. Tecnologia de aplicação de agrotóxicos: fatores que afetam a e ciência e o impacto ambiental. In: Agrotóxicos & Ambiente edited by Célia Maria Maganhotto de Souza Silva and Elisabeth Francisconi Fay, 289-317. Brasília, Brasil, Embrapa. Chu, S., 2009, July. 4 the Alternative Choice - Face Value. The Economist. Daly, H., 2017. A new economics for our full world. In: Handbook on Growth and Sustainability Edited by Peter A. Victor and Brett Dolter. Elgar Publishing, Northampton, USA, pp. 85–106. Diamond, J., 2011. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Penguim Books, New York. Field, B.C., Olewiler, N., 2011. Environmental Economics. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Whitby. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2016. Adopting a Territorial Approach to Food Security and Nutrition Policy. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl336e.pdf, Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Frey, K., 2001. Political-democratic dimension within sustainable development theories and its implications for local management. Ambiente Sociedade 9, 115–148. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-753X2001000900007. Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Global Footprint Network, 2017. Public Data Package. Available online at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/, Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Griggs, D., et al., 2013. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307. Haapasaari, P., Soile, K., S.K., 2012. Growing into interdisciplinarity: how to converge biology, economics, and social science in fisheries research? Ecol. Soc. 17 (1), 6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04503-170106. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014. In: Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Climate Change. 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland , Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Le Quéré, C., et al., 2013. The global carbon budget 1959–2011. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 5 (1), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-165-2013. Lesk, C., et al., 2016. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 529, 84–87. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 2018. Long-Term Warming Trend Continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA. Available online at: https://www.giss. nasa.gov/research/news/20180118/, Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Nogueira, C., 2018. Education for sustainable development and conceptions of environmental education in Brazil: possible approaches. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 12 (1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0973408218773269. Oxford Committee for Famine Relief - Brasil (OXFAM Brasil), 2017. A Distância que nos une. Um retrato da desigualdade brasileira. Available online at: www.oxfam. org.br, Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Oxford Committee for Famine Relief (OXFAM), 2015. Extreme Carbon Inequality. Why the Paris Climate Deal Must Put the Poorest, Lowest Emitting and Most Vulnerable People First. Available online at: www.oxfam.org, Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Pignati, W., Noemi, P.O., Ageo, M.C.S., 2014. Surveillance on pesticides: quantification of use and prediction of impact on health, work and the environment for Brazilian municipalities. Ciência Saúde Coletiva 19 (12), 4669–4678. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320141912.12762014.
134
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
Sato, M., 2008. Em busca de sociedades sustentáveis. Pátio - Revista Pedagógica: Educação para o desenvolvimento sustentável 2, 55–59. Sjöstedt, M., 2015. Resilience revisited: taking institutional theory seriously. Ecol. Soc. 20 (4), 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08034-200423. United Nations, 2012. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012. United Nations, 2013. Human Development Report 2013. United Nations, 2018. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Plataform. Available online at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300> , Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Wackernagel, M., et al., 2002. Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America, vol. 99. pp. 9266–9271 14. World Bank, 2006. Where Is the Wealth of Nations? The World Bank, Washington, DC Conference Edition. Available online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTEEI/214578-1110886258964/20748034/All.pdf, Accessed date: 28 June 2018.
135
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Development journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev
Contradictions in the concept of sustainable development: An analysis in social, economic, and political contexts
T
Christiano Nogueira Federal University of Paraná – Litoral Campus, Jaguariaíva Street, 512, Matinhos 83260-000, State of Paraná, Brazil
A R T IC LE I N F O
ABS TRA CT:
Keywords: Ecological economics Environmental economics Human-nature relations Sustainable development
This article presents a brief analysis of sustainable development in the context of contemporary productive forces and production relationships, as well as their contradictions regarding the limits of nature. For this particular evaluation, it was necessary to present a logical critique of ecological economics and environmental economics. To corroborate this inherent contradiction, certain data were included, such as surplus food production, the use of agrochemicals, the increasing average temperature of the planet due to the emission of greenhouse gases, and inequality in the distribution of income. Subsequently, an analysis of these data was performed. Finally, some general elements related to a new way of thinking about the productive forces and production relationships were proposed, which focus on a production dynamic directed toward basic human needs instead of market needs.
1. Introduction The human beings are one of a lot of species living in nature. When interacting with nature, human beings have transformed it dramatically, and nature, in turn, has also transformed human beings through an evolutionary process. In their interaction with nature, human beings use their intellectual abilities and physical strength to employ instruments and objects in a context involving the conditions in which they organize themselves socially and culturally with one another. Thereby enabling our species to create conditions that ensure that it not only survives but also thrives. These characteristics are specifically human, are part of their ontology, and define the productive forces and the relationship of the production of conditions for the existence of humanity. Historically, human beings have gone through different stages of productive forces and relationships, which generally include the primitive, slave, feudal, and capitalist phases, with the latter being the current stage of evolution. Because of their different characteristics, these phases have different degrees of interaction with, and use of, natural resources. To analyze the relationship between humans and nature nowadays, this discussion considers the capitalist mode of production. From this, the concept of sustainable development (SD) is examined, including its possibilities, limitations, and contradictions, based on the theoretical foundations of ecological and environmental economics. Additionally, certain environmental problems; their relationships with SD; and the foundations of ecological and environmental economics, which may be associated with the regeneration capacity of our planet, are analyzed through experimental information. Finally, we offer a number of possibilities for rethinking the relationships regarding production that would enable human beings and nature to engage in a new type of relationship that might prove to be effectively sustainable.
E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.04.004 Received 31 July 2018; Received in revised form 6 April 2019; Accepted 9 April 2019 2211-4645/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
2. SD and the economic approach Environmental issues that affect society have always been a concern of the United Nations (UN), which has held several conferences on rethinking the relationship between human beings and nature. The first and one of the most important of these was the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, which was held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. It was considered to be a reference point for the use of natural resources and economic development because it presented initial conceptions regarding what would become SD. The Brundtland Report was formalized and published by Commission on Environment and Development (1987), propagating the following notion: “Sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland Report, 1987). The core insight of this report was based on enabling people now and in the future to achieve a satisfactory level of social, economic, and cultural development. Also, the reasonable use of land resources, while preserving natural species and habitats. Thus, according to the concept of SD, a healthy relationship between human beings and nature is possible if we consider the present stages of productive forces and the production relationships associated with humanity. In 1992, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (Rio 92), which used the Brundtland Report as a reference document to concentrate efforts to meet the premises of SD, was held in Rio de Janeiro. Ten years later, in 2002, in Johannesburg, South Africa, the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Rio + 10) was held, and in 2012, again in Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio + 20) was held. Finally, in 2015, the United Nations Sustainable Development Summit took place at the UN headquarters in New York City. At that meeting, all UN countries defined new SD objectives in line with the general principles outlined in the Brundtland Report. An analysis of the SD concept described in the Brundtland Report has denoted the same understanding as that presented by the World Bank. That is to say, one in which the whole wealth of a society is maintained or increases (World Bank, 2006). On the other hand, authors such as Biermann et al. (2012) argue the case for a fundamental reorientation and restructuring of national and international institutions for more effective governance of the terrestrial system and planetary management. These authors are of the view that scientific research indicates that human activities are transforming various terrestrial subsystems beyond the reach of the natural variability that has been typical of the last 500,000 years. In addition, human societies must change their relationship with the terrestrial system that can lead to rapid and irreversible changes. On the basis of these arguments, Griggs et al. (2013) addressed the goals for the SD of people and the planet, while also addressing the goals for humanity in relation to nature, as a new paradigm that ensures the stability of terrestrial systems and is in line with the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (2012). However, it would not be possible to achieve these goals without a change in economic relationships (Biermann et al., 2012). Griggs et al. (2013) proposed the strategy of national policies establishing the price of carbon—a value in natural capital and a cost in actions that are unsustainable. In other words, the proposal consists of actions taken by the state in the economy through control over pricing that is not sustainable without a change in the structures that support the productive forces and the production relationships that exist today. For ecological economists, the current patterns of consumption and production have a limit because many of the most used natural resources of our planet are finite (Barbosa and Marques, 2015; Cavalcanti, 2015; Cechin and Veiga, 2010; Georgescu-Roegen, 1971). Interestingly, this concept is at least partially based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics. According to this law, in a closed system, when there is a transformation of one type of energy into another, energy is always dissipated in the form of heat that is not recoverable. This dissipated energy is essentially a measurement of entropy, the degree of irreversibility of the system. Thus, the Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that there is degradation and a limit to the process of energetic transformation causing entropy to constantly increase in a closed system. The Earth can be considered to be a closed system because the conditions include energy exchange, in this case solar energy but not exchange of matter. Models that explain this type of structural organization are known as circular flow diagrams. Such a diagram of the fundamental relationship between production and consumption intends to show how products, input, and money circulate in the economic system, essentially providing a view of a circular closed system in which nothing new enters and nothing leaves (Cechin and Veiga, 2010). As Georgescu-Roegen (1971) pointed out, this economic paradigm does not recognize the inflows and outflows of matter and energy that are related to the economic process or the qualitative difference in the process of energy input and output. “Economic processes constitute material and energy transformations that are irreversible and do not occur in a circular way, as it is assumed by economic theory” (Altvater, 1995, 123). Thus, in this economic paradigm, the productive system transforms natural resources into products that have value for society, and in this transformation, there is always some type of waste that does not return to the productive system. This is because there is a thermodynamic limit regardless of how efficient power generation and the recycling processes in the economic process may be. If the economic system extracts resources from nature and discharges waste (i.e., products that have no value to society) back into nature, it is implied that the economic system cannot be treated as a cycle that is closed and isolated from nature (Cechin and Veiga, 2010). For the ecological economist, the economy must be treated as an open process within an ecosystem. “An obvious implication of the economic-ecological perspective is that the economic system, when expanding, incurs positive environmental opportunity costs (the environment is scarce). Whether or not these costs were so small that they could be ignored, the fact is that more economy means less environment. It would be good if it were not so” (Cavalcanti, 2015). In other words, from an ecological economics perspective, metabolism occurs with matter and energy in the economic processes of a low entropy for high entropy that is within the limits imposed by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. One of the implications of ecological economics is that there is no generation of wealth, which is in stark contrast to the current economic paradigm. Another approach to aspects related to environmental issues is the application of environmental economics, where the dynamics 130
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
of social and environmental relationships are based on conventional economic thought. This conventional thought studies the formation of prices, the production process, and the distribution of income according to the traditional market rules of supply and demand. What distinguishes environmental economics from other economic issues is the focus on how economic activities affect the natural environment and how economic, and political decision-making by individuals, corporations, and governments can lead to deleterious effects on the natural environment (Field and Olewiler, 2011). Contrary to ecological economics, environmental economics approaches the current paradigm through principles such as profits, investments, and wealth generation using SD principles, which is commonly referred to as the green economy. Although ecological economics and environmental economics have their fair share of differences, it is worth remembering the warning that is often used to argue against the conventional economy: one cannot negotiate with nature (Chu, 2009). 3. The limits of the Earth To contribute to the debate on the approaches to ecological and environmental economics, Wackernagel et al. (2002), published by the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, argued that humanity reached its regenerative capacity on the Earth in 1980. They go on to say that in 1999, humanity exceeded this capacity by 20%, meaning that it would require 1.2 Planet Earths, or that it would take 1.2 years, to regenerate what humankind consumed in the single year of 1999. In 2013, the Global Footprint Network indicated that humanity had consumed 70% of the available resources. That is to say, 1.7 Planet Earths would be required to sustain the economic system in place. The Brazilian context, with all the social inequalities that reflect the different conditions of consumption by the population, showed that, if all of humanity had the average standard of living of the average Brazilian, 1.8 Planet Earths would be required. In the case of the United States, sustainability would require five Planet Earths. A study by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations revealed that as one of the factors used to extrapolate the regeneration capacity of the planet, food production in the world is significantly higher than demand. In 1992, the production of human food was 13% higher than needed. In 2008, the production was 18% higher than the need, and in 2016, the excess production reached 23%. These values sound as absurd as the 2016 data that show around 780 million undernourished people and more than 800 million people living the reality of hunger in the world (FAO, 2016). The factors responsible for these contradictions, as pointed out by the FAO, are related to losses and waste of a significant portion of the food produced. Inherent factors in the context of productive forces and production relationships, such as how to treat food in the context of a marketplace principle and not as a basic need, were not addressed by the FAO report. These data allow us to conclude counterintuitively that the problem of hunger is not due to the high population growth rates in the world. This holds true although continuous population growth would be impossible as the planet does not have unlimited resources. Food production is related to the extraction of natural resources through increased use of planting and pasture areas, increased energy consumption, and increased emissions of polluting gases in the processes of transportation and generation of energy, among others things. The production processes related to agriculture and livestock also contribute to a discussion regarding the limits of the planet when using pesticides. According to Pignati et al. (2014), Brazil, as one of the world's largest agricultural producers, cultivated 95 million hectares in 2012, and on average 12 L of pesticides were sprayed in each hectare of soybeans, 6 L in each hectare of corn, 4.8 L in each hectare of sugar, and 24 L in each hectare of cotton. In total, approximately 1.05 billion liters of herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides were sprayed in 2012. It is known that all pesticides are toxic, and according to studies, only 30% of them are able to reach the goal, while the rest pollute the soil, water, air, and the crops themselves (Chaim, 2004; Pignati et al., 2014). This is not new—Rachel Carson (2002), in her classic book Silent Spring, had already pointed to these problems as beginning in the first half of the last century. It is true that not all agriculture and livestock production is channeled to the production of food; however, as mentioned above, the production of human food exceeds the amount that is needed, and the use of pesticides, which adds to this complex problem of humanity, exceeds the regeneration capacity of the planet. That is to say, overproduction of food uses more pesticides, which, in turn, worsen the condition of terrestrial systems, thereby further hampering the regeneration capacity of the planet. Another relevant phenomenon pertaining to the limits of the planet is the emission of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). Successive data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) revealed that the increasing trend in the Earth's average temperature when compared with levels prior to industrialization is a result of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are produced from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, natural gas, and oil, in addition to the wildfires caused by deforestation. The decomposition of organic matter with a high concentration in landfills, dumps, reservoirs of hydroelectric dams, and even livestock rearing produces methane (CH4) gas emissions. In Brazil, livestock accounts for 11% of all methane-related greenhouse gas emissions (Cerri et al., 2009). About 87% of these emissions are related to the burning of fossil fuels between 1959 and 2011 and show an increasing trend (Le Quéré et al., 2013). Between 2000 and 2010, emissions increased faster than they did in the previous decade, mainly due to the increased use of coal for power generation. Until 2014, the concentration of gases related to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere was the highest in the past 800,000 years. If appropriate measures are not taken in this regard, the forecast is that by 2100, the average global temperature will increase by 4.8 °C (IPCC, 2014). Two other studies were conducted separately and independently, one by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies and another by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, both from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). They also show this trend since 1880. The five hottest years were recorded as of 2010, and the surface temperatures in 2016 and 2017 were the highest in recorded history (NASA, 2018). Consequent to this increase in temperature, the IPCC Report (2014) points to possible risks of violent conflict such as wars, violent protests, and immigration caused indirectly by climate change, which may lead to increased poverty, hunger, and homelessness. 131
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
Climate change can also cause floods, particularly in Europe and Asia, and the lack of water in arid countries is likely to lead to disputes over this resource. Health risks abound due to an increase in mosquito-borne diseases, contamination, or a decline in the quality of nutrition; and the extinction of terrestrial and freshwater species looms large as a result of the drastic alteration of their habitats. Regarding the effects of temperature on food resources, Lesk et al. (2016) estimated a loss of 3 billion tons, which is of the order of 9%–10% of total production, of 16 types of cereals in 177 countries between 1964 and 2007, which was caused by a rise in the average temperature of the planet. One factor that has a very close relationship with the other types of data mentioned above is income distribution. Data from Oxfam Brazil (2017) show that the richest 1% of the world's population has an income equal to the total income of the other 99% and that the world's eight richest men collectively own as much wealth as the total income of the poorest half of the global population. If income distribution presents itself on such an unequal global scale, one of the consequences of this can be unequal access to goods produced for people. These data were corroborated when carbon emissions of the richest 10% and those of 49% of humanity's total emissions were found to be equivalent. Together with the damning statistic that 50% of the world's poorest people being responsible for just 3% of carbon emissions (OXFAM, 2015). Because of the extent of inequitable distribution of the wealth produced by humanity, the carbon emissions are also unequal, which allows us to draw parallels with the data of the Global Footprint Network presented previously. It shows the dynamics of the environmental problems that are related to the extraction of the planet's resources at a rate that exceeds its sustainable limits. Also, the availability of these resources that fluctuates with the needs of a market—as the richest consume and pollute more—and not really to the human needs. These contradictions, among others, need to be rethought to develop effective actions aimed at a new relationship between human beings and nature. 4. A critical analysis for a new course With such consistent data about the limits of our planet, a new way of thinking and achieving a transformation of the practices of humanity in relation to nature is a pressing need. Griggs et al. (2013) address goals for the relationship between humanity and nature; however, they still have their limitations. Presenting a new paradigm that ensures the stability of the Earth System, these authors do not consider structural changes in economic and social relationships as they move to a new level in the context of productive forces. In other words, they treat the relationship between humanity and nature as products involved in purchase and sale in a commercial relationship with a view to a market and not to basic human necessities. Following the logic of the planned obsolescence of products and services, much of what is produced is directed toward overconsumption in order to maintain the wealth production process for a few people and hence perpetuate the unnecessary degradation of nature. Although the basic reason for food production is to meet basic human needs, it has been treated as part of a market-based system. In this kind of production, what really matters is the market values of certain foods or the value of stocks on the stock exchanges of companies that produce some type of food or product related to agriculture or livestock. According to FAO data, in 2016, 98% of starving or undernourished people live in developing countries, confirming that food production is directed toward market needs, that is, for those who have income. This is also the logic related to the use of pesticides. Human needs for food, clothing, and housing, among others, are not treated as priorities. The priority is to produce commodities in large amounts for the established market. Pesticides play a key role in productivity despite causing health problems and the contamination of, and reduction in the quality of, air, soil, forests, rivers, and oceans by means of the residual portions in applications of these products. According to UN data for the progress in 2018 of Goal 2 for SD on the eradication of hunger in the world, despite a prolonged decline, hunger appears to be rearing its head again (UN, 2018). This demonstrates that problem-solving policies should be reviewed continuously. Increases in the average temperature of our planet is a great challenge for humanity as it is caused directly and/or indirectly by the problems described previously, among others. With regard to the reduction of food production, there is a contradiction between the current production model and the production relationship. Reducing this production within an economic logic in which supply and demand would be a condition for the high or low value of a product, would imply an increase in food prices. Thus, the seriousness of the problem of hunger in several regions of the world would become even greater. It is important to remember that production is directed to the market and not to basic human needs. As discussed previously, the income distribution demonstrates this problem associated with the decrease in food production. The share of the population with the highest income would not be significantly affected when compared with a majority of the population that has a low income as the richest 1% of the world has the equivalent of the rest of the world's population. UN data on the progress of the first SD objective, which deals with poverty eradication, shows that there has been a considerable decrease in extreme poverty since 1990 although there are still areas that continue to suffer the worst forms of poverty (UN, 2018). According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Report (2013), income transfer programs in countries such as India, Brazil, and Mexico have contributed toward reducing income disparity and the health and education in poor communities has been improving. This document also points to China's growth as being market-driven and state-sponsored. This is an information that shows an advancement considering aspects of environmental economics that are according in the current economic paradigm. The consequences of temperature increase fit perfectly in this analysis as the lack of food could contribute to violent conflicts such as wars, protests, and insurrection movements. According to Diamond (2011), these characteristics are linked to the collapse of societies such as the Maya, the inhabitants of Easter Island, and the Anasazi. This author also points out that the societies that collapsed in the past did not have the same problems as contemporary societies. These such as climate change caused by human activities; the accumulation of toxic products in the wild; the lack of energy and total 132
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
utilization of the photosynthetic capacity of the planet. On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that the collapse of a society would not necessarily be caused by the human environmental impact. But it could also occur through natural factors or even these factors often work in concert with human causes (Diamond, 2011). By noting that the carbon emissions of the richest 10% are equivalent to the total emissions of 49% of humanity and that the poorest half of the world's population is responsible for only 3% of emissions, we can conclude that such data resemble the characteristics of societies that have collapsed. “Just as the Easter Island chiefs erected ever larger statues, finally crowned with a pukao, and just like the Anasazi elite, wearing necklaces with two thousand turquoise gemstones, Mayan kings sought to outdo each other by building more and more impressive temples, covered with ever thicker layers of plaster—which in turn reminds us of the extravagant and conspicuous consumption of modern corporate American culture. The passivity of the Easter leaders and Mayan kings in the face of the great threats that surrounded their societies completes our list of disturbing comparisons” (Diamond, 2011, 218). In other words, it is possible to make an analogy between the societies mentioned above and the current world, where a proportionately small group of subjects consume overwhelmingly large quantities of products. These evidenced by the carbon emissions of the richest 10% being equivalent to the total carbon emissions of 49% of humanity, and with another predominantly large group having varying degrees of difficulty in meeting their basic needs. These aspects are related to Goal 13 of the SD objectives. According to the UN (2018), with regard to the progress of this goal, the data shows that 2017 was one of the three warmest years on record and saw an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. This information shows the limitation of the approach of environmental economics, as well as bringing us face to face with the limits of our planet from the perspective of ecological economics. These contradictions suggest that SD in the context of contemporary productive forces should not be tied to economic growth, that is, the very concept of economic growth implies producing more products and services, which, in turn, implies extracting more natural resources. Let's consider, for example, Goal 8 of the SD objectives addressing sustained growth with inclusion, as well as full and productive employment in which all have decent work. To contemplate these conditions, it is necessary to extract more from nature. Moreover, the implementation of that employment and inclusion itself implies the transformation of natural resources for better life conditions. This extraction occurs through the acquisition of input and the generation of energy for the functioning of the economic system, according to Georgescu-Roegen (1971), under the condition that the economy is treated as a closed system and that it is open due to its dependence on nature. In the words of Altvater (1995, 26), “development and environment are in a reciprocal relationship: economic activities transform the environment and the changed environment constitutes an external constraint for economic and social development.” We need policies to implement a reorientation of what is produced in societies. According to ecological economics, a planet with limited resources would tend to arrive at an environmental collapse sooner if the policies that aim to increase the income of the poorest population did not consider that the income of the richest should decrease. Eradicating poverty implies the further extraction of the already limited natural resources from the planet. And the limits to the accumulation of wealth are not set, which also comes from the extraction of natural resources by a small fraction of the world's population. From the foregoing discussion, there is a relationship with Sato (2008), which describes that this concept was eventually incorporated by international organizations, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and UNESCO, which made discussions on the concept take an environmental and social approach with emphasis still on the current economic development model. From the arguments presented, SD should not have the same meaning as economic growth. The term SD makes sense for economy but only if it is understood as development without growth. That is to say, the qualitative improvement of a physical economic base that is maintained in a steady state by the movement of matter or energy that is within the regenerative and assimilative capacities of the ecosystem. Currently, the term SD is used as a synonym for sustainable growth, which is an oxymoron. (Daly, 2017). Thus, the sustainable development approach of Daly and the discussions presented until now show the importance of the political dimension of SD. These political aspects are in agreement with Frey (2001, 2) because SD is a political problem and an exercise of power, which addresses the issues of political–administrative institutions, participation, and the political process. This paradigm could be considered in studies of ecological economics and environmental economics as they have objectives that are consistent with SD. 5. End considerations Considering the approaches of this brief discussion, SD can be reinterpreted as a new paradigm of society. The construction of SD must point to the interests of a collectivity, which considers equal and environmentally compatible relationships with the limits of the planet. And which requires effective action through the political mobilization of everyone, particularly those belonging to the most disadvantaged layers, through an effective democratic process. To this end, we need to undergo a metamorphosis that allows us to construct a new way of relating to nature and subjects. The present stage in which the productive forces are found would enable the construction of SD through a new paradigm of the relationships of production conditions. A paradigm aiming at a democratic society that would environmentally allow the existence of, and respect, the diversity of the most varied forms of life. Processes that consider the contradictions of the current production system and the different realities of the various peoples with their different cultures make it possible to rescue the relationship between human beings and nature (Nogueira, 2018). Or, in the words of Altvater (1995, 284), “an efficiency revolution is claimed and considered feasible as modern technologies would be available, needing only to be reoriented toward environmental protection.” This new paradigm must question how we sustain our existence, considering what human needs really are and what the necessities tied to the market relationships that covertly present themselves as human needs are. On the one hand, the data of UNDP (2013) depict economic growth coupled with the income transfer policies presented above as showing that we are on the way to achieving Goal 8 of the SD objectives. On the other hand, the data of Wackernagel et al. (2002) and Global Footprint Network (2017) show that this same growth has indicated that consumption by 133
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
humanity is increasing, exceeding the regeneration capacity of the planet even more. Thus, there is a problem in reaching Goals 13, 14, and 15 of the SD objectives. In this new paradigm, social, economic, and environmental relationships are modified through a dynamic and historical process, which, at the same time, in each of them, modifies itself. Consequently, their modifications change the whole, and in the course of time, these modifications are continually perpetuated. These aspects show that an approach that involves different areas of knowledge is paramount. The social and environmental problems require in-depth studies for the referrals proposed here and in interdisciplinary studies to mature. Learning through different disciplines enables us to recognize and analyze the disciplinary differences, allowing the search for a common territory and a common language that makes possible the understanding of the roles of each one in problem resolution and also the search for bridges to integrate the knowledge (Haapasaari et al., 2012). This kind of learning is essential, particularly regarding the knowledge of the social sciences, so much so that Sjöstedt (2015) considers that the aspects that involve interdisciplinarity should think about resilience through the scientific advances of the existing social sciences more seriously. It is a new perspective of social and environmental relationships in which nature is a part of humans, who interact with it to transform it within its ability to remain resilient, which should necessarily accord with basic human needs besides being just directed at other living beings. This new perspective, when considering a way for humanity to produce for its existence on the basis of basic needs, does not imply the precariousness of people's living conditions. Because, the present stages of the productive forces can make possible a redirection of all science and technology developed for new social and environmental relationships. It implies conditions that include justice regarding what humanity produces both in the relationships among human beings and in relation to other living beings. However, it is important to point out that such changes imply profound changes in the current economic logic, which could generate a different set of social, economic, and environmental problems and could even aggravate attempts to reach SD goals. This points to the need for more in-depth studies of both ecological economics and environmental economics considering knowledge as an interdisciplinary construction to promote socially egalitarian and environmentally balanced societies. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2019.04.004. References Altvater, E., 1995. O preço da riqueza. Editora UNESP, São Paulo. Biermann, F., et al., 2012. Navigating the anthropocene: improving Earth system governance. Science 335, 1306–1307. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1217255. Brundtland, G., 1987. Brundtland Relatory. Our Common Future, United Nations. Carson, R., 2002. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. Cavalcanti, C., 2015. Socio-environmental thinking and ecological economics: a new perspective to think about society. Desenvolv. Meio Ambiente 35, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.5380/dma.v35i0.43545. Cechin, A.D., Veiga, J.E., 2010. A economia Ecológica e Evolucionária de Georgescu-Roegen. Braz. J. Pol. Econ. 30 (3), 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1590/S010131572010000300005. Cerri, C.C., et al., 2009. Brazilian greenhouse gas emissions:the importance of agriculture and livestock. Sci. Agric. 66 (6), 831–843. https://doi.org/10.1590/S010390162009000600017. Chaim, A., 2004. Tecnologia de aplicação de agrotóxicos: fatores que afetam a e ciência e o impacto ambiental. In: Agrotóxicos & Ambiente edited by Célia Maria Maganhotto de Souza Silva and Elisabeth Francisconi Fay, 289-317. Brasília, Brasil, Embrapa. Chu, S., 2009, July. 4 the Alternative Choice - Face Value. The Economist. Daly, H., 2017. A new economics for our full world. In: Handbook on Growth and Sustainability Edited by Peter A. Victor and Brett Dolter. Elgar Publishing, Northampton, USA, pp. 85–106. Diamond, J., 2011. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Penguim Books, New York. Field, B.C., Olewiler, N., 2011. Environmental Economics. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Whitby. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2016. Adopting a Territorial Approach to Food Security and Nutrition Policy. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-bl336e.pdf, Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Frey, K., 2001. Political-democratic dimension within sustainable development theories and its implications for local management. Ambiente Sociedade 9, 115–148. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-753X2001000900007. Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Global Footprint Network, 2017. Public Data Package. Available online at: https://www.footprintnetwork.org/resources/data/, Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Griggs, D., et al., 2013. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307. Haapasaari, P., Soile, K., S.K., 2012. Growing into interdisciplinarity: how to converge biology, economics, and social science in fisheries research? Ecol. Soc. 17 (1), 6. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04503-170106. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014. In: Pachauri, R.K., Meyer, L.A. (Eds.), Climate Change. 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland , Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Le Quéré, C., et al., 2013. The global carbon budget 1959–2011. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 5 (1), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-165-2013. Lesk, C., et al., 2016. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 529, 84–87. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 2018. Long-Term Warming Trend Continued in 2017: NASA, NOAA. Available online at: https://www.giss. nasa.gov/research/news/20180118/, Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Nogueira, C., 2018. Education for sustainable development and conceptions of environmental education in Brazil: possible approaches. J. Educ. Sustain. Dev. 12 (1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0973408218773269. Oxford Committee for Famine Relief - Brasil (OXFAM Brasil), 2017. A Distância que nos une. Um retrato da desigualdade brasileira. Available online at: www.oxfam. org.br, Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Oxford Committee for Famine Relief (OXFAM), 2015. Extreme Carbon Inequality. Why the Paris Climate Deal Must Put the Poorest, Lowest Emitting and Most Vulnerable People First. Available online at: www.oxfam.org, Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Pignati, W., Noemi, P.O., Ageo, M.C.S., 2014. Surveillance on pesticides: quantification of use and prediction of impact on health, work and the environment for Brazilian municipalities. Ciência Saúde Coletiva 19 (12), 4669–4678. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320141912.12762014.
134
Environmental Development 30 (2019) 129–135
C. Nogueira
Sato, M., 2008. Em busca de sociedades sustentáveis. Pátio - Revista Pedagógica: Educação para o desenvolvimento sustentável 2, 55–59. Sjöstedt, M., 2015. Resilience revisited: taking institutional theory seriously. Ecol. Soc. 20 (4), 23. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08034-200423. United Nations, 2012. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2012. United Nations, 2013. Human Development Report 2013. United Nations, 2018. Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Plataform. Available online at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300> , Accessed date: 28 June 2018. Wackernagel, M., et al., 2002. Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of United States of America, vol. 99. pp. 9266–9271 14. World Bank, 2006. Where Is the Wealth of Nations? The World Bank, Washington, DC Conference Edition. Available online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/ INTEEI/214578-1110886258964/20748034/All.pdf, Accessed date: 28 June 2018.
135