Sociology. Anthony Giddens
are no longer in fashion or fail to represent their status aspirations.
The sociology of consumption shows us that the combination of industrialization, capitalism and consumerism has transformed society–environment relations. Many environmentalists and more than a few social and natural scientists have concluded that continuous economic growth cannot carry on indefinitely. The resulting pollution might have been ecologically insignificant if it had been restricted to a small part of the global human population. However, when industrialization spreads across the planet, when a majority of people live in huge cities, and when capitalist companies become multinational and consumerism seduces people in all countries, then the natural environment’s capacity for recovery and resilience becomes severely weakened.
Although the rich are the world’s main consumers, the environmental damage caused by growing levels of consumption has the heaviest impact on the poor. As we saw in our discussion of global warming, the wealthy are in a better position to enjoy the many benefits of consumption while avoiding its negative effects. At the local level, affluent groups can usually afford to move away from problem areas, leaving the poor to bear the costs. Chemical plants, power stations, major roads, railways and airports are often sited close to low-income areas, and on a global level we can see a similar process at work: soil degradation, deforestation, water shortages, lead emissions and air pollution are all increasingly concentrated within the developing world. What is needed is a perspective which connects the developed and developing countries within a single project, and sustainable development aims to do exactly that.
Limits to growth and sustainable development
In The Ecologist, a UK campaigning magazine, Edward Goldsmith and his colleagues set out the charge against industrial expansion in their A Blueprint for Survival (1972: 15): ‘The principal defect of the industrial way of life with its ethos of expansion is that it is not sustainable … we can be certain … that sooner or later it will end.’ Such doom-laden forecasts used to be described as ‘catastrophist’ and were restricted to the wilder fringes of the environmental movement. However, the idea now has wider currency among young people, members of the public and policy-makers. Sustainability is a central motivating idea for environmental campaigners – ensuring that human activity does not compromise the ecology of planet Earth.
One important influence on the rise of environmental movements and public concern about environmental problems can be traced back to a famous report first published in the early 1970s, which set out the case that economic growth could not continue indefinitely. The report and its findings are discussed in ‘Classic studies’ 5.2.
Sustainable development
Rather than simply calling for economic growth to be reined in, more recent developments turn on the concept of sustainable development. This was first introduced in a report commissioned by the United Nations, Our Common Future (WCED 1987). This is also known as the Brundtland Report, after the chair of the organizing committee, Gro Harlem Brundtland, then prime minister of Norway. The report’s authors argued that use of the Earth’s resources by the present generation was unsustainable.
The Brundtland Commission regarded sustainable development as ‘development which meets the needs of the present generation, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED 1987) – a pithy definition, but one which carries enormous significance. Sustainable development means that economic growth should be carried on in such a way as to recycle physical resources rather than deplete them and to keep levels of pollution to a minimum. However, the definition is open to criticism. How many generations should be considered – five, ten, or more? How can we know what are the ‘needs’ of the present generation? How can we compare human needs in developing countries with those in the relatively rich countries? These questions are still debated, though the concept of sustainable development – however problematic – continues to motivate many individuals and voluntary groups.
Classic studies 5.2 Modelling the limits to economic growth
The research problem
Global human population has grown enormously since industrialization took hold, and the resulting pressure on the environment has led to soil degradation, deforestation and pollution. Are there any limits to this pattern of development? Will food supplies keep up with increasing demand or will the world see mass famine? How many people can the planet support without ruining the environment? These hugely significant questions were asked of a group of scientists by a global think tank, the Club of Rome, almost forty years ago. The resulting book was published as The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972).
Meadows and colleagues’ explanation
The Limits study used modern computermodelling techniques to make forecasts about the consequences of continued economic growth, population growth, pollution and the depletion of natural resources. Their computer model – World3 – showed what would happen if the trends that were established between 1900 and 1970 were to continue to the year 2100. The computer projections were then altered to generate a variety of possible consequences, depending on different rates of growth of the factors considered. The researchers found that, each time they altered one variable, there would eventually be an environmental crisis. If the world’s societies failed to change, then growth would end anyway sometime before 2100, through the depletion of resources, food shortages or industrial collapse.
The research team used computer modelling to explore five global trends (Meadows et al. 1972: 21):
accelerating industrialization across the world
rapid population growth
widespread malnutrition in some regions
depletion of non-renewable resources
a deteriorating natural environment.
The programme was then run to test twelve alternative scenarios, each one manipulated to resolve some of the identified problems. This allowed the researchers to ask questions about which combinations of population levels, industrial output and natural resources would be sustainable. The conclusion they drew in 1972 was that there was still time to put off the emerging environmental crisis. But, if nothing was done – and even if the amount of available resources in the model were doubled, pollution were reduced to pre-1970s levels and new technologies were introduced – economic growth would still grind to a halt before 2100. Some campaigners saw this as vindicating the radical environmental argument that industrial societies were just not sustainable over the long term.
Critical points
Many economists, politicians and industrialists roundly condemned the report, arguing that it was unbalanced, irresponsible and, when its predictions failed to materialize, just plain wrong. The modelling was largely devoid of political and social variables and was therefore just a partial account of reality. The researchers later accepted that some of the criticisms were justified. The method used focused on physical limits and assumed existing rates of economic growth and technological innovation, but this did not take account of the capacity of human beings to respond to environmental challenges. For example, market forces could be made to work to limit the over-exploitation of resources. If a mineral such as magnesium starts to become scarce, its price will rise. As its price rises it will be used less, and producers might even find alternatives should costs rise too steeply. Limits was seen by many as yet another overly pessimistic, catastrophist tract that engaged in unreliable ‘futurology’ – predicting the future from current trends.
Contemporary significance
Whatever