This topic epitomises the central issues of the sustainability debate and provides a valuable template in terms of the ability to agree or disagree with the central notion that economic growth and environmental protection are mutually exclusive.

The first challenge is to define sustainable development (SD), which suffers from wide-ranging interpretations. Certainly as far back as the 1960’s, scientists were urging economists to think differently about their assumption that growth is king and that the pre-eminence of the industrial age would be judged by ‘progress’ in the form of increasing wealth and the trappings of capitalism. Certainly with the oil crisis and the economic difficulties of the 1970’s, more attention was being paid to the need for systemic change. However, this was so at odds with those in political and economic control that it was never going to happen voluntarily. In response, The Ecologist made this unequivocal proclamation:

The principal defect of the industrial way of life with its ethos of expansion is that it is not sustainable… By now it should be clear that the main problems of the environment do not arise from temporary and accidental malfunctions of existing economic and social systems. On the contrary, they are the warning signs of a profound incompatibility between deeply rooted beliefs in continuous growth and the dawning recognition of the earth as a space ship, limited in its resources and vulnerable to thoughtless mishandling. (Ecologist, 1972)

The phrase coined by The Brundtland Commission (Brundtland, 1987) is probably the most often-quoted definition of sustainable development as development that “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Whilst benefiting from being concise, it perhaps lacks the detail required to make the issue immediate and compelling.

Arno Rosemarin, the editor of the environmental science journal Ambio, wrote the following three years after the Brundtland report:

The two words sustainable and development are in a strict sense contradictory. Sustainable implies the elements of long-term renewal, maintenance, recycling, minimal raw material exploitation and management of people’s needs on a collective basis. Development can be interpreted in many different ways but according to our present industrial-based culture it implies short-term planning, minimal maintenance, waste, maximal exploitation of raw materials and emphasis on the individual. (Rosemarin, 1990)

This is a very insightful explanation of the intrinsic conflict between environment and economy and explains why successive administrations have wrestled with the issues. Building on this – and at the other end of the spectrum from Brundtland’s simplistic definition, we have the 27 principles of sustainability in the Rio Declaration (Anon., 1992)  This gives more context and ‘definition’ even though the detail could lead to
accusations of over-complication. The impacts of sustainability are so extensive; however, it is almost impossible to define the subject in any less than these 27 categories.

The degree to which there is conflict between economic growth and environmental protection can be explored in a variety of ways. The fundamental conflict most prevalent today, would appear to be the argument as to whether economic development continues to be the primary cause of environmental degradation (however ‘responsibly’ or ‘sustainably’ one seeks to do it); or if from today’s viewpoint, we need economic growth and prosperity to fund the solutions that will allow us to protect the environment.

Sharon Beder argues:
Sustainable development is not about giving priority to environmental concerns, it is about incorporating environmental assets into the economic system to ensure the sustainability of the economic system. (Beder, 1994)

At another level of this debate is the question of ‘valuation’ of the environment. Margaret Thatcher said “no generation has a freehold on the earth. All that we have is a life tenancy – with a full repairing lease.” This is a clever analogy; but who has the tenancy agreement and who defines the conditions of this full repairing lease? This lack of ‘ownership’ is another core issue because what is not owned cannot be valued in a meaningful way.

The Business Council of Australia argues:
Rather, it is that important environmental assets tend not to be priced in a market like other assets. These assets are common property – they belong to everybody, and to nobody. Without ownership rights there is not the incentive for any person or group to look after them properly… if the environment has a zero price to users it will eventually be used up. (Business Council of Australia, 1991)

This point is also made by Longlong Guo who states that if we are to value the environment then it needs to be treated as an economic commodity and Governments should hold these rights for their citizens:
Economic rationalism plays out in different ways in different societies, but it focuses on the conversion of environmental resources to private property… specification and enforcement of these rights is the main task of government when it comes to environmental matters. (Guo, 2008)

Many Local Governments have taken clear leadership in achieving the balance between economic and environmental constraints and in many instances they are demonstrating considerable advantage across all indicators. This clearly shows that national policy is not the only driver. The Economist Intelligence Unit publishes an annual list of the most liveable and worst cities in the world. In 2011 the best city list was topped by Vancouver and Melbourne – both are also consistently in the top 10 Green Cities of the World. The worst cities are Harare, Dinaka and Port Moresby. Admittedly the worst cities are in deprived countries but there is also an indisputable link between cities which value their natural environmental assets and the desire of successful people to live and work in those areas. People who value their environment are more protective so that sends a clear signal to those who feel that industrialisation and over-development create profit. On the contrary, places which have been stripped of natural assets like Cleveland, Ohio; Chernobyl and Fukishima (after nuclear disasters) and Harare in Zimbabwe, are all clear but different examples of places of the lowest desirability. Their environmental capital is zero and this has an immediate impact on their economic viability.

An example of Local Government facilitating the coupling of environmental and economic priorities is the state of Vermont in the USA. This is an extract from an article in the Huffington Post by Senator Bernie Sanders:
At a time when many members of Congress do not even acknowledge that global warming is happening, in Vermont we are taking action. Vermont has more than 100 grassroots citizen-led town energy committees that are working with state agencies to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and such clean sources of sustainable energy as solar, geothermal, biomass and wind. (Sanders, 2012)

He goes on to say “we must seize the opportunity of creating millions of new jobs by making our homes, buildings and appliances more energy efficient. We must also invest heavily in public transportation and rebuilding our rail system…. there are enormous economic opportunities … our small state is home to a burgeoning network of new green businesses. This did not happen by accident. We have put in place policies that support clean-technology businesses in Vermont.”

This perhaps proves that when massive anti-lobbying is taken out of the equation, Local Government can establish the base for economic and environmental stewardship that creates and protects jobs whilst protecting the energy security and wellbeing of citizens.

On a global perspective there is a further difficulty which arises in the tension between the developed and developing worlds. It is really only in the past 50 years that the impacts of uncontrolled economic growth have been truly understood and the developed countries have come to the slow realisation that the combination of economic peaks and troughs, environmental degradation and social inequalities are creating potentially untenable situations that require drastic action. Whilst the issues are acknowledged, there seems to be limited political will in the major industrialised nations to instigate radical change – mainly because the short-term nature of their administrations means that no leader is prepared to take the unpopular decisions and risk the inevitable public backlash when they ‘shoot the messenger’. Even attempts to create international agreement have had limited traction as each country is trying to balance its own immediate needs with, in some instances, quite intangible or long-term threats. As aforementioned, Governments are also under intense pressure from powerful conglomerates, interested parties and lobbyists who are threatened by policy change in favour of more scrutiny and control.

In terms of economic development in developing countries, some nations like China, Brazil and India are experiencing exponential growth and this is creating even greater environmental strain as they become hungry for resources. The interesting paradox is that rather than copying the stages of industrialisation typified by the developed nations, they have the opportunity to develop a new paradigm and grow from the principles of ‘sustainable development’ rather than becoming as carbon-dependent as the developed economies. Whilst this concept takes some very ‘big picture’ thinking, it would lead to competitive advantage as the economies of scale would create enormous market advantage
for the emerging products in global markets. Sadly this is only happening to a limited degree.

Interestingly with the recent discovery of oil in East Africa, emphasis is moving away from large-scale investment into solar, hydro and wind plants and the Governments of countries like Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Sudan are feeling much more excited about their economic development prospects based on the immediacy of ‘black gold’. This is representative of the predominant thinking: any nations with plentiful oil, gas and coal have very little concern with investing in renewable sources of energy because they measure renewables as ‘cost’ and fossil fuels as ‘income’. Indeed this is a stark example of the conflict between economic development and environmental protection; it is widely understood that fossil fuels cause major climate and environmental damage yet the developing nations know that ‘carbon addiction’ can be profitably fed for many more decades and they do not see why they should not enjoy the spoils and take the opportunity to lift their nations out of poverty.

This chart from the US Environment Protection Agency provides a projection of future greenhouse gas emissions of developed and developing countries. Total emissions from the developing world are expected to exceed those from the developed world by 2015. (Source: EPA). In 2000 the US alone accounted for around 25% of global emissions so it is a very tenuous position from which to warn other nations about their environmental impacts if they merely copy what the leading nations have been doing for the past 150 years.

Barbier believes that environmental imperatives should be woven into the business case for recovery. In this abstract he warns that not developing true SD will only result in further crises:
Meeting the short run challenges of reviving the worldwide economy need not mean sacrificing long run economic and environmental sustainability. A Global Green New Deal (GGND) is an economic policy strategy for ensuring a more economically and environmentally sustainable world economic recovery. Reviving growth and creating jobs should be essential objectives. But policies should also aim to reduce carbon
dependency, protect ecosystems and water resources, and alleviate poverty. Otherwise, economic recovery today will do little to avoid future economic and environmental crises. (Barbier, 2010)

In terms of the investment that nations need to make, it is in reality a very small proportion of Gross Domestic Product (GDP):
Last year UNEP and its advisors recommended that countries which invest one percent of their GDP in environmental sectors could begin realizing this low carbon, resource efficient, green economy path. UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner (UNEP, 2009)

Barbier reports that only $460 billion of the estimated $3 trillion that’s been spent globally on fiscal stimulus was spent on green tech. This equates to about 0.7 percent of the G20 nations’ collective GDP. In 2009, UNEP claims the US spent only 0.7% of GDP in green tech and the EU only 0.2% – so despite the claims of green tech job creation and investment in green infrastructure, there is still a very long way to go.
Ironically, the USA topped the world renewable energy investment table in 2010 spending around $54 billion on clean energy and regaining the top spot from China. Again the sceptics could say US major investment has been motivated by not wanting to lose leadership in emerging technologies rather than a genuine desire to reduce its own exposure to the dangers of climate change. However, the USA has only about 10 years of oil reserves and whilst it is close to Canada and Venezuela – which have some of the world’s largest reserves, there is a strong sense that long-term prosperity can only come from energy security and this requires large-scale domestic sustainable and renewable resources.

Stimulus-funding of micro-renewables is another anomaly in terms of a potential conflict between economic and environmental priorities. If Governments collectively invested in large-scale research and development, the speed and ability to bring forward more appropriate and longer-term solutions would be increased considerably – especially on a more viable national or community level. Historically, micro-renewables are likely to be considered a very poor knee-jerk response to a highly complex issue which will have resulted in a short-term compounding of the problems due to the carbon-intensive manufacturing of micro-technologies, most of which are highly inefficient.

In conclusion, overall globally there is still a strong conflict between most Government and corporates’ understanding of the ability to balance economic growth with environmental protection. ‘Unlearning’ generations of embedded behaviour and persuading influencers and the general public to jettison what they have valued most (economic prosperity) in favour of a new balanced paradigm, is proving a gargantuan task. By not positively embracing change, nations are likely to find themselves in irreversible economic and environmental debt within decades. Conversely, places like Vancouver, Melbourne and Vermont are clearly proving that a new ‘eco-nomy’ can prosper and provide a superior quality of life; competitive market forces should be deployed to help all nations aspire to these models of 21st century living where there is environmental value is a major contributor to economic stability.