Assignment:
This assignment is made out of ten questions, the length of each answer to each question should be around 700 words.
This is a sample of what it needs to be done:
Critically assess Kopnina's (2011) argument that "...some salient aspects present in sustainability discourse... present ethical paradoxes as well as empirical dilemmas."
Since the publication of the 1987 Bruntland report (United Nations, 1987), the concept of sustainability has been central to development worldwide and has shaped much modern thinking behind environmental issues. However, although initially defined by Bruntland (United Nations, 1987) as ‘Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future', Maragia (2006) notes how since then many contrasting definitions have emerged, often dependent on whether an environmental, sociological or economic perspective is being taken. As Kopnina (2011) describes, this has created many ethical paradoxes and empirical dilemmas surrounding the concept of sustainability, due to conflicting interpretations of what is an ambiguous concept. This has meant different priorities being taken, which often appear to be in contradiction of one another.
One such example of this is the issue of ‘wilderness ‘preservation. Attempted conservation of pristine natural environments is an environmental measure that has occurred in many countries around the world, and on first thought could be considered a somewhat apolitical issue- what objection could there be to maintaining ecosystem services as well as the intrinsic value of nature. However, often it has meant the displacement of indigenous or disadvantaged groups. Perhaps the most famous historical example is the treatment of the American Indians, who were often treated with disdain and forcibly removed from their traditional homelands during the creation of national parks in the United States (Spence, 1996).
However, there are also contemporary examples of this issue. Tiger preservation areas in India often coincide with the lands of native tribes, such as the Baiga. The designation of these conservation zones has often meant displacement of the tribe, damaging social cohesion and cultural identity (Survival International, 2018). While some have been allowed to return, they are required to claim ‘Habitat rights' before they can reclaim land that many would consider to have been unlawfully taken from them. This shows the inequality suffered by these historically disadvantaged people, with the name ‘habitat rights' suggesting the state views them as inferior, and also the paradox that social and geographic inequity can often occur as a result of conservation policies.
A further paradox of sustainability is that societal changes brought about by supposed technological advancements can cause increased environmental vulnerability in comparison to traditional interactions between indigenous people and nature. One such example of this is outlined in Oliver-Smith's (1990) publication regarding the 1970 Peru earthquake. Oliver-Smith (1990) describes how prior to the arrival of the Spanish and the onset of colonialism, native people had an intricate understanding of the Andean land, and were well aware of the risk that inhabiting this region entailed.
As such, precautions were taken to avoid catastrophic events, such as dispersed settlement patterns and appropriate building techniques (Oliver-Smith, 1990). However, as development and technology progressed, many of these native customs were ignored, increasing the vulnerability of the people and being at least partly responsible for the 1970 event that became the worst natural disaster in the history of the western hemisphere (Oliver-Smith, 1990). Over recent years, there has been a greater appreciation of the value of indigenous knowledge, as discussed by Maragia (2006). Maragia (2006) describes how many contemporary environmentalists believe that utilization of indigenous knowledge is all that is needed to ensure sustainability, although Maragia (2006) refutes this and suggests it should be employed in tandem with technology to ensure sustainability.
A final paradox of sustainability to be discussed is what Kopnina (2011) describes as the charity paradox- how the social altruism of groups to promote development amongst disadvantaged communities in third world countries can often lead to negative environmental, and subsequently social, consequences. Where the primary aim is to achieve social equality for these communities, these aims are often pursued without consideration of environmental impacts. This may lead to over-exploitation of the land, causing degradation of the natural environment, and diminishing the ability of the local population to farm sustainably on the land. Such degradation is likely to particularly impact on future generations, an example of intra-generational resource inequality.
These paradoxes outline the value of adopting a triple bottom line approach to sustainability, as originally proposed by Pilkington in 1994 (Economist, 2009). By placing equal importance on economic, environmental and social responsibilities, it can be ensured that development can be mutually beneficial to all concerned parties. However, as Maragia (2006) describes there has been some debate about whether this can be transferred into ‘executable policy', or indeed is even possible.
All of the information that I can provide you for each question are the slides from from the lectures that are related to the questions.
1. Then-Mayor Micheal Bloomberg said the following in response to Hurricane Sandy: "Any loss of life is tragic; sadly, nature is dangerous, and these things occur. The best thing we can do for those who did die is make sure this city recovers for those who come out of this and build a better life for those left behind." To what extent do you agree/disagree with his statement?
2. With reference to case studies of your choice, discuss the risks to human health posed by environmental degradation, and critically assess whether key legislation that can mitigate environmental risks to human health is fit for purpose.
3. Marino and Ribot (2012) write that "while [climate change] intervention is necessary, specific social protections are needed to accompany global policies and their translation into local projects". How important do you consider such social protections to be in tackling environmental issues such as climate change, and how feasible is their implementation? In your answer, consider the roles of key stakeholders and organisations in implementing such social protections.
4. With reference to a case study of your choice relating to a struggle in environmental justice, discuss how the struggle you have chosen exemplifies the three dimensions of environmental justice expounded by Schlosberg (2004), and provide recommendations on how to improve or resolve the struggle.
5. To what extent do you agree or disagree with Kopnina (2011) that "...some salient aspects present in sustainability discourse... present ethical paradoxes as well as empirical dilemmas." Support your answer with examples from environmental policy (e.g. UN SDGs) and/or sustainability practice.
6 . With reference to the UK context, examine what you consider to be the key challenges of enforcing environmental legislation, and provide recommendations on how to overcome those challenges.
7 . Discuss the merits and weaknesses, considering relevant economic, environmental and social dimensions, of both carbon taxing and cap-and-trade as approaches to limiting anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
8 . Critically assess the effectiveness of business-led environmental initiatives in delivering sustainable outcomes and encouraging firms to move beyond compliance.
9 . Discuss the effectiveness of the UK Climate Change Act in advancing climate action and whether reform of the Act is required to ensure that the UK meets its international climate obligations.
10. Analyse Adger et al.'s (2011) argument that "the risk of irreversible loss of places needs to be factored into decision-making on climate change". Support your answer with reference to specific examples.