ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
time, although it accepts substitution between the various kinds of capital
so that the natural resources might dwindle providing they are compensated
forbythe extension of human capital. Following the work of environmen-
tal economists, such as Pearce et al. ( 1989 ), it holds that the best way to
protect the environment is to put a value or price on it (see Chapter 12 ).
The third rung isstrong sustainable development, which regards environmen-
tal protection as a pre-condition for economic development. It asserts that
there are some forms of ‘critical’ natural capital that are essential for life –
ozone, tropical rainforests, coral reefs – which cannot be replaced by tech-
nology and should be preserved absolutely. The top rung represents the
ideal formof sustainable development which equates with radical forms of
green politics such as bioregionalism and deep ecology, and is characterised
byasteady-state economy, local social, political and economic self-reliance
and a redistribution of property rights through burden-sharing. Of course,
there aregreat variationswithineach category and there is often an over-
lap between them. Currently, most countries have managed only to make a
tentative step onto theweak sustainable developmentrung.
Towhat extent is sustainable development compatible with ecologism?
Many deep greens are understandably suspicious of a strategy that seems
incompatible with the radical changes they demand. Thus Richardson ( 1997 :
43) condemns sustainable development for being a ‘political fudge’ that
‘seeks to bridge the unbridgeable divide between the anthropocentric and
biocentric approaches to politics’. Others regard sustainable development
as compromised by its acceptance of capitalism, arguing that sustainable
development is a contradiction in terms because much economic growth
cannot be ecologically sustainable; instead, capitalism must be replaced
byamore decentralised, self-sustaining social and economic system. The
toprung of the ladder incorporates these radical positions, some of which
eschew using the term ‘sustainable development’. However, most contem-
porary green activists are firmly committed to the principles of sustainable
development: the original four pillars of the German Greens (see Box3.5),
forexample, emphasise the centrality of development issues such as social
justice, equality and democracy. Many greens hold views that fall into both
thetop and the second rung of the ladder. So whilst a strict definition of
ecologism would include only the ideal model, as the boundary between the
toptworungs is rather blurred there is scope for ecologism to encompass
elements of strong sustainable development.
Does it matter that so many versions of sustainable development exist
and that there is so much disagreement about its meaning? One view holds
that without a clear meaning almost anything could be said to be sustain-
able, leaving it as little more than an empty political slogan. A universally
acceptable definition is needed, with a list of measurable criteria against
which it would be possible to judge progress towards sustainability. Better
tohave clarity and risk losing a few unwanted adherents, than retain a vac-
uous ‘anything goes’ approach. Policymakers would also benefit from a clear