On the environmental side, there are goals for clean water and sanitation Goal 6 , affordable and clean energy Goal 7 , climate action Goal 13 , life below water Goal 14 and life on land Goal Despite declarations that this is the age of sustainable development, there is a widespread view that economic development and environmental sustainability are incompatible.
The following four scenarios are possible development pathways along which Progressia could advance. Explore the possible outcomes in below. By restructuring the economy around low-carbon industrialisation, alongside other long-term policy shifts, three quarters of the Sustainable Development Goals have been met.
There are more jobs, environmental degradation has slowed and carbon emissions are lower. As well as freeing public resources for a low-carbon agenda, new laws provided safeguards that allowed investments to pour into the energy and manufacturing sectors.
The shift away from fossil fuel extraction had a short-term negative impact on economic growth, but the economy bounced back. And while a small elite who had amassed their fortunes on natural resource extraction caused some civil unrest, the green revolution captured the imagination of citizens from the outset.
Young people were closely involved, thanks to increased investment in science, technology, engineering and mathematics education, which increased expertise. This led to a cultural shift towards a green economy and climate-conscious responsibility among citizens. A significant proportion of workers have left primary sectors such as agriculture to join the burgeoning manufacturing industry.
A growing emphasis on processing the goods supplied by primary sectors has created new, higher-value industries refining grains and canning fruits, for instance, as well as adding value to mining products. I have a job in a local manufacturing company. I still help my father on the farm at weekends. I earn enough to help my family save for a tractor, which will really help.
The future feels bright for me, for my family, and for my country. I was on a job-bonded government scholarship designed to build and retain science skills. The scheme guarantees me a job. In an attempt to jumpstart the manufacturing industry, the government invested heavily in upgrading factories, buying high-tech equipment from abroad.
But limited skills to operate and repair this machinery meant it soon became redundant. A sound climate change adaptation policy, carbon taxes, subsidies for industries using clean energy, and the development of clean, low-tech household appliances have contributed to a reduction in carbon emissions and environmental degradation.
However, the high carbon taxes have limited foreign investment. The little money coming from abroad has been invested in natural resource extraction, with no benefit to locals.
Skills gaps have been filled with workers from neighbouring countries, and foreign manufacturing companies are leaving the increasingly challenging market. The rest of the economy continues to be based on mining and agriculture. Progressia remains an exporter of raw materials, failing to develop value-adding processes to maximise income from its natural resources and create jobs. But the path to climate mitigation is not through slower economic growth, but through economic growth that is steered toward environmental sustainability and away from gratuitous environmental destruction.
McHarg developed cluster development as an alternative to suburban sprawl. The idea was that rather than providing every home with a quarter acre of land and their own large yard, you would build the housing in the one area of the building site that would cause the least damage to natural drainage and eco-systems and preserve the rest of the land as a parkland for hiking and viewing. It turned out that most of the outdoor access people used in their homes was on their patios, and that suburban yards were not simply ecological disasters, but a burdensome waste for most homeowners.
McHarg demonstrated that with care, humans could build urban developments that might minimize rather than maximize environmental damage. Sloppy management, the hunger for easy money and short-term profits, and ideological rigidity lead some to believe the environment must be sacrificed for economic growth.
The belief that capitalism is evil and inevitably causes environmental destruction leads others to believe that sustainable economic development is not feasible.
My view is that with enlightened design, sustainability management and cutting-edge technology we can harness human ingenuity to the practical problems of environmentally sustainable economic development.
We can build and live in sustainable cities and end the climate and ecological crises that seem so overwhelming today. Steve, I so appreciate you perspective and using hiding in plain sight history to debunk conventional wisdom.
Can we really reduce resource extraction and pollution including carbon and maintain growth as currently measured by gross GDP? Renewable energy needed to replace existing consumption is itself a mass industrialisation operation.
If the measure of growth was shifted to well-being, and energy and resource consumption were curtailed, and as you point out radical rational approaches to efficiency were implemented by regulations driven by well-being measures then I find it easier to imagine.
I think you are missing one important part of the criticism that capitalism is facing, that is income gap not only within the borders but outside the national borders. Income gap is one of the leading reasons for excessive consumption by some people.
Most supporters of capitalism seem to stand against this idea. It also does not help that we keep refusing to acknowledge some quite dire problems capitalism has created that directly led to unsustainable habits. It seems to me that the US simply moved its pollution and production-based emissions elsewhere, such as China. We see the same bait and switch tactic used with carbon emissions. The point is that, in a global economy, it is incorrect to think in terms of any single country in isolation.
The environmental impact of the US economy must be properly accounted by tracing everything we consume all the way back to the extraction of raw resources e. If such an accounting were made, I can imagine that the US environmental footprint in the world has never stopped growing, even if our own neighborhood is cleaner. Notify of. I agree to help cultivate an open and respectful discussion. Our priorities need to change.
Both the environment and the economy have the ability to adapt to changing conditions, but to different degrees. Evolution has tailored species to thrive in specific environments, so moderate changes in temperature, pH, and other conditions can eradicate entire species without giving plants and animals the necessary time to adapt. In contrast, the economy is based on human needs and desires, which frequently change but always exist.
Industries lacking demand are not worth keeping — this keeps American markets competitive and the economy as a whole healthier. As needs and desires change, the economy should move in lockstep as much as possible. Prioritizing protection of the environment will create new jobs in industries where longevity is all but guaranteed. Retrofit homes, alternative energies and sustainable urban planning are just some examples of budding industries whose demand extends far into the future.
Many arguments in favor of prioritizing the economy appeal to the plight of the unemployed, but few consider the weight of environmental degradation and climate change on the poor.
Air and water pollution cause sickness in those who cannot afford to move to a less tainted neighborhood, while resource depletion destroys subsistence livelihoods. Furthermore, climate change will be a primary culprit in rising food prices that result from lost harvests.
0コメント