What are some difficulties in achieving sustainable development?

Definition: Sustainable development is a pattern of economic growth in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come.

Why is it difficult for humans to achieve sustainable development?

And why?

3 Answers

  • 9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    You clearly haven't bothered thinking about this at all:

    - we don't recycle 100% of all metals, so any metals you use will not be available for future generations to use. So, by your own definition, you can't use any metals.

    - once coal, oil, or natural gas is burned, it can't be recycled, so any coal, oil, or natural gas you use to make anything, to transport what you make, or to transport the materials will not be available for future generations. So, by your own definition, you can't use energy that comes from coal, oil, or natural gas.

    You can argue that energy comes from the sun, from wind, or from water is O.K., but you still have to build the power plants to use those energy sources and that isn't O.K.


    - there are resources that are theoretically renewable, but we are already cutting down trees faster than they grow back, so wood, lumber, etc. may be theoretically sustainable, but in practice, using them is not sustainable.

    The bottom line is that we have too many people using any and all resources at far too great a rate to be sustainable, so anything additional you do is by your own definition, not sustainable.




    Now you can cheat in many ways: change the definition of sustainable so that it becomes feasible; pretend that advancing technology means that in the future people will be able to do anything with whatever they happen to have left over (isn't magic wonderful?) so it doesn't matter what we leave for future generations; etc. Or you can admit that sustainable development is an oxymoron and work toward other goals.

  • seelye
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    even regardless of the reality that the theory of sustainable progression is one which seems to have marked implications for both the quick- and lengthy-time period survival of a u . s . a ., the reality is that the shape and implementation of coverage in the route of the right of sustainable progression has shown to be an elusive purpose. at the same time as diverse nongovernmental agencies (NGOs) at the same time with the United countries and the european Union have positioned forth projects in the route of the purpose of sustainable progression, those projects have executed little to strengthen environmental outcomes for most countries. As such, this study considers what steps could be taken to make sure sustainable progression interior the international community. by coming up a coverage and studying the barriers to efficient implementation, it's going to be achieveable to illustrate both the complications of reaching sustainable progression besides because the moves that want to be taken to make sure a positive effect. studying the flair guidelines that could strengthen the viability of sustainable progression projects, it form of feels sensible to anticipate that the international commerce employer (WTO) could grow to be actively in contact interior the approach. quite, the WTO could set definitive criteria of sustainable progression—i.e. pollution emissions, water pollution criteria, deforestation prices, and so on.—for each member u . s . a .. once those criteria were set a regulatory committee could be advanced to demonstrate screen the shape of each u . s . a .. If a particular u . s . a . fails to fulfill the aims defined by the WTO, the employer could then have the authority to impose commerce sanctions until eventually the country complies with the guidelines. at the same time as this theory seems to provide a salient answer to a extreme mission, there are diverse barriers to efficient implementation.

  • 9 years ago

    Nov. 23, 2011

    The following is a letter I presented to my congressman intending to be the written basis for oral testimony before the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. This letter was submitted repeatedly beginning from the time of the committee’s first meeting to decide on their rules package. I did my best to use language in the letter suitable for congressional testimony and tried to make the letter a synopsis of the topics of which I have expertise and indicate the body of knowledge I could field questions from and be of service as a witness. I made no presumption that I would be allowed to actually render this testimony but determined that my overture had to take this form and there is value in both proving the vetting and review process of testimony is as broken as anything else and the agitational effect of the meaning between the lines nature of the letter.

    The letter intends a clear hard statement of fact and does not explain. Had I been allowed to present this testimony much could have been elaborated in the questioning session. It seams now appropriate to present this letter to the General Public and stand ready for the opportunity to answer questions as I was prepared to do before the committee.


    Testimony for United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction

    ie. Supercommittee —– http://www.deficitreduction.gov/public/

    Thank you Madam Co-chair Murray and Mr. Co-chairman Hensarling and Committee members for the opportunity to give this presentation.

    Knowing that the issues before the committee are largely of budgetary concerns,

    I have endeavored to frame my testimony to you to fit with as exact relevance to the matter as possible. The most reasonable and responsible approach seems to be, that proposed measures be divided into short-term solutions, medium-term solutions, and long-term solutions to appropriately address the “fix-this-now” sentiment that drove the formation of your committee.

    The best, first and, most responsible statement one could make would be that; The expectation of instant resolution is impractical as it took many years for us to get into this mess and the need is more of one to embark upon a well defined road in which our people have faith. That is the immediate task. People are fearful, angry and mistrusting of the road we are on now! Therefore in choosing the proper road to travel we then can manifest the viable and empowering goals aimed at and the attendant measuring sticks to gauge success in time.

    The Short Term is the purview of the committee.

    The actions in the Short-term are necessarily done with both the probable middle and long range conditions being considered. We are haunted by the specter of further collapse of revenues with reduction in expenditures of many specific types but there is one way, tried and true, tested method of invigorating the revenue base and raising revenue at the same time.

    I refer to the import Tariff, which if implemented correctly would cause no trade war and increase the attractiveness of domestic investment in manufacturing. A ten year schedule of periodic incremental increases would suffice to lend predictability to the environment perceived by investors. The benefits would be jobs at home and a reversal of the trade imbalance trend. From the consumers point of view this amounts to a user fee type of tax, those that advocate a “value-added-tax” should be able to support this provided they see the Tariff as a better way and somewhat equivalent.

    The VAT approach (a user fee) does not stimulate the economy the way the Tariff can and has done in the past. I would entreat the committee to examine the principled association of the means of revenue with the methods of expenditure and the economic zones they impact. The promotion of the Manufacturing Arts benefits us all. It seems reasonable that those who benefit the most from expenditures in the promotion of the manufacturing arts partake in the generation of the revenue that promotes them. The Tariff accomplishes this without punishing those whose entrepreneurship brings success. The long term concern is that the Tariff should become high enough to protect all (or most) not just the best to exclusion of all others.

    Take defense expenditures for instance, is it not reasonable that all commercial entities doing business with the department of defense during war time pay an additional tax to their incomes to supplement the cost of conducting warfare and prosecution of hostilities from which they profit. At the end of the conflict the additional tax may end and they can go back to the business of preparedness. Not much else needs to be said to this account.


Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.