Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
ability, which is to treat it as a geographical outcome rather than a transcendent
reality. The political ecological literature discussed above clearly demonstrates this.
What we consider to be 'local' is produced by processes that cut across scales, yet
these 'contexts' do not erase the uniqueness of particular situations, which are the
outcome of the intersection of multiple processes. Recent scholarship in human
geography also emphasises that sustainability is an inherently geographical project,
and space and scale should be central to any attempt to defi ne, plan for, or imple-
ment sustainability (Whitehead, 2007). For example, noting that policymakers now
emphasise local action as the best means to implement sustainability, a recent set
of articles examines local capacities for sustainable development (Gibbs and Krueger,
2005). One fi nding is that people in specifi c contexts interpret sustainability on their
own terms - such that it is impossible for local people to implement global policy
- and these local interpretations are infl uenced by social relations of power within
the locality (Houghton, 2005). Cowell (2003) argues that the scale at which people
frame environmental 'assets' profoundly infl uences what other issues (such as equity)
are visible or invisible, and therefore choice of scale infl uences what is meant by
sustainability and who will benefi t from it. In one of their contributions to literature
on measuring sustainability, Morse and Fraser (2005) contend that focusing on
national-scale indicators is particularly misleading because these indicators overgen-
eralise across the nation-state, which then 'reinforces the prevailing view that the
West is better than the developing world' (p. 638). What these articles demonstrate
quite clearly is that the production of scale also 'restructures the objects of sustain-
ability' (Cowell, 2003, p. 343). Sustainability is not a universal concept that is scale
and space neutral, but instead the choice of scale shapes what we think we know
about particular places and how they relate to each other; these ideas subsequently
shape actions, which, of course, have material outcomes. Not only is sustainability
inherently political, but sustainability politics is a geographical practice.
Conclusions
This chapter has outlined some of the complexities of sustainability as an organising
concept. Sustainability has become the dominant way of framing issues of environ-
ment and development at the global scale. In this global politics, sustainability has
merged with neoliberalism, such that the capitalist market is offered as the only
solution to environmental degradation, poverty, and injustice. In this sense, sustain-
ability is clearly not an apolitical concept, but instead serves to legitimise the status
quo. Academic responses to this politics of sustainability have varied. Some suggest
that we reject the idea completely; others embrace the term despite its shortcomings.
Of those who embrace it, some - particularly in the fi eld of sustainability science -
try to overcome the political problems of sustainability debates by claiming to reject
politics. These scholars try to turn sustainability into a set of technical questions
about the right way to live on earth, questions that can be answered through careful
science.
Others recognise that making sustainability into a technical question is impossible
- these questions are inherently political. Those who treat sustainability as a techni-
cal problem engage in this politics implicitly and without examining the political
commitments they are making. Many of those who do recognise the political nature
of sustainability embrace the term precisely because it is political, and is so on many
levels. Its greatest strength is that it challenges the dominant tendency to prioritise
