|
Editor's Note: The last Newsletter included an
article "Sustainable Development: What does it mean?". There seemed to be
no consensus even on definitions, let alone on priorities. We have devoted much of
this issue to a thought provoking response from Dr. Stephen Wozniak, who gave the 1998
Offwell Lecture. In the Autumn 1998 Newsletter we described his lecture as wide
ranging, challenging and almost wholly pessimistic. Write to the Editor with your
further views!
I sighed wearily whilst reading about definitions of sustainable development. As
a scientist who was involved for nearly 20 years on the periphery of drafting official
documents to make them 'acceptable' to Whitehall and Westminster, the sequence of events
seemed familiar.
First, take a clear and principled idea: that sustainable development is a process leading
to sustainability, itself a way of living and of treating the Earth and all Life in such a
way as to ensure that any permanent diminution of the whole that may in future occur is
owing to causes outside of man's control. Second, proffer it to mandarins and a few
part-time junior ministers. Finally, marvel at how they manage despite all knowledge
placed before them to emasculate the central ideas and ideals to an extent that even
definitions (let along policies) reek of insincerity.
Far from being a jumble of words formulated by well meaning but muddled amateurs, the
official definition of sustainable development (DETR 2000, and reproduced in the Autumn
Newsletter) is a masterpiece of homage to both perpetual economic growth and the consumer
society - arguably the twin antitheses of sustainability. A year is an age in
politics. Yet we need to look back 30 years to obtain a context for what is
happening today.
The end of complacency. During the 1950s and 1960s oil had flowed reliably
and cheaply from Arab states. We had "never had it so good" (Harold
Macmillan, 1957). Moreover, prosperity would be forged in the "white heat of
(the technological) revolution" (Harold Wilson 1963). For another decade and
despite a fledgling environmental movement, the old buffer class of mandarins continued to
feel secure amidst the leather seats and saddle soap of Whitehall. World without
end, save loss of Empire.
Yet an end was to come, precipitated by the Arab-Israeli war of October 1973. A
gradual increase in the price of oil had long been suggested by ecologists. The Shah
of Iran was sympathetic. But the actual rise was both sudden and huge, an act of
vengeance rather than of altruism or ecology. Prices quadrupled inside a year.
The UK was dependent upon Arab oil despite having (at the time) a large coal
industry. Departmental panic buttons, unused since the Suez crisis of 1956, were
hurriedly unearthed. Petrol coupons were issued and religious faith found new
expression as motorists queued for hours at the pumps to await deliverance.
The knee-jerk reaction to the oil crisis and (later) the miners' strike was to encourage a
reduction in energy use. Brushing your teeth in the dark, showering with a friend,
removing light bulbs or sharing your most treasured possession with strangers - all made
headlines for a few days. The important point is not the banality of much of the
advice but that ministers were urging a reduction in consumption and material living
standards. The words 'conservation' and 'reduction' were applauded. But not
for long.
Institutionalised insincerity takes hold. Within a few years, OPEC
stabilised, the miners were put in their place (out of work), the North Sea became a
short-lived national treasure, world oil prices fell and the consumer society was
propelled to new and brave horizons. Amidst the sighs of relief in Westminster was
heard a murmured discord. The Goddess of Shopping, chief mentor of the Treasury and
High Priestess of the housing estates, was displeased by the new multi-faith society that
had embraced 'conservation'. Encouraging people to use less? To do without?
To distinguish between want and need? But happiness and economic
growth (for the two were clearly inseparable) depended on using more, if not of everything
then of almost everything. Conservation was for hippies, not for patriotic
consumers.
|
|
