When hearing about sustainability, issues like climate change, deforestation, biodiversity loss and pollution pop up in our minds. In fact, while sustainability, by itself, is a very positive word, it is often used as a starting point to adress different global challenges. In this article, you will get to know the 3 key challenges to sustainability. Let’s dive right into them!
1. Environmental Challenges
When talking about sustainability, environmental challenges are usually the first (and often the only) topics of discussion. Environmental challenges are any changes in the biophysical or natural environment which can influence the (short- and long-term) livelihood of people.
Oftentimes, these challenges seem to be overwhelming and, by trying to find the causes for them, terms such as industrialization, population growth, (over-)production, (over-) consumption, economic growth and denial are used in many discussions. Whereas some of these causes might be harder to tackle than some others, the combination of all of them can be seen as a driver for the environmental challenges that humanity is facing.
Examples for environmental challenges:
- climate change
- environmental pollution
- biodiversity loss
- deforestation
- resource depletion
- industrial disasters
- natural catastrophes (wildfires, floods, storms)
There are plenty of solutions to this however. For example, nature-based solutions for climate change, involve conserving, restoring, or better managing ecosystems to remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. These are aimed at improving human environment interaction.
2. Social & Economic Challenges
Social and economic challenges include all problems that influence many citizens within and among societies. They can either be seen separate from environmental challenges or as a result of lacking action in the environmental challenges discussed previously.
Population Growth
The most and obvious social challenge in terms of sustainability is population growth, often referred to as “the elephant in the room”. The world population is growing, and it is not growing in a linear way, but almost exponentially. To illustrate this, in 1800, there have been living about 1 billion people on the earth. In 1900, it have already been 2 billion, a number that was tripled (6 billion) by 1970. Today, population has increased to nearly 8 billion and is projected to be about 10 billion in 2050.
A growing world population means that more people have to share less space and resources, inevitably causing conflicts and pressure on nature. According to the population theory of Thomas Malthus, “human population increases geometrically and if unchecked, would lead to starvation”.
Whereas population growth is clearly not sustainable in the long-term, experts are still unsure about the relationship of increases in population on resource depletion and other environmental issues. Some argue that human ingenuity, medical technology and increased efficiencies in agriculture can keep pace with population growth.
Poverty
Another social challenge is poverty. As complex as the topic of poverty is, it is crucial to differ between absolute and relative poverty. Absolute poverty is measured in relation to the amount of money necessary to meet basic needs such as food, clothing and shelter. In contrast, relative poverty is measured in relation to the economic status of other members of the society. In 2015, 10 percent of the world population or 734 million people lived in absolute poverty.
From an ethical perspective, there clearly is no other option than to eliminate poverty globally; however, from a sustainability perspective the situation is not as clear. The history of developed societies has shown that there is a positive relationship between improved living conditions and resource depletion. In other words, as people get wealthier, they are able to afford more, and finally consume more, resulting in higher pressure on natural resources.
Nonetheless, there is also evidence for the opposite. The Ecological Kuznets Curve (EKC) and the ecological modernization theory illustrate how economies use material resources more intensively during industrialization, until a threshold is reached after which structural changes in the economy lead to progressively less-intensive materials use, as well as improved environmental and human conditions.
Economic Growth
Thus, lifting the poorest out of poverty without increasing the pressure on the already damaged planet seems to be possible only by economic activity that is not based on resource depletion. In other words, humanity will have to find a different approach to wealth generation than was used by current wealthy states if the carrying capacity of the earth (= the maximum number of a population that the environment can support) should not be exceeded.
3. Ethical Challenges
Finally, as you have probably noticed already, there is often not one definite answer, solution or opinion. Sustainability is a complex intradisciplinary topic which requires the ability to look at things from different perspectives. This is also true for ethics, which is at the very foundation of every discussion related to sustainability. The connection between ethics and sustainability is not always obvious and straightforward, but there are generally four different ethical challenges when it comes to sustainability: Global justice, intergenerational justice, biospheric egalitarianism, and technocratic decision-making.
Global Justice
The first ethical challenge, global justice, deals with the issue that many environmental, but also social and economic problems are trans-national and cannot be solved on a national level. Democratically elected assemblies often take decisions that affect more than their population. Furthermore, trans-national corporations are influencing the globalized world. Thus, many environmental problems are of trans-boundary character and demand concerted and coordinated political action. Finally, global justice includes the conflict between the poor and the economically powerful nation-states. Historically, only a few countries have been able to grow economically.
A major contribution to their development was colonialism, during which they exploited resources of other countries, suppressed them, and more or less intentionally “stole” their opportunities for development. Even after the former colonies gained independence, wealthy countries continued (and still continue) to exploit poor nations, for example through foreign debt, a practice called neo-colonialism (dependency theory).
When it comes to negotiations about limiting their carbon footprint, poor nations fear that international agreements will limit their attempt for economic development whereas economically powerful nation-states refuse to make substantial reduction of their GHG emission if developing countries do not make a similar sacrifice. As one can see, the global socio-economic differences between the industrial world and the developing world are greatly influencing how issues such as climate change are tackled. A question that arises out of this conflict, is, whether it will be possible for developing states to find an alternative to perpetual economic growth that is based on limited resources. And, if such an alternative cannot be found, how humanity can avoid severe environmental degradation.
In order to overcome the challenge of global justice, it will be important to develop structures for political action beyond the nation-state.
Intergenerational Justice
The second ethical challenge, intergenerational justice, is about the problem that decisions which are (not) taken today will affect future generations. It is emphasized that it is important to establish decision-making processes that consider unborn generations.
To illustrate the issue, consider climate change: The effects of climate change are delayed in time. Future generations will depend on the decisions that are made today. According to the concept of intergenerational justice, the interests of today’s citizens should not automatically be given priority over the interests of future generations. This requires the establishment of decision-making processes that take unborn generations into account.
Biospheric Egalitarianism
The third ethical challenge, biospheric egalitarianism, is all about the handling of non-human species. It questions how non-human interests can be considered in political decisions.
Today, 20-30% of species have been assessed to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5-2.5C°. But this is not the only threat to creatures other than humans. Already today, large-scale areas are used to grow crops for food production. In addition, political leaders are promoting the production of biofuels to reduce GHG emissions. However, increasing the share of land used for these purposes will destroy the natural habitats of many species (i.e. rainforests). Thus, when talking about biospheric egalitarianism, the question arises whether and how non-human interests should be considered, especially in the political handling of climate change.
Technocratic Decision-Making
The fourth and last ethical challenge, technocratic decision-making, focuses on the conflict between scientific evidence and political opinions. As mentioned earlier, climate change is a complex phenomenon and its consequences are delayed in time, which means that, without scientific research, it would not be possible to calculate them.
This results in a strong dependency on scientists. Technocratic decision-making suggests that these experts (and not the citizens or their democratically elected representatives) should be the creators of climate change policies. According to this concept, as democracy cannot guarantee a reduction in emission, an ecologically enlightened elite is needed to make unpopular decisions.
However, it should also be mentioned that the democratic process can produce both relevant and effective responses, but, indeed, still needs to consider the role of expertise. Thus, the fourth ethical challenge questions how decisional structures, which do not counter democratic decision-making and professional expertise when combating climate change, can be developed. In other terms, it questions whether experts (or technocrats) should be allowed to get more power in democratic decision-making.
From an ethical perspective democracy is not necessarily the best form of ecological governance, as there are, for good reasons, many other priorities recognized within the society, which are often considered to be more urgent or important than environmental protection. Thus, it is of utmost importance to be aware of the fact that a society governed primarily on the basis of ecological values would not necessarily be democratic.
