Hello list members:
It has been a long time since I posted to this list. But the recent 
plug for a sustainable development research conference on this list 
seemed to be perhaps an appropriate time to post below something on 
sustainable development which I recently sent around to fellow greens 
and environmentalists.

For the Earth,
David Orton
*******


Hello fellow Greens:

Deeper greens and environmentalists should avoid promoting the 
concept of so-called "sustainable development", irrespective of any 
progressive spin that is linked with it. We should let business, 
government and academics run with it, but not ourselves. Our language 
helps define the world we want, therefore we need to choose our words 
carefully. Unfortunately, sustainable development is still being 
promoted today by some environmentalists and by some people involved 
in Green Party politics in Canada.


In Canada, the concept of sustainable development has been used since 
the publication of the 1980 document, _World Conservation Strategy: 
Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development_. These 
days, this terminology draws its main legitimation and definition 
from the 1987 United Nations report _Our Common Future_. This 
document, known popularly as The Brundtland Report, has made the 
rhetoric of sustainable development popular. It has been embraced by 
many industries and governments. They have seen how this concept can 
be used to SUSTAIN development, while still seeming to pay attention 
to environmental concerns. Masked is the defeat of the "limits to 
growth" thesis - that there are definite ecological limits which must 
be respected for human economic activity. We do live in a world of 
limits, to which we must adjust for long term ecological and social 
survival. With sustainable development there are no limits to growth. 
Greens and environmentalists who today still use this concept display 
ecological illiteracy. There is a basic contradiction between the 
finiteness of the Earth, with natural self-regulating systems 
operating within limits, and the expansionary nature of industrial 
capitalist society. The language of sustainable development helps 
mask this fundamental contradiction, so that industrial expansion on 
a global scale can temporarily continue.


There is a  critical letter to the editor (really a brief review) 
about the Brundtland Report from 1989 listed under "Miscellaneous 
Reviews" - see http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Sustainable_Development.html


But because of the evident persistence of this concept among some 
environmentalists and greens who are trying to orient within a 
contemporary sea of "sustainability" talk, I have posted the initial 
Bulletin on sustainable development on our web site, since it 
outlines a basic deep ecology critique of the Brundtland Report. It 
shows, using the data from the Report itself, why sustainable 
development must be condemned. It also shows some of the business, 
labour and government bodies, along with their "environmentalist" 
allies, who rallied to support sustainable development at that period 
in time (October 1989).


The Brundland Report's understanding of this human-centered concept 
needs to be brought out, because

- it emphasizes that economic growth is needed and advocates a five- 
to tenfold increase worldwide in manufacturing output;

- it accepts the ecologically destructive lifestyle of the 
"developed" world, and the Western economic model as something to be 
sought by the rest of the world;

- it has a human-centered orientation - other species of animals and 
plants do not have value in their own right, but are considered 
"resources" for corporate/human use; a human-centered universe is 
taken for granted; sustainable means sustainable for humans;

- it considers ecology or ecological sustainability as not primary, 
but merely one among a number of factors to be considered in policy decisions;

- it accepts the elimination of some species and advocates that 
conscious choices be made by humans to this end;

- it accepts and projects a world population of 8.2 billion persons 
by the year 2025, whereas a sustainable planet for human and 
non-human species requires major human population reductions;

- it advocates the greater use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides; and

- it does not call for a massive global transfer of wealth and for 
the cancellation of Third World debts.


The above points are fully documented in Green Web Bulletin #16, 
February 1990, "Sustainable Development: Expanded Environmental 
Destruction", see 
http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/GW16_Sustainable_Development.html


Those who stand for defending the Earth and for social justice need 
to banish "sustainable development" from their vocabulary.

For the Earth,
David Orton


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	Visit the Green Web Home Page at:
  	http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~