Chlorophyll

Anyone who has even passing exposure to the so-called "Third World," which is really two thirds of humanity, has been exposed to the phrase "sustainable development." As Greens, we should talk about what this means.

Obviously, we want a sustainable economy for everyone. If we destroy the environment around ourselves, the same thing will happen to us that's happened to every other species faced with habitat loss. But there is more to sustainability than environmentalism. We must also look for social sustainability, which is to say, social justice. In impoverished nations, which are almost entirely agricultural, there can be no social justice without land reform. Such nations in Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia (plus pockets of Europe) look much the way they did 300 years ago, or the way Europe did 800 years ago. A small number of extremely wealthy families owns and runs everything, maintaining their privileges at any cost, including human lives. The local religious authorities usually play an active role in maintaining the status quo.

Back to the question of "sustainable development," what goal should we posit for it? It's common knowledge among Greens that the Earth is straining to maintain the lifestyles of the wealthy nations, and that it would take seven times as many resources to provide everyone currently alive with such a lifestyle. So, what hope is there for the poor, who struggle merely to scrape out an existence? What level of creature comforts is it reasonable to hope, or even want, for them to reach?

Obviously, population is a huge issue. Even if Malthus' morbid predictions have not come true, there's still the fact that many nation's economic growth is eclipsed by their birth rate, meaning that the economic pie may be growing, but each person's slice continues to shrink. The only proven antidote to exploding population growth in impoverished nations is educating girls. This is a great idea in theory, but even setting aside cultural resistance, it requires money. Most governments are putting money into neoliberal projects, or politicians' pockets, or both.

These neoliberal projects (oil pipelines, ports, factories, electrical systems, and other forms of infrastructure tailor-made for transnational corporations) are the major form of investment in poor nations currently. Other forms, such as education, are smokescreens - when you hear about education, ask about secondary and university education... you'll get a resounding silence. Still other forms, such as microcredit or help to cooperatives, may be genuinely helpful, but they are still dwarfed by the neoliberal projects. This will be true to an even greater extent over the next year or two, because the NGO sector is going through a deep financial crisis.

Still another obstacle to true sustainability is greenwashing. Many outfits tout themselves as ecologically and/or socially sound, when in fact they are not. This is especially common in eco-tourism. They can get away with this because claims are easy to make and difficult to prove or disprove.

With all this in mind, where do Greens stand on sustainable development? Should we demand that wealth be redistributed back to poor nations? Are we willing to start with our own? What should international trade look like? International tourism? What should we be doing in the meantime?