Chapter I of Rio Plus 20 Document by Cho Tab Khen Zambuling (Alfredo-Sfeir Younis)
I. An Issue of Inter-Temporal Choices
In its pure essence, the domain of sustainable development has to do with the form and functions we use in addressing inter-temporal choices. Who is to benefit and when and who is to pay the costs? This is not a new debate. In its beginning it was labeled “Issues with the Discount Rate”. In particular, using high discount rates in economic and financial analysis, it means that future benefits worth little or nothing, in present value terms. The bias of the discount rate was against investing in the future; investments that yield results far in the future (investing in diminishing global warming, plantation of oak trees).
This debate of discount rates, which looked very technical (with major social and human consequences), was later on accompanied by a major exchange on the so-called inter- generational equity issues. This debate was impregnated with ethical and moral issues as well as issues from the realm of spirituality and religion. The core question is what shall we leave for future generations. Shall we foreclose their options by abusing the Planet today? Of course, the answer is No. Addressing the issues of inter-temporal choices required some form of “supra objective function” far beyond gaining financial, economic or social returns. Many of these supra objectives were advocated. One of them was to leave the Earth at least as well off as it was given to us as a generation. Another was portrayed by the Precautionary Principle, which would advocate for having built in mechanisms for the replenishment of whatever we extract from the Planet.
This precautionary principle has been successfully applied in forest management and in the management of the Carbon Fund, linked to global warming.
To facilitate the debate on sustainability, economists resorted to all sorts of ideas. The simplest one was to tell the public that there were at least three dimensions of sustainability: economic, social and environmental. This idea was handy as it helped to justify what economists were doing in the areas of economics and social policy. The above provided the rationale for the creation of the well known Sustainability Triangle (each vertex represented one of those criteria). Many triangles were brought to light. An important one was that which distinguished man-made capital, social capital, and natural capital. And, all sorts of research were made around each of these three topics. I believe, the most seminal research and studies were on social capital. Even today, research and policies in the area of social capital tends to capture most of the attention. In fact, the NGO community, which was so outspoken in the advocacy of environmental and ecological issues, has moved away to address mainly social issues.
Because the results were not acceptable, we resorted to all forms of regulation. However, regulation is not very effective if it does not have a human face and high levels of consciousness to understand what is at stake and not to defeat the regulation. In a regulatory approach it is essential to know who pollutes. The emphasis on who pollutes has brought important information about the various economic activities, the behavior of actors including countries, and the nature of many decision-making processes. Putting a face on global warming, for example is essential.
People must know that it is people who pollute. Factories are people, policies are people, and so on. To depersonalize the process of environmental degradation only benefits those who bear the benefits but not the costs of that degradation.
The ultimate question and perhaps the most interesting of all is “Why people pollute?” Experience shows that there are at least two important reasons why people pollute. One, because of the inability to self realize the values that lead to sustainable development, like solidarity, interdependence, and the respect for nature (to name just three). Until and unless these values are self-realized, people will continue destroying nature. Two, because of the very high levels of toxicity. This toxicity numbs our senses and we become less connected with the genetic codes of nature and, thus, insensitive to environmental destruction.
In addition to the above there are other possible reasons:
• The wrong value system in relation to the uniqueness of nature (less intelligent, inert, and material).
• The culture that says that the Earth is an infinite sink of waste and, thus, people may pollute without any major consequences.
• The view that humans are so intelligent that technology will save them no matter what level of environmental destruction takes place and, thus, all one needs to focus on is technological change.
• The paradigm promoting the idea that we need to grow first and clean later, although no experience shows that one comes back to clean later (this is changing).
• The fact that people have very low levels of consciousness and collective coherence and, thus, we do not really have the strong energy needed to act.
• The inability of governments to manage the public good nature of our resources and the environment.
In the end all is about human consciousness. It is the inner minds and souls of people that need to be changed. It is the inner minds and souls of those actors who are responsible for environmental degradation and sustainability that need to be changed. The type of change suggested here is not something societies will attain by fiat. Human transformation processes need to shift and through such shifts people will behave differently. Thus, the future of sustainable development lies on the creation of a collective consensus about the quality of life we want to have as a collective. This consensus will be attained out of empowering people. In turn, this will be attained out of meaningful participation and representation in decision and policy making.
To read the full Rio Plus 20 Statement click HERE.
