SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IS OUR ONLY CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION METHODOLOGY

In order to address climate change, most commentators would be happy to agree that we will aim to maximise sustainable development. Yet, this is nice in theory. What does this mean in practice? Here is my simplified guide:

Sustainable Development = Environment + Markets + Society

This "equation" challenges us to ensure that we think logically, laterally and thoughtfully about each of our decisions. If this is all we achieve, it would be a huge step forward. In practice, we would stretch this definition to include monitoring for equity, gender, equitable opportunity, and other societal norms. Plus, global social justice must be maximised not just national social justice.

Is this equation fair? Does it make decisions so darn hard that we should rather take a simple course of action? Is it uncomfortable for too many people to take a logical approach to a complex problem? Are ‘tabloid’ solutions better because they are measurable if not actually helpful? Is it unhelpful because it cannot be “solved”?

To illustrate how poorly ‘sustainable development objectives’ are imbued in the climate change debate, let’s contrast emissions trading and food miles:

• emissions trading - Environmental and economic efficiency but require tweaking to ensure that poverty alleviation, and quality environmental mitigation are secured. An economist would see this as an attractive option. The political dimension would prove the trickiest to maximise.
• consumer-led campaigns - e.g. food miles - often fail on all three –
• environmental [local is not always best - thanks to imported animal feeds, hot-housing, road transport inefficiencies];
• economic [the complementarities between imported foods and domestic foods are so great – such as permanent shelf exposure – that solidarity is required not competition]
• social [recent research has shown that over one million livelihoods in rural sub-Saharan Africa alone rely on the UK’s consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables. Indeed, supermarkets are talking about so-called “fair miles” increasingly as a principle for procurement]
  

Should a decision maker or campaigner or activist or celebrity chef be asked to demonstrate they have thought about these three interlinked elements and considered the global as well as the local?

I feel the equation itself is helpful if only to make us all think / realise/ remember that there is a global social contract, there is an overriding objective, and many of the simple solutions are not going to help us win this time.