the politicians going to subsidise trawlers not to catch fish in order to give them
a job in the next decade?
Also, no government is able to do much about changing our unsustainable way
of life if we continue to be passive, apathetic consumers. For example, the
Island‘s transport system - it favours cars over public transport because, frankly,
most of us want it that way. If the motor lobby says that reducing car use will
cost jobs, and if car use keeps going up, it will be a brave MP/TD who dares to
put through anti-car legislation. (Of course, there is also a counter argument that
when, and until, public transport improves, things will not change anyway.)
Anyone can see that it‘s unsustainable - but it‘s up to us to do something about
it.
So what can we do? Well, as the waste hierarchy goes, we could start with
minimising waste: print only when necessary (and always double sided), store
copies of e-mails electronically, and take the stairs more often. Also, we could
re-use or recycle. But although these are important first steps, they can
sometimes seem a bit insignificant. Even if you diligently recycled every letter,
brochure and factsheet you received, it would still only amount to saving a twig
or two. If everyone does it, of course it becomes significant: new markets can
become viable for using recycled plastic, glass, paper, clothes and laser
cartridges.
Three types of capital in sustainable development:
The sustainable development debate is based on the assumption that societies
need to manage three types of capital (economic, social, and natural), which
may be non-substitutable and whose
consumption might be irreversible. Daly
(1991), for example, points to the fact that
natural capital can not necessarily be
substituted by economic capital. While it is
possible that we can find ways to replace
some natural resources, it is much more
unlikely that they will ever be able to replace
eco-system services, such as the protection
provided by the ozone layer, or the climate stabilizing function of the