ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
Indeed, critics of Brundtland argue that in trying to find the middle
ground between North and South a solution was found that posed no seri-
ous threat to the dominant neo-liberal ideology of the day because there was
no call for slower economic growth or any transformation of the capitalist
system. The Brundtland emphasis on continued wealth creation (albeit envi-
ronmentally sustainable growth) to overcome poverty arguably understates
thelinks between excessive consumption and environmental degradation
(despite the subsequent interest in ‘sustainable consumption’). For critics
such as Sachs ( 1999 ), who regard economic globalisation as profoundly bad
for the environment, the willingness of Brundtland to embrace globalisa-
tion suggests that sustainable development will do little to protect the eco-
logical limits of the planet (see Chapter 10 ). Moreover, there is increasing
evidence that on the global stage the discourse of sustainable development
is increasingly influenced by (moderate) market liberal ideas. Certainly, cor-
porate interests played a major role at the Johannesburg WSSD (see Box8.3)
encouraging richer countries, particularly the USA and Australia, to empha-
sise the role of economic globalisation and free trade in delivering develop-
ment goals, in contrast to their efforts to focus on the environmental agenda
at previous international summits on the environment and development
(Wapner 2003 ). In short, sustainable development does little to challenge
the hegemonyofglobalcapitalism.
Yetthe potential radicalism of the sustainable development discourse
should not be underestimated. Sustainable development may accept the
underlying capitalist system, but if the five principles were implemented
as part of a strategy of strong sustainable development then the outcome
would be a very different form of capitalism from that which exists today.
Even an incremental process of weak sustainable development might eventu-
ally gather sufficient momentum to generate extensive change. The strength
of sustainable development is that the compromises it makes with the cur-
rent political and economic system may produce a more feasible programme
of change than that outlined by deep ecologists. Sustainable development
is driven by practical politics. It is an antidote to the romantic visions of
agreen utopia popular among ecocentrics, and it is preferable to 1970s-
style survivalist predictions that the catalyst for change will be a planetary
eco-crisis. The proponents of sustainable development recognise that a wide
and diverse range of interests needs to be won over for lasting change to
take place. By looking to reconcile the environment versus development
dichotomy, sustainable development confronts the practical issues of agency
that ecocentric ideologies tend to avoid or ignore. Sustainable development
may be incrementalist, accommodationist and reformist, but (in the right
hands) it could still be radical.Critical question 2
How radical is sustainable development?