10 Propositions on Sustainable Development: a critiqueon

Prepared for the Geographical Association Annual Conference, Derby, 31 March - 1 April, 2005

The briefest essential:
1 SD is not a strong idea or a principle, it describes a tension between economics and ecology. SD is good at helping us frame an argument, so the point is that it is the beginning of argument, not a means of shutting it down. It should be used to start debate, not to propagandise. It is no more right to "sell" SD than it is to sell socialism, Christianity, feminism or anything else which is not so much true as interesting.

Further discussion points:
2 The tension between S and D is not inevitable: economic growth is often environmentally benign (and under-development can be an environmental blight).
3 It is not clear what obligation we have to future generations, or how we could possibly fulfil it. They will not need the things we need, or find insoluble what we find problematic. And how much do we really care?
4 We are not particularly virtuous or omniscient. It is not good suggesting that SD licenses needs (the Third World's) but not wants (ours). Wants matter. We all have them and won't give them up.
5 It is no good over-emphasising the claims of sustainability when SD precisely legitimates or features economic growth.
6 It is no use describing as sustainable every feature of a development which is focussed on the environment. Trains may be a bit less unsustainable than cars, but that doesn't make either sustainable.
7 It is no use allowing the "greens" to own sustainability or to be its gate-keepers: they are wrong about nuclear, waste, chemicals, agriculture and animal husbandry.
8 It is no use letting the development charities own or be the gatekeepers of development: they are wrong about capitalism, peasant societies, globalization.
9 Many developments which are not sustainable are temporarily necessary or justifiable. (Third World countries need coal power stations; we can get away with landfill for now.)
10 There is a great deal of confusion between the ecologically unsustainable (let's say, fossil fuel burning) and the aesthetically unappealing (let's say a new motorway or wind turbine farm).

ends