Latest comments posted about Sustainable development’s “taboo territory” on ChinaDialogue en-gb http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1052-Sustainable-development-s-taboo-territory- http://staging.chinadialogue.net/images/cdlogo.gif http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/1052-Sustainable-development-s-taboo-territory- This article is a great reminder that everyone's goal is really well-being. Even those who devote their lives to mindless materialism are still hoping (in vain) to maximise their well-being. Mindless materialism really is wrecking the planet and the globally we really do need to learn to seek well-being directly, without being diverted into an endless cycle of consumption. More well-being and less consumerism are great goals but we should be really careful not to believe that goals are "the core of the system". The system is the 'machinery' society sets up to achieve its goals, of which the main part is economics - intended to efficiently distribute resources to meet people's needs. Sir Jonathon rightly observes that when politicians interpret peoples needs in material terms then they end up prioritising economic growth at the expense of both the planet and people. However we can't change the system by asking politicians to understand people's needs more and prioritising growth less. That would be naïve - as Jonathon points out, "politicians just do not want to talk to you". Changing the system means tinkering with the machinery of economics. Imagine if economics really did distribute resources efficiently; applying them to more carefully to meeting people's actual needs without dumping them as wastes in the land, air and water? All this economic activity would add up into national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) accounts that would align fairly well with well-being and sustainability goals. All the market-driven investments made to deal with climate change and other problems would add to GDP and boost economic growth figures, of which politicians could rightly take pride. Economic growth would not be the enemy. On the other hand suppose the system is not changed. Market mechanisms are left unreformed and everyone focuses instead on symptomatic and end-of-pipe measures of growth and well-being. People might try to constrain the unsustainable economy instead of fixing it. We might fool ourselves into thinking that the only way to constrain carbon emissions is to constrain the whole economy, neglecting that alternatives to fossil fuels cost more and that the massive societal investment in change (from lagging lofts to relocalising energy infrastructure) will add to economic activity, not reduce it. By neglecting a basic reform of the machinery of economics, we would not guarantee stable "2 to 3% economic growth forever". We would guarantee a global collapse of ecological, societal and economic systems, in which the whole concept of economic growth would be rendered meaningless. The only uncertainties would be which system will collapse first, which of the many global problems will trigger that collapse and when. China's national policy of "circular economics" is an excellent basis for fixing the mechanics of the system with fiscal reform. This means correcting prices to encourage more sustainable activities, ideally by transferring a premium on problematic activities to subsidise problem-preventing activities. Governments have tinkered with fiscal reform for decades for targeted problems, such as landfill space or unleaded fuels. However you never hear governments admit that climate change and sustainable development are indivisible - a stable climate in an otherwise unsustainable world is a fantasy. And if sustainable development really needs to happen (after all these decades of talking about it) then it must be implemented throughout the whole economy, not with a patchwork of targeted governmental interventions. Government is not capable of more than a few minor targeted fiscal reforms since any attempt in Western economies at a broad fiscal reform would be fatally labelled as central planning. Hence sustainable fiscal reform belongs within the market and government's role is to legislate and monitor it, not to handle the funds. Thus taxation is an unsuitable instrument for fiscal reform. In fact all the existing economic instruments are unsuitable, which should be no surprise. If we had the right tools then someone would have thought to use them by now. Other tools for reform can be developed; one of them is described at www.blindspot.org.uk. There is a clear role for national sustainability watchdogs to promote debate about new instruments and approaches. Perhaps it is possible for "developed" countries to rethink their long-established conventions. That remains to be seen before it should be believed. However there is no need for other countries to wait for the West. Nations with a pressing need for ecological improvement and a high capacity for innovation could find themselves quickly leap-frogging the errors of the West and leading a global movement for sustainable circular economics. James Greyson Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:26:34 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1052#comment-3836 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1052#comment-3836 Reducing consumption seems impossible while China develops. But as we move towards a more environmentally aware mindset, more people will shop smarter. Like using less plastic shopping bags, not using non-biodegradable disposable cutlery, try to buy more recyclable products, even not buying a car. These are all achievable. The only thing is -- the calls for awareness are too weak and only limited to environmental NGOs and governemtn. That being said, it is better than nothing and more people are becoming conscious of their impact on the environment, this is a positive trend. There is one thing I don't understand, why must China see cars as a sign of economic progress, why must all cities compare with each other how many cars there are, but not telling citizens there is a limit on the number of cars? Like the above article, why not improve urban public transport -- instead of racing to build road infrastructure? Juliet Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:24:32 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1052#comment-3835 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1052#comment-3835 There is a problems that people in developing countries are moving into the purchasing parity with those of the developed countries. If people in rich countries stop their non-sustainable consumption, maybe the worship will make some positive sense. Fri, 01 Jun 2007 06:59:31 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1052#comment-3789 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1052#comment-3789 Demestically, the West seems to consume sustainably, because they are using overseas sources, especially those in developing countries. But internationally, the West's consumption style is wasteful and detrimental to the environment. You just need to go to supermarkets in the West, you will know what I mean. Most products are shipped across the world to feed their needs. Excessive packaging is also a problem of products sold in the supermarkets. Nowadays, it is so difficult for me to buy a "made-in-Engand" gift for my friends in China. Globalization is checking sustainable consumption. Sustainable consumption is a global issue, especially in political and economic categories. Every country is responsible for it. China and India and other developing countries are not the only nations to should the responsibilities to promote sustainable consumption. Thu, 31 May 2007 18:11:54 -0400 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1052#comment-3788 http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/summary/1052#comment-3788