what is sustainable development?

Answer 1

===========================================




While the lengthy consumercentric answer above is true indeed, it's far too narrow a view, and one needs to think more holistically about the issue. Sustainable development involves a coalescence of economic, social, and environmental aspects.

------------------------------------------------------

From my essay last year on the topic:

There are about as many definitions of sustainable development as there are people who have set out to define it, each attempt made different by the individual’s vantage point and intentions.

While the concept can be found fragmented across various pieces of literature from the last century or so, the form we recognise today did not emerge until the mid-1980s, flourishing with the Bruntland Commission of 1987. Here it was decided that sustainable development was “development that meets the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs ”.

Clearly this is a highly consumercentric perspective, concerned with little other than the survival of mankind, and in 1991 UNEP/WWF put out their own definition, taking nature into account; “improving the quality of life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems ”.

The contrasting views from MEDCs and LEDCs can be viewed as an aside of the North-South debate of sustainable consumption.

Developing countries interpreted the sustainable development intentions of the Bruntland Commission to be based upon poverty reduction (through improved access to markets), investment into human capital, and the development of basic public health.

While those who were primarily from developed countries believed that it focused on a need to maintain a high standard of living from generation to generation, including uncontaminated surroundings.

As indicated earlier, there is a large spectrum of labels for the notion of sustainable development, but the general concept is that it is development which allows for the compatibility of economic growth and the environment so that natural resources do not constrain progression, in the economic sense of the word, yet are maintained for future inhabitants.

------------------------------------------------------

I hope this is the better answer and if so, I can send you my essay in its entirity if it would further benefit you

,my regards




----------------------

Answer 2

I actually have to think about this question a lot because my profession is Urban Planning.

Sustainable development is a planning philosophy that suggests we should develop and grow our communities in a way that they can be "sustained" forever. We are not doing that in our country, and haven't in quite some time. The basic reason is that we're addicted to petroleum. If you live in any community that was built after the 1950's (except in the densest urban areas), I'll bet you have to drive to get anywhere; work, school, shopping, entertainment, etc.

We're gobbling up our country side for more and more subdivisions, McDonalds, WalMarts, etc. Traffic is getting worse and worse. We have learned to mass produce our communities, just like we do any other commodity, and each community's sense of place has vanished. One looks pretty much like the next. This pattern of development is not sustainable over the long run. We cannot expect to ultimately build our way out of traffic congestion by building more and more roads.

Have you ever noticed that car commercials never show the driver and car in traffic? They are always on an open road. I wonder how many cars they'd sell if they showed their cars on a six lane highway at rush hour? But I digress....

I equate sustainability with self sufficiency. If you grow your own food, cut your own firewood, etc., all on your own property, without wearing it out, you are being sustainable. But that hardly ever happens anymore at the personal or family level. That may not even be a good idea, because economics teaches us that an economy is better off if everyone specializes in producing something that they're good at, and then trades with each other.

So maybe sustainability should happen at the community level. Historically, most city-states were basically self sufficient. The people in town made the finished goods, while the people in the country grew or mined the raw materials. They traded. There was very little interaction outside of the community. That is sustainability at the community level.

But even different communities can do some things better than others, because of geography and the distribution of natural resources. One may be near the ocean, and so becomes a fishing and shipping community; while another in the middle of the plains becomes a farming and grazing community, while another in the mountains becomes a mining community. They do what they do best, and trade with each other. That's sustainability at the regional level.

But when we discovered what oil can do, it changed our economies drastically. Now we could get machines to do a lot more work than we could do ourselves. Our economies became global. Most everyone who is lucky enough to participate in the global economy became richer. Think about it; the average person's house in the suburbs is better than a wealthy person's house was 100 years ago. So even though we've become wealthier, it is all due to our machine age and the consumption of natural resources, all made possible by oil. And eventually it is going to run out, which is why this way of life we've built is not sustainable.

And don't blame our politicians, the oil companies, or foreign governments for the run up in the price of gas. There is really not much they can do about it. If you really want to know who to blame, then try this. Next time you're in a traffic jam, look to your right and to your left. Those guys are to blame. And while you're at it, flip down the sun visor, and open up the mirror, because that person looking back at you is to blame too. It's simple economics...more and more people chasing after less and less resources. Mother Earth simply cannot make oil as fast as we are consuming it. This is not sustainable!

So what is sustainable? Renewable energy like wind, water and sun. Recycling materials. Building our communities in a more compact fashion so we can walk or bike, and not have to drive everywhere. Mass transit that runs on electricity. Or telecommuting. Think about it; if you work in an office, you spend most of your time on the phone and at the computer. Why do we even drive to work, when we can do most of the job from home????

We can still specialize and we can still trade, so I'm not talking about everyone going back to living on the farm. Each region will create a regional energy economy suited to it's geography. The American Southwest can specialize in solar energy. That's sustainable for them. The coasts can specialize in tidal energy. The mountains in hydroelectric (they have for a long time, that's good). The Central Plains can build windmills. They already are. The breadbasket of America can grow "energy crops" for the production of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline (although that's not probably sustainable over the long run, it may help over the intermediate term).

So get used to the idea of living closer to work, school, and each other, so you can walk or ride the train. It's going to happen eventually whether you are ready for it or not. When you think about it, living in two dimensions is just so inefficient! Why spread out for miles and miles when we can build up ten feet and double the size of our communities? I predict that eventually elevators will become public conveyances just like the subway or bus system is now. I mean, an elevator is nothing but a vertical train.

And for those times you do need your car, you'll unplug it from the wall socket in the garage and drive it for the first 40 or 50 miles that day on the electric motor and the electricity stored in the battery, at a cost of the equivalent of 75 cents per gallon. For most Americans, who only rarely drive further than that in a day, gasoline will continue to be more and more expensive, but they will need less and less of it. And when we figure out that the remaining precious petroleum is just too valuable to burn as a fuel, we will use it for only it's most valuable purposes.

Many of these sustainable alternative fuels are economically competitive now, and others are on the cusp. Windmills are already competitive in some areas that have strong steady winds. Even utilities are building "wind farms". Others such as solar, are close to being economically competitive, and as petroleum costs rise and solar costs fall, their prices will eventually meet. At that point, and only at that point, will we switch to a sustainable future.

Answer 3

A country's ability to not only grow, but to sustain that growth in terms of resources available, etc.
Here is a link explaining it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development

Here is a webpage with articles on various aspects/countries that might also help you
http://www.ulb.ac.be/ceese/meta/sustvl.html

Answer 4

It's economic development without environmental degradation. If development is unsustainable, its costs (such as pollution and related increase in disease and mortality) will eventually outweigh its benefits.