Hiya,
The problem that I, and I suspect many other greens have with sust dev is
that it is entirely anthropocentric. The Bruntland definition (if we use
that as a reference) speaks only of conserving a *resource* for the benefit
of humans (present & future). Many greens believe in the intrinsic value of
nature, to which the Bruntland definition makes no reference.
That, I think, is the root of the problem.
Regards,
Wayne.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duncan East" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Wayne Butler" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 12:28 PM
Subject: Sustainable development
> Back on this again that I started last summer and got no-where with.
>
> Sustainable development as a term has been adopted by almost anyone who
> wants to look green (I'm guilty of this one to with a quick
> 'sustainability' shoe horned into our Env policy). Sustainable
> development has become sustainable economic growth so much that the term
> seems to have gone out of favour amongst 'greens'.
>
> Would anyone agree or am I exaggerating this? If sustainable development
> is seen as too vague what is there to replace it? Is it a case of
> defining sustainable development more precisely or should it be
> abandoned in favour of something more meaningful?
>
> Duncan
> --
> Duncan East
> Environmental Assurance Engineer
> Teleplan Engineering Laboratory
> tel 023 9244 4358
> fax 023 9249 9315
>
> This e-mail is private and confidential and is for the addressee only. If
misdirected, please notify us by telephone, confirming that it has been
deleted from your system and any hard copies destroyed, in such
circumstances you are strictly prohibited from using, printing, distributing
or disseminating it or any information contained in it save to the intended
recipient.
>
|