economics of carbon

There is consensus that climate change is the single largest threat to global economy. Effective methods to tackle the growing effects of global warming are yet to be devised. However, there has been several measures to quantify carbon emission. Both the Kyoto Protocol and the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU-ETS) are based on the pollution trading model. By giving greenhouse gases a price, trading is also supposed to encourage businesses to invent new, lower-emitting technologies. One problem is that carbon trading encourages the industries most addicted to coal, oil and gas to delay shifting away from fossil fuels.

Critiques of the Carbon Economy
One of the oft-heard complaint is that they encourage ‘passing the buck’, rather than alleviating the situation. They have also been repeatedly critiqued for merely salving consciences; for privatizing the public or societal cost of carbon pollution; for, in the case of some projects, dispossessing ordinary people of their land and water. Global warming requires reorganization of society and technology so that fossil fuels can be left in the ground. It is a false economy to try to set up a market system that requires enormously complicated, centralized carbon accounting merely in order to save corporations a bit of money in attaining unambitious, near-term targets. Time and brainpower would be better spent in laying enduring foundations for an entirely new regime of energy use.

Carbon Trade Schemers
Carbon trading schemes are based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle. However, high-polluting industries and nations are being granted nearly as many free pollution rights - which they can then trade lucratively - as they need to cover their current emissions. Under the EU ETS, some of the worst greenhouse offenders have garnered hundreds of millions of pounds in windfall profits for pursuing business as usual, while ordinary citizens suffer higher electricity prices and developers of renewable energy go begging.

The Kyoto Protocol and the EU ETS are weakened further by loopholes allowing big polluters to buy cheap 'offset' credits from abroad to 'compensate' for any emissions not covered by free pollution permits. A British cement firm or oil company lacking enough permits to cover its emissions can make up the shortfall simply by buying credits from, say, a 'carbon-saving' wind farm in India, a scheme to destroy globe-warming HFC refrigerants in Korea, an energy efficiency programme in South Africa, or a project to burn landfill gas to generate electricity in Brazil.

The domestic inaction that this arrangement enables might be justified if it were part of a larger revolution in the way energy is used and produced worldwide. But it isn't. The foreign carbon projects being used to license industry's continued emissions at home are supplementing fossil fuel use; they are not replacing it. The institutions most active in setting up 'offset' projects - ranging from the World Bank to Tokyo Power - are precisely those most committed to burning up more and more coal, oil and gas. The logical endpoint of this approach is a landscape covered in the carcasses of wind farms, solar stations and biofuel plantations - all baking in a greenhouse atmosphere that can no longer support human civilization.

Many ordinary people in the South have more immediate concerns about carbon trading. The Durban Group for Climate Justice documented how carbon credits are being generated almost exclusively by local environmental offenders, while communities preserving local forests or defending their lands against oil exploitation or coal-fired power plants are being ignored. It is big polluters, after all, who tend to be in the best position to hire carbon consultants, liaise with officials and pay money to get projects registered with the UN carbon market.

In Brazil, locals are up in arms against a land-grabbing plantation and pig iron firm that tried to peddle credits on the ground that without the carbon money it would have to replace its charcoal fuel with mineral coal. In India, the notoriously polluting, water-guzzling sponge iron industry of Chhattisgarh was among the first to try to sell carbon credits for being 'green'. Worldwide, many communities interviewed had no idea that their local corporate bad citizens were getting extra cash from the carbon market - but were not happy to hear it.

The carbon market helps keep an oppressive fossil-centered industrial model going at a time when society should already be abandoning it. There are better ways of tackling climate change than by privatizing the earth's carbon-cycling capacity. Public investment; shifting subsidies away from fossil fuels toward renewables; conventional regulation; support for the work of communities already following or pioneering low-carbon ways of life - all are more direct ways of bringing about structural change.

The US wrote carbon trading into the Kyoto Protocol before abandoning the treaty to its fate. With the advent of Copenhagen, there is an increased need to reform the basis on which any future carbon schemes are based upon. The sclerotic market apparatus that came about after Kyoto does not serve the best interests of either South or North. The Northern bloc cannot continue polluting and expect the Southern bloc to pay – the impacts are disproportionate. A lot of time has been wasted that is not available to waste discussing a model that is essentially a failure. It had more than a decade to work and it didn’t, it is time for a change.

death of an icon

To a child of the 80s with the big hair and flamboyance, there are some things that stood out more than others. The first album I ever bought was 'Dangerous' - on tape - which still reminds me of the start of my incredible journey through music, which is a never-ending search.

Armies of Jackson fans are already calling June 25th the day the music died. For me, not a lot has changed because the music still exists. What has somehow been altered is a perception I cannot fully understand yet.

In the 90s when Michael was singing about environmentalism, it was new and radical. In many ways, it still is - but then there wasn't this sense of urgency we feel now. This is exactly what his songs were predicting: that the day will come when we look back and wonder why we didn't do anything about it then.

He was one of the few artistes in that era who sang about socio-economic-environmental issues in the wide, convoluted forum of pop music. He was an intelligent lyricist and a sensitive performer who often got ridiculed for portraying emotion in his songs. The material he chose to sang about always encompassed a lot more than what empty pop portrays today.

Setting aside (as if it is possible) the moonwalking and the thrilling and the unique voice and the incredible dancing and the 'wacko' image and the bling and the plastic surgery, there was a marked dichotomy between the man and the myth. There are those songs that cannot be forgotten and some that are still relevant and others that make us think and still others that make us feel. For me, apart from contributing the much needed originality to the 80s, the king of pop was the headliner of a mass environmental movement. Even if nothing else, it made people aware of socio-enviro issues through his songs.

Death is both dramatic and dramatized even if dying isn't. Heroes are born after they die and the way to immortality is what you leave behind. For someone who has been the icon of a generation, death will be hard to live down. For those of us who call themselves fans or claim to have cut their musical teeth on Thriller or Bad or Dangerous - forget about the images for a second and focus on the words that is still a much needed refrain.

future of RTD

The Right to Development (RTD), a concept that emerged in the 1970s, is one of the most debated and contentious issues in international relations. RTD builds on the rights based approach to development, seeking to integrate the norms and principles of human rights with policies and plans to promote development. Despite its importance for the world’s poor and dispossessed, a great deal of definitional confusion still surrounds the concept.

The future of RTD depend on the extent to which governments are willing to address the political and practical obstacles to its implementation. The political obstacles appear in the tone and substance of the deliberations as well as the decisions of the Commission and General Assembly. It is up to those governments that take the RTD seriously to shift the discourse away from posturing and towards specific programs and mechanisms that will assist governments in meeting their obligations in this area.

The most important obstacle to implementing the RTD is the practical one, because of the lack of incentives to modify the formal policies of the international agencies and national governments and to incorporate meaningful approaches to this right in the practice of development. Human rights are claims of entitlement that arise as of right and are independent of external justification; they are "self evident" and fundamental to any human being living a dignified, healthy and productive and rewarding life.

Human rights are not some abstract, inchoate 'good'; they are defined, particular claims listed in international instruments such as the [U.N.'s] Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the major covenants and conventions. Like the fundamental rights guaranteed by any Constitution, these rights are inalienable; they cannot be transferred, forfeited, or waived; they cannot be lost by having been usurped, or by one's failure to exercise or assert them.

Sustainable development acts as a reconciling principle between economic development and environmental protection. Just as economic development is an inalienable right of States' self-determination; environmental protection is an erga omnes (in relation to everyone) obligation of all States for the benefit of the global commons that all share. The principle of sustainable development is thus a part of modern international law by reason not only of its inescapable logical necessity, but also by reason of its wide and general acceptance by the global community, and not just by developing countries.

conflict of rights

Both the right to development and the right to environment are basic human rights ensured by the United Nations Charter of Human Rights. Traditional international law does not consider that rights to a clean and healthy environment to be a jus cogens human right.

Jus cogens (compelling law) refers to pre-emptory legal principles and norms that are binding on all international States, regardless of their consent. They are non-derogable in the sense that States cannot make a reservation to a treaty or make domestic or international laws that are in conflict with any international agreement that they have ratified and thus to which they are a party. They are the axiomatic and universally accepted legal norms that bind all nations under jus gentium (law of nations).

While the international legal system has evolved to embrace and even codify basic, non-derogable human rights, the evolution of environmental legal regimes have not advanced as far. While the former have found a place at the highest level of universally recognized legal rights, the latter have only recently and over much opposition, reached a modest level of recognition as a legally regulated activity within the economics and politics of sustainable development.

No State today will publicly state that it is within its sovereign rights to damage their domestic environment, much less that of the international community, however most States do not guarantee environmental protection as a basic human right. Currently, environmental law is composed of mostly Conventional International Law. Unlike for human rights and international crimes, there is no general environmental rights court in existence today. The human right to environment must have at an international organ of protection as it is not the right of the State but the right of individuals and cannot be effectively protected by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Domestic remedies would have to be pursued first, of course, but standing would be granted to NGOs, individuals, and States when such remedies proved. For example, although the ICJ has an 'environmental chamber' and U.S. courts often appoint 'special masters' to handle these types of disputes, it is clear that the recognition of the human right to the environment needs an international court of its own in order to recognize such a right and remedy international violations in an efficient and equitable manner.

The right to development is a composite right to a process of development; it is not just an 'umbrella' right, or the sum of a set of rights. The integrity of these rights implies that if any one of them is violated, the whole composite right to development is also violated. The independent expert describes this in terms of a 'vector' of human rights composed of various elements that represent the various economic, social and cultural rights as well as the civil and political rights. The realization of the right to development requires an improvement of this vector, such that there is improvement of some, or at least one, of those rights without violating any other.

go forth and really really think before you multiply

One of the issues that does not seem to get talked about is the increase in global population and its direct links to global warming. The increase in population means a proportionate increase in consumption patterns - especially of energy and food. No one is talking about this obvious connection because it is controversial and there is no easy solution.

Most natural scientists agree our growing numbers and our unchecked impact on the natural environment move us inexorably toward global calamities of unthinkable severity. The reason that most environmental activists shy away from addressing the obvious connection between increasing numbers and climate change is that it is seen as an infringement on basic human rights. Ultimately however, it begs to answer the question of whether it is worth it to tiptoe around the tulips on the issue right now or our ongoing failure to act to prevent hundreds of millions, even billions, dying as a result of global ecological collapse?

There are already areas in the world showing acute 'population stress' and competing for natural resources and basic amenities - this is a problem that is both intensifying and spreading. The prudent scientists insist that we have overshot the Earth's carrying capacity - our inability to live as we do, at our current numbers, without causing pervasive environmental degradation is the very definition of carrying capacity overshoot.

Overshot is usually followed by population decline. So our choice is very clear - our chance to avert such an outcome depends on our ability to address our numbers before nature reduces them for us. Population demographics most often than not bring up India and China - the world's most populous countries.

China's 'one-child policy' has led to its own social problems like a skewed sex ratio for example. India's efforts to curb its own population has been unsuccessful - in short, there is no easy way to deal with this issue of growing population. Again, like many enviro-social reforms, education at the grassroots is the key to alleviating the problem.

A growing population puts numerous pressures on resource management and allocation. It also leads to the rise of mega-cities which on their own exert enormous pressure on the environment.

Reproduction is of course, a personal choice but it is one that cannot be made lightly . Apart from the emotional investments of child-creating, there are several moral implications now attached to it. It is about time people made this obvious connection and not take too literally the adage "Go forth and multiply".

business as usual is over

I have blogged about green-roofs before and today I came across one of the most amazing things I've read about in green architecture. Reading breaking-edge news like this makes me hopeful because there can be eco-warriors even on the corporate side. The NGO/corporate divide is simply that. There are corporates who realise that business as usual cannot progress without accountability. This is precisely because they understand that there are limits to growth when development is unsustainable. This is further reinforced with civil society organizations taking the role of the 'watch dog' seriously enough to challenge both corporates and governments to give more importance to socio-enviro issues. All of this provides an elaborate feedback loop keeping the various systems of regulation in check - for the most part.

Anyway, back to the big news. It has been touted as the biggest green innovation and the future of green cityscapes. It is the vertical greenhouse that has been introduced by the Swedish company Plantagon International in association with Sweco. Launched on World Environment Day, the greenhouse will make it more possible to grow local and eco-friendly crops in an urban environment. While the global population continues to expand at a rapid rate, 80% of all land suitable for crop production is already being used for other purposes. With traditional farming practices, the Earth’s arable land will not be sufficient to produce enough food for this growing population. In response to this challenge, Plantagon has collaborated with the consulting engineering company Sweco to develop a vertical greenhouse for the urban environment.

The idea is to provide organically and locally grown food. Vegetable seeds are grown at the bottom and the spiral in the middle of the 'globe' rotates and in thirty days the vegetables are ready to harvest. This design makes optimal use of the sun's natural light to ripen the vegetables grown.

The future of the world's cities may not just include hydrogen powered emission-less cars, but also dwelling spaces that are entirely powered by renewable energy with zero-waste outputs. Cityscapes filled not only with steel and chrome structures but also green houses and rooftops with vegetation. In my head, it looks wonderful. Like something out of a greener version of the Jetsons.

The world we dream of can be possible. It has been the same world we have been dreaming of these past many years but there has never before been a time like this which will make or break 'the vision'.

There is exactly enough time... starting now

- Dana Meadows

thoughts...post-world environment day

June 5th was celebrated as World Environment Day and from a previous post on similar 'events' my sentiments are clearly established. This year for me, there was a lot of excitement around the day. Excitement that made me believe; because sometimes even in the most dire times, another world is possible.

On the eve of World Environment day, one of the things that happened was a large 80-foot banner that was hung off the Mumbai-Thane Bridge which was targetted at bringing attention to the effects of climate change on the Indian monsoon. This action was part of Greenpeace's efforts to bring climate change firmly into the spotlight of national politics and debate. The monsoon which is the lifeline of so many people in India cannot be wagered in the face of development that can be potentially unsustainable. All of the devastating effects of failed monsoons including loss of revenue has been published as a report entitled 'Monsoon Wager' by Greenpeace India.

The second thing that happened which was much quieter but nonetheless important was the stand that the Environmental Minster Mr. Jairam Ramesh took on GM-food crops. The GM-battle within India has been fraught with complications, set-backs and frustrations. The lack of labelling laws, prevalence of mis-information and regulation will eventually lead to a potential mine-field if precautionary methods are not put in place now. Victories are rare and government officials taking a precautionary stand, are even rarer.

Since then obviously, the excitement has died down a little bit and life has gone back to being existence for most part. But what I'd like to take away from productive days like this one, is that even in the most challenging times, change can be demanded and even for the most cynical of us: hope floats.

daffodils in january

Daffodils are often the first signs of spring. The shoots poke their crisp green leaves through the snow and blossom into a startlingly delicate yellow bell. They usually bloom around Easter and are also called 'lent lilies'. Throughout the centuries the daffodil gained it's fame in many different countries and cultures. The daffodil is associated with renaissances coincidentally blooming around the time of Easter which is the celebration of rebirth, and the return of spring - the season of new beginnings.

My fascination with daffodils started when I was about ten years old and first read Wordsworth's 'Daffodils'. I found it amazing that a field of yellow flowers could inspire in a man such profound thought. The first time I actually saw them was years later in Scotland. I saw them in a florist’s and I recognised them immediately. They were incredibly beautiful, with a vivid yellow colour, which is, quiet impossible to take your eyes off. I imagined how Wordsworth would have felt when he saw a whole field of them. If a bunch of them in a florist’s, 200 years since then; could make me smile – then I could imagine what profound thought it would have inspired in a poet who saw a whole field in animated action.

Now of course weather patterns are not as predictable. The Easter lilies bloom as early as January in some places. This is frightening because it implies that our seasons are changing. The blooming of daffodils three months earlier isn't the only indication of weather changes. Autumns and winters are getting shorter which has implicated for global agriculture, ripening of fruits, flowers and natural methods of pest control. These changes also interfere with animal reproduction and behaviour. People noticing these changes are not just climatologists but those whose professions are intricately connected to the land - farmers, fisherman and hunters.

This 'global wierding' of weather is not something that is restricted to certain parts of the world. Within the Indian sub-continent, the monsoon patterns are changing. Global weather change is not a linear change but an exponential change where an increase in temperature affects not just hotter heat spells but also droughts, heavier snowfall, typhoons etc - weather phenomenon is an intricate balance that is finely calibrated and small changes makes impacts that we are not immediately aware of.

Simple creations like the daffodils, seemingly have no real purpose on earth except to beautify it. In spite of being so small and insignificant, it seems to me that they realize their purpose on this earth, in ways we never could…

water wars

Water is one the most precious resources essential for life. It is the most adundant molecule on the Earth and constitutes 75% of the surface. This exact same percentage of water is also present in our bodies. Inspite of all the abundance of water, only a small percentage is actually fit for consumption. Water is also a non-renewable resource and something that everybody takes for granted.

Rainfall patterns altered by climate change and worsened by inequity in the water distribution system has led to a water crisis in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh. The local incident was one among many where a mob of about six people killed a family for illegally drawing water from the municipal supply even as onlookers rushed back and forth to collect water before the pipe ran dry.

The poorest areas are being affected the most because of inequitable water distribution. If this isn't a wake-up call of what water scarcity can do to a society, we're not sure what would be more effective, short of actual war. As outlined by the documentary Blue Gold: World Water Wars, issues like privatization, unfair distribution, pollution and ecological changes causing increased shortages are some of the major factors working against everyone having the water they need. India's troubles are, frighteningly enough, an illustration of what will escalate if all nations move slowly on changing the way we handle this vital resource.

Conserving water is something that we can all do. It is not even particularly hard. Water conservation is not only something that is crucially important, it should be come mandatory. In the developing world, 90% of all wastewater still goes untreated into local rivers and streams. Some 50 countries, with roughly a third of the world’s population, also suffer from medium or high water stress and 17 of these extract more water annually than is recharged through their natural water cycles. The strain not only affects surface freshwater bodies like rivers and lakes, but it also degrades groundwater resources. It is estimated that by 2050 water shortage world over will be so accutely felt that the wars of that generation will be over water and not oil.

Depletion of water not only affects day-to-day human activities but will also bring a stand-still to any kind of manufacturing process as well as agriculture. The importance of water is something that cannot merely be expressed by writing about it. It involves seeing the other side as well and being aware of the daily struggle some people go through to obtain what the rest of us take for granted. Water is not merely a commodity of the rich but it is an essential to life.

Some things you can do to conserve water and ensure healthy water supplies:

• Limit your shower time and avoid baths
• Do not leave water running when you shave or brush your teeth
• Do not buy bottled water - it takes five litres of water to make one litre of bottled water
• Find ways to reuse 'grey' water
• Make sure you do not have any leaks in your pipes and appliances
• Collect rainwater
• Think about what eventually ends up in water systems and be responsible in your use of cosmetics - consider going organic with soaps, shampoos etc

monsoons, climate change and GDP

Monsoons are a phenomenon associated primarily with the Indian sub-continent. It is not just an actual wind pattern but an evoker of emotion in the Indian people. One of the things that brings together all of India is this amazing natural blessing that happens like clockwork year after year. It nourishes crops and dissipates some of the scorching summer heat. Inspite of the havoc it causes with transport systems, drainage and floods, the collective memories are that of rushing out to greet the first coming of rain and breathing in the intoxicating scent of damp earth.

The South-West monsoon and the retreating North-East monsoon form a weather pattern unique to India. The Indian monsoon is another one among many other casualties due to climate change. Effect of climate change on monsoons not only implies change in weather patterns but also a significant impact on agricultural output. Being a predominantly agricultural country, monsoons are essential for a good crop each other. This year, it is especially needed to navigate out of the recession. In the previous years, as the shares of agriculture in GDP shrank, so did the direct impact of monsoons on the economy. However, this year, with large sectors in severe economical downturn, this monsoons plays a crucial role in agricultural production and rural income and demand.

In order to achieve RBI's GDP growth estimates of 6% in 2009-10, it is imperative for agriculture to grow atleast 3% this year which is why a good monsoon is crucial. Monsoons are especially important for kharif crops - sugarcane, rice, corn, soybean and cotton that are sown in June-September. A good monsoon also increases soil moisture for rabi crops sown in winter like wheat. Monsoon-dependant crops account for nearly half of India's agricultural production and the income of about two-thirds of the country's population that lives on agriculture, directly or indirectly.

In the current economic scenario, a bad monsoon can substantially alter fortunes. This can affect sentiment in equity markets, particularly in companies that sell products in rural areas, including consumer goods, automobiles and farm inputs. All industries are currently banking on the rural farm sector at the moment to give the over-all economy a boost. Governments as well are looking for a good monsoon as a poor monsoon will push up the food subsidy bill. This soared from 19,000 crore earlier to 50,000 crore last year.

So much is dependant on the Rain Gods this year so the forecast by the Indian Meteorological Department of 96% rainfall spreads cheer. A forecast alone does not predict a good crop as it does not give any information about speed, timing, amount - often crucial when predicting floods.

The monsoon like many other global weather patterns depend on several factors. Human activities are disrupting the balance on which such weather systems depend on. The price of failure of such systems not only affect economy but also change an essential component of a country's spirit.

quantifying biodiversity loss

Biodiversity is not getting the attention it deserves internationally. Climate change has had 1,382 mentions in British national newspapers. Yet, during the same period, biodiversity was mentioned just 115 times. The reason that biodiversity is taking the back-seat is that is it left primarily in the hands of conservationists who rally the 'cuteness' factor of conservation. This is the reason why the issue is being ignored while climate change has been taken progressively more seriously. This emotional guilt-trip doesn't quiet work with many people and most importantly with policy makers.

In order to start talking about biodiversity, the loss of it needs to be quantified in hard economic terms. But how do you quantify the loss of honey-bees? and polar bears? and so many many other species under threat. Current biodiversity laws almost make it sound that preserving biodiversity is obligatory. It has to become mandatory.

A loss of a species represents the loss of millions of years of evolution from the biological stand point. It also means that that loss is connected to many other aspects of the web of life in a myriad different ways that we are yet to comprehend. Every form of life on this planet stands not on its own but is supported by, and supports, other living things. Lose one species and you lose a vital part of some ecosystem.That means you lose not just a plant or an insect but a service: you lose the medicine that comes from that plant; you lose the pollination of crops which that insect provides. Climate change matters, not because the world mustn't get any hotter, but because the rate of change is too fast for species to keep pace. As species die, so biodiversity is depleted and with it the ecosystem services that such biodiversity provides. However, these arguments for biodiversity have proven to be much less compelling for business leaders than Nicholas Stern's report that climate change could cost us between 5% and 20% of global GDP by the end of the century.

The head of Deutsche Bank's Global Markets predicts that our current rate of biodiversity loss could see 6% of global GDP wiped out as early as 2050. Climate change does not just lead to biodiversity loss; causality works the other way around too. It is the loss of forest that is causing climate change. It would be comforting to think that we can control this process, which is linear and predictable. It is not. In nature, disruptions to the equilibrium led to turbo-charged changes. Yet nobody puts a value on pollination; national accounts do not reflect the value of ecosystem services that stop soil erosion or provide watershed protection. Economists call these externalities: things which we can take for granted and need not be ascribed a value. The economists are wrong. Unless we begin to value this natural capital in exactly the same way we value human or social capital, we will not begin to tackle the problem.

Biodiversity should be, as climate change is, a heads of governments' issue. Just as climate change has moved out of its environment cul-de-sac into mainstream government thinking to influence decisions on everything from transport to development and energy policies, so biodiversity and the ecosystem services they provide need to be considered in every government decision. The issue lacks a body like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide scientific assessments and advice to governments and the public.Most important of all, we need a global agreement with teeth to protect biodiversity that captures the imagination like Kyoto.

The alternative is not an option.

sustainability - the flip side

The juxtaposition of sustainable development with ecology and development is a valid comparison and one that is open to debate. Development at an unprecedented rate cannot continue and the lack of proper ecosystem management is making it extremely difficult to support current rates of growth. Already the adverse effect of environmental abuse is being felt. There is a direct impact on world economy due to climate change – change in weather patterns, agricultural losses, increase in floods, tornadoes, droughts. All of these have impacts on world economy.

The definition of sustainability itself has large black-holes that need explanation. As a relatively new business model, it challenges the traditional notions of growth. Whilst a growing economy simply expands, a developing economy improves. Within the frame of the definition of sustainability there is no indication of how we can support current rates of growth "without compromising on the ability of future generations to support themselves". There is no basis on which to perform a projection analysis to figure out what resource use the future generation requires because we barely know what is acceptable today. However since there is a deceptive simplicity around the concept of sustainability, it is applied to every new business model.

The idea of sustainable development is based on two assumptions. The first is that we are running out of resources and the second is that economic growth is the cause of this depletion. However, resources are becoming less, not more, scarce. Agricultural yields for all the major crops like rice, corn, and wheat have been on the increase. Increased exploration of oil, coal and natural has been revealing that known reserves are expanding. This same phenomenon has been seen with metals like aluminum, zinc, iron, and copper where reserves have increased. Improved technology has ensured that more-conservative production techniques are encouraged and this in turn has ensured the exploration and new discoveries of underground reserves. Life expectancy, housing, nutrition and education levels are improving world over. In short, the prosperity we enjoy today is leaving future generations better off, not worse off.

If the definition of sustainable development incorporates the maximization of human welfare, then this is only possible if the legal system ensures property rights in order to ensure market operability. The definition of sustainability should incorporate the idea of right to development. The right to development and by proxy the right to environment can only be guaranteed when the tragedy of the commons is abolished. Since growth and increasing wealth leads to improved environmental quality by raising demands for it, economic growth cannot be the antithesis of sustainable development but the essence of it.

Political and economic systems based on property rights is the only base to sustainable development. Government regulation to stop growth is the antithesis of any development and will see a decline in environmental quality. Scarcity of resources is the excuse given for lack of institutions that ensure human freedom.

The biggest problem is that there is no common consensus that world governments and organizations can reach in order to resolve these issues. Additionally, any measure we have in place in terms of treaties etc are not mandatory not legally-binding. Unless there is some measure that legally enforces sustainable development, the change is going to be slow to come. At this point, 'slow' cannot be afforded.