Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
do. For instance, science and technology generated positive attitudes, but the most
technologically sophisticated individuals seemed to be the least certain about the
ability of science and technology to solve global problems. Most people value the
environment for both ecocentric and anthropocentric reasons, but ecosystems are in
serious decline. The majority of people think something more should be done about
it. Development assistance was also widely supported, but its extent was frequently
overestimated, and many felt that the poor themselves were to blame. Income
inequalities were often accepted as being basic facts of life. The authors also noted
the barriers to pro-sustainability action as being, first, this very contradictory nature
of people's consciousness; second, people's own capabilities, in that they frequently
lacked time, skills, knowledge and power; and third, inadequate laws, regulations
and infrastructure, perverse subsidies, the inadequacy of available technology and
little political will. Explaining unsustainable behaviour seems as complex as explaining
sustainable development itself, but bridging the gap between sustainable attitudes
and unsustainable behaviour is essential for any transition to a fairer society. Long
term, the key to this transition is probably rearticulating the meaning of human
well-being, of the good life, even though socially pervasive materialist attitudes and
consumerist values are often very difficult to change. In the short term, Leiserowitz
et al
. suggest that:
leveraging the values and attitudes already dominant in particular cultures may
be more practical than asking people to adopt new value orientations. For
example, economic values clearly influence and motivate many human behaviours,
especially in the market and cash economies of the developed countries.
Incorporating environmental and social 'externalities' into prices or accounting
for the monetary value of ecosystem services can thus encourage both individual
and collective sustainable behaviour. Likewise, anthropocentric concerns about
the impacts of environmental degradation and exploitative labour conditions on
human health and social wellbeing remain strong motivators for action in both
the developed and developing worlds. Additionally, religious values are vital
sources of meaning, motivation and direction for much of the world, and many
religions are actively reevaluating and reinterpreting their traditions in support
of sustainability.
(2005: 35)
Thus, one of the main reasons why 'sustainable development' and 'sustainability'
have generated so much discussion is because they tend to reflect the political and
philosophical value base of those articulating a given definition or preferred perspect-
ive. For those who want an unambiguous scientific, technical, discipline-specific
and/or operationable definition, this causes problems - but not for Robinson, who
observes:
Diplomats are familiar with the need to leave key terms undefined in negotiation
processes, and in much the same way the term sustainable development may
profit from what might be called constructive ambiguity. Certainly the plethora
of competing definitions in the literature suggests that any attempt to define the
concept precisely, even if it were possible, would have the effect of excluding
those whose views were not expressed in that definition.
(2004: 374)
