Skip to main content
Engineering LibreTexts

1.5: Sustainability and Sustainable Development

  • Page ID
    12163
  • In 1983 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution that established the Special Commission on the Environmental Perspective to the Year 2000 and Beyond (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/38/a38r161.htm).

    Their charge was:

    a. To propose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development to the year 2000 and beyond;

    b. To recommend ways in which concern for the environment may be translated into greater co-operation among developing countries and between countries at different stages of economic and social development and lead to the achievement of common and mutually supportive objectives which take account of the interrelationships between people, resources, environment and development;

    c. To consider ways and means by which the international community can deal more effectively with environmental concerns, in light of the other recommendations in its report;

    d. To help define shared perceptions of long-term environmental issues and of the appropriate efforts needed to deal successfully with the problems of protecting and enhancing the environment, a long-term agenda for action during the coming decades, and aspirational goals for the world community, taking into account the relevant resolutions of the session of a special character of the Governing Council in 1982.

    Although the report did not technically invent the term sustainability, it was the first credible and widely disseminated study that used this term in the context of the global impacts of humans on the environment. Its main and often quoted definition refers to sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The report uses the terms ‘sustainable development’, ‘sustainable’, and ‘sustainability’ interchangeably, emphasizing the connections among social equity, economic productivity, and environmental quality (Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)). This three-pronged approach to sustainability is now commonly referred to as the triple bottom-line. Preserving the environment for humans today and in the future is a responsibility of every generation and a long-term global goal. Sustainability and the triple bottom-line (meeting environmental, economic, and social goals simultaneously) require that we limit our environmental impact, while promoting economic well-being and social equity.

    Screenshot (13).png

    Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): A depiction of the sustainability paradigm in terms of its three main components, showing various intersections among them. Source: International Union for the Conservation of Nature.

    Examples of sustainable development include sustainable agriculture, which is agriculture that does not deplete soils faster than they form and does not destroy the biodiversity of the area. Sustainable farming and ranching do not reduce the amount of healthy soil, clean water, genetic diversity of crop plants and animals. Maintaining as much ecological biodiversity as possible in the agro-ecosystem is essential to long-term crop and livestock production.

    The IPAT Equation

    As attractive as the concept of sustainability may be as a means of framing our thoughts and goals, its definition is rather broad and difficult to work with when confronted with choices among specific courses of action. One way of measuring progress toward achieving sustainable goals can be with the application of the IPAT equation. This equation was designed in an attempt to define the different ways that a variety of factors contribute to the environmental degradation, or impact, of a particular setting. Importantly, IPAT tells us that there are more ways we impact our environment than just through pollution:

    \[ I = P \times A \times \T \]

    I represents the impacts on an environment

    P is the size of the relevant human population

    A is the affluence of the population

    T is the technology available to the population

    Affluence, or wealth, tells us the level of consumption per person. Wealthy societies consume more goods and services per person. Because of this, their environmental impact is multiplied. Technology, or impact per unit of consumption, interpreted in its broadest sense. This includes any human-created tool, system, or organization designed to enhance efficiency. As societies gain greater access to technology, they are able to do more work with fewer individuals. This equates to a greater impact per person. While this equation is not meant to be mathematically rigorous, it provides a way of organizing information for analysis.

    The proportion of people living in cities has greatly increased over the past 50 years. We can use the IPAT equation to estimate the impact of these urban populations. When the impact of technology, which is much easier to access in urban settings, is combined with the impact of population, the impact on the environment is multiplied. In an increasingly urban world, we must focus much of our attention on the environments of cities and on the effects of cities on the rest of the environment. This equation also has large-scale applications in the environmental sciences and was included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (2001) to project future greenhouse gas emissions across the globe.

    The precautionary principle

    The precautionary principle or the precautionary approach is one perspective of environmental risk management. The precautionary principle stakes that “When the health of humans and the environment is at stake, it may not be necessary to wait for scientific certainty to take protective action”. In other words, better to be safe than sorry. Proponents of the precautionary principle also believe that the burden of proof should be on the individual, company or government who is proposing the action, not on the people who will be affected by it. For example, if environmental regulations concerning pesticides were based on the precautionary principle (in the United States, they are not), then any pesticide that could potentially harm the environment or human health would not be used. Overuse of the precautionary principle can have negative consequences as well. If federal regulations concerning medicines for human use were based on the precautionary principle (again, in the United States, they are not), then any medicine that could potentially harm any person would not be used. This would effectively ban nearly all medical trials leading to new medications.

    What is the environment worth to you?

    The environment, and its benefits to individuals or groups, can be viewed and justified from multiple perspectives. A utilitarian justification for environmental conservation means that we should protect the environment because doing so provides a direct economic benefit to people. For example, someone might propose not developing Georgia’s coastal salt marshes because the young of many commercial fishes live in salt marshes and the fishers will collapse without this habitat. An ecological justification for environmental conservation means that we should protect the environment because doing so will protect both species that are beneficial to other as well as other species and an ecological justification for conservation acknowledges the many ecosystem services that we derive from healthy ecosystems. For example, we should protect Georgia’s coastal salt marshes because salt marshes purify water, salt marshes are vital to the survival of many marine fishes and salt marshes protect our coasts from storm surges. An aesthetic justification for conservation acknowledges that many people enjoy the outdoors and do not want to live in a world without wilderness. One could also think of this as recreational, inspirational, or spiritual justification for conservation. For example, salt marshes are beautiful places and I always feel relaxed and calm when I am visiting one, therefore we should protect salt marshes. And finally, a moral justification represents the belief that various aspects of the environment have a right to exist and that it is our moral obligation to allow them to continue or help them persist. Someone who was arguing for conservation using a moral justification would say that it is wrong to destroy the coastal salt marshes.

    Global perspective

    The solution to most environmental problems requires a global perspective. Human population size has now reached a scale where the environmental impacts are global in scale and will require multilateral solutions. You will notice this theme continue as you move through the next seven chapters of this text. As you do so, keep in mind that the set of environmental, regulatory, and economic circumstances common in the United States are not constant throughout the world. Be ready to investigate environmental situations and problems from a diverse set of viewpoints throughout this semester.