At 14:31 25/07/2007, you wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>In my corner of the word 'sustainable development' went out of favour a few
>years ago for much the same reasons as you sight in that it had been adopted
>by economists, politicians and business to mean that growth could continue
>at current rates but in some way without impacting on the 'environment'.
>'Factor four' doubling production while halving consumption and all that.
>It was replaced with plain 'sustainability' and sustainable communities to
>try and get away from that 'growth' element but it's word that can mean
>almost anything you want it to so doesn't help to much.
>
>What's really depressing is that local government in the South East of
>England have now abandoned 'sustainability' and are jumping on the climate
>change bandwagon. The terminology of choice is now 'low carbon' which
>ignores a huge range of impacts like social justice, biodiversity,
>environmental degradation etc etc.
>
>I'm finding the whole focus on carbon management and carbon footprinting a
>significant step backward and oversimplification but if anyone has an
>alternative view I'd be interested in hearing it.
>
>Duncan
Dear Duncan,
I agree that concentrating on climate change to the exclusion of other
issues is a mistake. It's also one of the issues that is easiest to make a
start on tackling, by putting on a carbon tax at something like the level
advocated in the Stern report, $85 per tonne CO2. Social justice, biodiversity,
environmental degradation etc will be much harder to deal with.
Best wishes
Chris
Dr Chris Hope
Judge Business School
University of Cambridge
Tel: 01223 338194
|