Posted on 04/23/2015 8:56:42 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
We must journey back to March, 1987, and the United Nations document entitled Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, to discover what is probably the only universally agreed upon—if nebulous and contradictory—definition of “sustainable development,” the precursor of “sustainability,” viz.
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:
the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs.
Notably, this document is much more about reducing the gap in standard of living between rich and poor countries than the environment, although it is difficult to separate the two. The report also stipulates that increased energy production will be needed to improve the plight of the poor. Nonetheless, it does pay due deference to all manner of Green issues, including population control and climate.
As with many UN documents, there is an ominous world government, nay totalitarian foreshadowing in such statements as “Ecological interactions do not respect the boundaries of individual ownership and political jurisdiction.”
28 years later, how does this sustainability play out in real life? A perusal of several corporate and academic websites on the matter of sustainability reveals a depressing, almost eerie similarity in mission, not to mention the paint-by-numbers details. The following precepts are virtually always present:
1. Waste and recycling policies, with few specifics on what happens with...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
“Sustainability” is just another word for “central planning”.
Capitalism is by far the best “sustainable “ system. It automatically (thru price actions) restricts the stuff that is more scarce and makes more available that which is more plentiful, and it does so dynamically.
Jeez. This morning, I just sat through listening to a Harvard Professor explaining sustainability to some financial folks. One of his big points was how to justify it from a fiduciary responsibility point of view. What nonsense it was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.