Summary
Summary Revision Notes from Tutorials and Classes
- Course
- Institution
This is a complete summary of all core concepts from classes and tutorials, in preparation for the final exam
[Show more]
Seller
Followemmagervasi
Content preview
Exam Revision SDTASK 1
W. Steffen IGBP 1999-2003 – 24 great acceleration graphs 1750-2003 – updated in 2010
12 socio-economic indicators and 12 earth system indicators
since 1950 great acceleration
some levelling off can be seen not as result of successful environmental policies but as result of
saturation/limited resources (overfishing, big river exploitations) – apart from the ozone graph which
is the only one showing human intervention thanks to Kyoto Protocol
stable climate conditions in Holocene since 11-12k years ago, gave rise to agriculture and humans
Planetary Boundary involves environmental systems with limits:
> Holocene is the desired stable state providing for human development, we should avoid moving into
Anthropocene
> transgressing boundaries we can expect new systems as result of perturbations
> 2009: 9 key planetary boundary with update in 2005 by Steffen and Rokstrom
> 4 boundaries have been passed already: P/N cycles, climate change, land use,
we need sustainable development – but what is it? Coming from both the development and
environmental agendas:
> post-WW2 and especially during 1960s, prio on economic growth, global south was meant to be
following suite, assumed linear stages in development (= modernisation, westernisation –
industrialisation via capitalist growth seen as central requirement) for ex. Rostow’s 5 stages of dev
where high mass consumption considered end goal in 1960 – based on exploitation of natural
resources
1970-80s – changing! (in the meantime, Leopold and carson tho!!)
> Seers, 1967: is goal of dev growth? What about poverty, unemployment and inequality? If they
have been growing worse, we shouldn’t call it development
> Max-Neef 1989: dev should be reframed as meeting fundamental human needs, we face a dev
crisis!
> Amartya Sen, 1999: creating an environment where humans can develop their full potential and
lead productive creative lives in accord with their needs and interests – dev is about expanding
choices people have to lead the lives they value – CAPABILITY APPROACH
> Millennium Develop Goals 2000 developed by the UN – reflecting these changing views on
development – not about growth
> towards more holistic and multidimensional frameworks
Amartya Sen influenced Millennium Ecosystems Assessment
changing perceptions from human domination at top of pyramid, to being integral part of the
environment
Post 1987:
> many more versions sometimes diverging greatly – there is still little agreement on what sustainable
dev is and on what is required to promote sust future
> DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS EXIST ON: relationship society-nature, substitutability btw capital
forms, type of development, policies
Study questions
1.What were-are the critiques on the conventional model of development?
,- Conventional Model of Dev (modernisation/westernisation + focus on econ growth + assumes linear
progression)
- Critiques on Conventional Model: 7 from Baker 2016 -
> this concept of progress is limited in terms of increased domination of nature so not recognising
negative impacts or our dependence
> focus on mass consumption is threating – it assumes that environmental degradation is inevitable
consequence
> consumption isn’t the most important contributor to human wellbeing
> ignores the fact that social stability requires maintenance of natural resources
> western dev is based on exploitation which then causes underdev.
> impossible to replicate everywhere the northern lifestyle based on consumption as it is limited
> econ growth has limits set by the carrying capacity of the planet
Baker says that post-WW2 development was exceptional and contingent
Dev historically based on GDP, now need for a holistic view taking into account environment
2.What is the Brundtland report and the Brundtland definition of sustainable development?
1983 to 1987 (publication) – our common future report – economic development and ecological
sustainability tgr for the first time as not conflicting but reconciled – still acts as guiding principle
for our development trajectory
DEFINITION: develop that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs
satisfaction of human needs and aspiration is primary goal (Max-Neef and Amartya Sen) – SD
requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to satisfy their aspirations
for a better life
economic growth is not the goal but it is needed, especially in developing world, to meet human
needs
the concept imply limits in the sense of limitations imposed by the present state of technology and
social organisation on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the
effects of human activities we have to stay within environmental limits but they are not absolute as
with tech and social changes we might change or be stretched
3 pillars of sust dev economy, society, environment (as containing all concentric circles)
economy can grow still but in a green way with technology and societal change
milestone as also strongly influenced the international response to sust. Challenges
in the Rio+20 in 2012, 3 pillars of sust dev at the core with green econ on the agenda:
> developed a non-binding document ‘the future we want’ initiating process for the development
of SDGs
> agreed to explore alternatives to GDP
> need for fundamental changes in the way society consumes and produces is indispensable
3 key points:
- NEEDS BASED APPROACH
- NOTION OF LIMITS
- IMPLICIT 3 PILLARS APPROACH
3.What are the different views on sustainable development (weaker approach, stronger approach,
other approaches)?
- ladder of SD by Baker with a broad spectrum from very anthropocentric to very ecocentric
approaches
- POLLUTION CONTROL: nature seen in relation to human beings – compared to conventional
mode of development – nature has only use-value
,- WEAK approach: SD is a challenge to develop a more environmentally friendly approach to
planning and resource management - environmental considerations taken into account for growth
oriented development – substitutability of natural and humanmade capitals – reuse, recycle, repair
and product life cycling mng (supply-side)
- STRONG approach: social and economic development is limited and we have to stay within
planetary boundaries – nature is allowed to set the paramenters of econ behavior so that SD becomes
an externally guided dev model, based on planetary limits – BUT goal is still rather
anthropocentric since it is about sustaining human life and wellbeing (so making too sharp a
distinction btw weak and strong isn’t wise as predominant interest in human welfare in both) – KEY
maintenance of crucial natural capital, so substitutability is very limited – changes in
consumption needed, shift to non-material aspects (demand-side), necessary dev of global south –
environmental protection is pre-condition for econ dev – shift from quant to qual growth
- IDEAL approach – purely ecocentric – green philosophy – nature has intrinsic value – meeting
needs not wants and local self-sufficiency
SD is rejected at both ends of the spectrum for opposing reasons:
> pollut control – promoting SD is threating econ growth
> deep ecologists consider that SD displaces considerations of nature as the main focus is still on
human wellbeing
Pelenc et al 2015:
- weak approach looks at total value of the aggregate capital which should be at least maintained if not
increased
- strong approach – very limited substitutability
- fundamental debate is which approach we choose
Check the table in the policy brief!
4.What are the SDGs (content AND development process)?
> future we want in 2012 at Rio+20 and millennium declaration
> 2015: adopted by UN as part of 2030 Agenda – in to force in 2016
> 17 goals and 169 targets going much further than millennium goals – it is a universal set of goals,
targets and indicators that UN members are expected to use to frame their agendas and political
policies by 2030
> contrary to MDGs, the SDGs were formulated in a broad participatory process (after Rio+20, UN
set up open working group started in 2013 and then published in 2014 – negotiations followed about
wording) – largest consultation program in UN history
KEY points:
> intended as global agenda not as the MDGs which were considered targets more for developing
countries
> holistic framework: goals can be achieved if they go hand in hand – also, one can affect the other
negatively such as climate change (goal depend on each other but did not specify how, so to unlock
their full potential we should understand range of +/- interactions amongst SDGs)
> not legally binding but provide a globally endorsed normative framework for dev. –
governments expected to establish their own plans for implementation
Discussion questions
1.Evaluate the current policies in your own country; are they mostly guided by the conventional
model of development or by sustainable development?
a. Basic universal income, creation of more natural parks, protection of oceans, recycling and
upcycling, incentives such as bikes [+]
b. On the social aspect still a lot of injustices and inequalities or disparities so still lots to be
achieved
, 2.What is your view on the Brundtland report?
a.What key issues/concepts do you think the Brundtland report really added to the
policy discussions about our future society/planet?
- marriage of sust and dev (mutual) + 3 pillars
- biophysical limitations
- global focus
- focused on the ecological side but less on the societal one (empowerment, education etc)
- target on diminishing population numbers which is missing in SDGs as sensitive political
issue
b.Review Box 2.4 in Chapter 2 from the textbook by Baker: which of these issues do you
think are still relevant today and how do these issues compare to the SDGs?
> all still relevant
3.Do you think that the following readings can be labelled as a weak or as a strong approach
towards sustainable development: a) the Brundtland report, and b) the paper by Griggs et al.?
a) the Brundtland report (strong – especially at the time)
b) the paper by Griggs et al.? (Strong) 2013
from griggs: protection of Earth's life-support system and poverty reduction must be the twin
priorities for SDGs - To set appropriate goals and targets, environmental conditions have to be
identified that enable prosperous human development and set tolerable ranges for the biosphere to
remain in that state – SDGs need to be measurable – 6 SDGs: thriving lives and livelihoods,
sustainable food security, sustainable water security, universal clean energy, healthy and productive
ecosystems, and governance for sustainable societies - National policies should, like carbon pricing,
place a value on natural capital and a cost on unsustainable actions
gives model of sust dev with envir and soc and only then, econ
provisional goals are measurable
4.One of the critiques on the concept of sustainable development has been that it is too vague. A) do
you agree with this critique and B) do you think the SDGs provide a sound framework for
operationalizing the SDG?
1. Oxymoron – can they go tgr? development should not be seen as in economic development but
as in quality of life, needs and aspirations
2. Vague/not concrete thus difficult to agree on policies and indicators it can be constructive
ambiguity so politically advantageous for bringing tgr actors with very difficult goals and conflicting
interests
3. need to reframe 3 pillar approach griggs et al 2013 developed new diagram where economy is
in the middle not due to importance but cuz it relies on society, which then depend on environment
new DEFINITION developed: development that meets the needs of the present while
safeguarding Earth’s life-support system, on which the welfare of the current and future
generations depends
4. pursuing wrong agenda in practice as it is always weak approach applications
5. green washing as the concept is mainstream now and sometimes exploited by companies and as
consumer u do not know which alternative is greener
6. global governance & slow UN processes – as institutions are dealing with other problems which are
prioritised – in UN summits, lack of substantive output, national interests are dominant, limited
funding BUT ALSO Un Summits have facilitated negotiations, strengthened a global focus,
developed mutual understanding and led to treaties and biding conventions
sust dev is a complex and fluid concept – will evolve over time
But has some shared characteristics: long term view, equity concern, environmental limits, systems
thinking (this is the challenge for practitioners)
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller emmagervasi. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
75632 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now
Recently viewed by you
