Responsibility, Inequality, Efficiency, and Equity in Four Sustainability Paradigms: Insights for the Global Environment from a Cross-Development Analytical Model

Abstract

This paper develops a theoretical framework to assess the feasibility of global environmental sustainability solutions based on one or more value changes. The framework represents four sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability WS, a-growth AG, de-growth DG, strong sustainability SS) and five value changes (i.e., a sense of responsibility for nature β, future generations γ, or current generations in developing countries δ; aversion to inequality for current generations ε or future generations ζ). It defines solutions in terms of consumption, environment use, and welfare for representative individuals in both developed (OECD) and developing (non-OECD) countries. Solutions are characterised by efficiency (i.e., Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks) with respect to welfare and by intra-and inter-generational equality for consumption, environment use, and welfare, by confirming internal consistency and consistency with alternative equity approaches for utilitarianism (i.e., Harsanyi), egalitarianism (i.e., Arneson for welfare; Dworkin for consumption or environment use; Sen for consumption and environment use), and contractarianism (i.e., Rawls). Theoretical and operational insights are described for alternative sustainability paradigms and equity approaches. In terms of feasibility, by considering improved technology θ, decreased population η, and modified consumption α, the ordering is γ > δ > ε > ζ and AG > SS > DG > WS: β is unfeasible. In terms of internal consistency, γ > δ = ε = ζ and SS > AG > DG: WS is internally inconsistent. In terms of consistency with an equity approach, γ > δ = ζ > ε and SS > AG > DG > WS.

Is there a Relation Between Ecological Practices and Spirituality? The Case of Benedictine Monasteries

“…The Bible, the Benedictine Rule, and the monastery's individual consuetudines sustainability, which focuses on short-term economic features (Ayres et al 1998;Beckerman 1995;Neumayer 2003;Zagonari 2017;Davies 2013;Upward and Jones 2016). Ethics and sustainable practices have been analyzed from several perspectives: a human-environmental perspective; an economic perspective (Hussain 1999;Dahlsrud 2008); a consumer perspective (Beekman 2008;De Tavernier 2012;Jacobsen and Dulsrud 2007); and with respect to climate change (Gardiner 2004;Hayward 2012;Metz et al 2007) and political challenges (Bulkeley 2001;Giddens 2009;Gough and Shackley 2001;Green Cross International and the Earth Council 2002;Ikeme 2003;Vonk 2013).…”