Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
is used in ecological indicators, but so is political knowledge. Ecological indicators
are shaped by political preferences and considerations to protect certain species,
certain types of nature, and so on. Development and use of indicators go hand
in hand and are hard to distinguish empirically. Clearly, ecological indicators
cannot be unproblematically labelled as scientific. Labelling it as solely political,
on the other hand, does not acknowledge the scientific input that is required.
(Turnhout et al ., 2007: 221)
Science can inform and ecology can serve as a model for sustainable development,
but sustainable development cannot be reduced to either. Ethical and political
considerations will always be part of the picture; this is clearly seen, perhaps, in
their influence on the development of good governance indicators. Stewart (2006)
argues, in his discussion of political participation in the Greater Vancouver region,
that social justice and inclusion need to be operationalized by applying the theory
of 'persistent losing'. Community members may be committed to collective decision-
making but may persistently lose out in the decision-making process. In this context,
they would be acting quite reasonably if they rejected the rules that persistently cause
this to happen. In this way, the interests of marginal, perhaps aboriginal groups,
can be factored in. For Stewart (2006: 203), both the World Bank (World Bank,
2006) and UN Habitat (UNDP, 2006) have failed 'to include an adequate assessment
of citizen participation in their good urban governance indicator sets, nor do they
provide much guidance as to why their indicators are essential and, most importantly,
how these indicators should be assessed'. The most appropriate and effective indicators
are developed dialogically, working at the interface of (social) science and their
specific socio-cultural, political and economic contexts. Unfortunately, but perhaps
inevitably, this may occasionally lead to some necessary vagueness in order to neces-
sarily and diplomatically accommodate different perspectives, values and interests.
Carbon capture and storage: geosequestration or
biosequestration
Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), or geosequestration, is an intermediate technical
solution that is seen by many governments as a way of limiting the amount of CO 2
emitted in to the atmosphere. The idea is that the CO 2 produced by burning fossil
fuels - for example, coal should be captured and stored within the Earth's crust. In
this way power companies can burn 'clean coal'. However, to perfect this process
requires massive investment and technological developments that have had successes
in small-scale trials but have yet to be proven at a large commercial scale anywhere
in the world. Storing large amounts of carbon underground could possibly lead to
unwanted environmental effects, may not actually be permanent and could result in
some loss of efficiency. The International Energy Agency (2007) has noted that for
CCS to make a tangible contribution to global climate mitigation by 2050 there
would have to be in the region of 6,000 projects on stream each sequestering and
storing a million tons of CO 2 or more per year. However, there is an alternative.
The Ecological Sequestration Trust is a participant in the United Nations Global
Compact, which is a global network bringing together businesses and other bodies
to help make mainstream the Compact's ten universally accepted principles relating
to labour, human rights, the environment and anti-corruption. Biological sequestration
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search