Integrating climate change and sustainable development

International Journal of Global Environmental Issues

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 130-149

  Robinson, John B ^a   Herbert, Deborah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

climate change; integrated assessment; scenarios; Sustainable development

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345950953     PISSN: 14666650     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1504/IJGENVI.2001.000974     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Cohen, S., Demeritt, D., Robinson, J. and Rothman, D. (1998) ‘Climate change and sustainable development: towards dialogue’, Global Environment Change, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.341–371.
2. Munasinghe, M. (2000) ‘Development, equity and sustainability (DES) in the context of climate change’, IPCC Guidance Paper, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland.
3. Munasinghe, M., and Swart R. (Eds.) (2000) Climate Change and its Linkages with Development, Equity and Sustainability, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland.
4. Pichs, R, Leary, N. and Swart, R. (Eds.) (2000) Development, Sustainability and Equity: Proceedings of the Second IPCC Expert Meeting on DES, Havana, Cuba, 23–25 February.
5. Nakicenovic, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G., de Vries, B., Fenhann, J., Gaffin, S., Gregory, K., Grubler, A., Jung, T.Y., Kram, T., La Rovere, E.L., Michaelis, L., Mori, S., Morita, T., Papper, W., Pitcher, H., Price, L., Riahi, K., Roehrl, A., Rogner, H-H., Sankovski, A., Schlesinger, M., Shukla, P., Smith, S., Swart, R., van Rooijen, S., Victor, N. and Dadi, Z. (2000) Special Report on Emission Scenarios, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
6. It should be noted that this attempt to link qualitative storylines and quantitative scenarios represents an innovative approach to scenario analysis, which itself opens the door to linking sustainable development and climate change issues, independent of the specific results of the SRES analysis. This issue will be further discussed in Chapter 2 of the upcoming IPCC Working Group III report.
7. At a very simple level, this can be seen using the ‘Kaya’ identity (Kaya, 1990) where CO2 emissions = Population*(GDP/Population)*(Energy/GDP)*(CO2/Energy). All things being equal, low economic activity (GDP) combined with high population can lead to the same level of CO2 emissions as low population and high economic activity.
8. In a preliminary attempt to examine these linkages, several modelers used the new SRES scenarios as baselines for a series of emission mitigation scenarios. These scenarios are discussed in chapter 2 of the upcoming IPCC Working Group III report and in a special issue of Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2000).
9. Early uses of the concept can be found in the work of Lester Brown (1981) and the IIASA Biosphere Project (Clark and Munn, 1986). However, the term sustainable development came into prominence in 1987, with the publication of the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987). For a brief discussion of the history of the concept, see Cohen, et al. (1998).
10. World Commission on Environment and Sustainable Development (WCED), (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
11. For a discussion of some of these linkages, see Robinson and Tinker (1998).
12. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), (1997) Exploring Sustainable Development: WBSCD Global Scenarios 2000-2050 Summary Brochure, London: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
13. Gallopin, G., Hammond, A., Raskin P. and Swart, R. (1997) ‘Branch points: global scenarios and human choice’, Polestar Series Report No. 7. Boston, MA: Stockholm Environment Institute.
14. While this vagueness and ambiguity are sometimes seen as evidence of conceptual weakness and lack of rigour, they can also be interpreted as offering the potential for negotiation and compromise in the inherently political context of sustainable development. Such ‘constructive ambiguity’, which is often a key component of diplomatic negotiations, can be useful when trying to get very disparate interests to gather around the same table. See the discussion in Cohen et al. (1998).
15. Robinson, J., and Tinker, J. (1998) ‘Reconciling ecological, economic, and social imperatives’, in J. Schnurr and S. Holtz (Eds.) The Cornerstone of Development – Integrating Environmental, Social and Economic Policies, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre; New York: Lewis Publishers.
16. Robinson, J. et al. (1998) ‘Reconciling ecological carrying capacity and human well-being: exploring alternative futures for the Georgia Basin’, Proposal submitted to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Major Collaborative Research Initiatives Program, June 30; text available at http://www.sdri.ubc.ca/gbfp/f_mcri.html.
17. See, for example, WBCSD, 1993; Lowe, 1992; von Weizsacker et al., 1997; and Welfens, 1993.
18. While there is a long literature, going back to the pioneering work of Schumacher (1973) on the social dimensions of what would now be called sustainability and Daly (1973) on the limitations of using economic activity for measuring social welfare, there has been less follow up on alternative approaches to human well-being (but see Daly, 1977; 1996; Daly and Cobb, 1989; Cobb et al., 1995; Cobb et al., 1999). The newly emerging literature on social capital (e.g., Putnam, 1993) seems to offer some useful points of connection to this issue, though as originally formulated by Putnam, it has to do with the contribution of social capital to economic growth, not the substitution of one for the other.
19. Goldemberg, J. (1992) ‘Technological leapfrogging’, Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal, Vol. 15, pp.123–137.
20. Robinson, J. and Rothman, D. (2000) ‘Future subjunctive: bringing together expert knowledge, public values, and the simulation of sustainable futures in the Georgia Basin Futures Project’, Presentation to IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society, Rome, 6–8 September.
21. Including issues related to the relationship between reductions in matter and energy intensity and increases in activity levels; the distributional consequences of eco-efficient production systems; trade and investment effects; the interactions between systems of governance, social capital formation, and lifestyles; shifting patters and levels of employment; the substitutability or complementarity of labour, natural capital, and human-made capital; etc. For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see Robinson and Tinker (1998).
22. Newby, H. (1993) ‘Global environmental change and the social sciences: retrospect and prospect’, Paper presented to the IGFA Preparatory meeting, Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
23. Costanza, R. (1999) ‘Ecological sustainability, indicators and climate change’, Chapter 5 in M. Munasinghe and R. Swart (Eds.) Climate Change and Its Linkages with Development, Equity, and Sustainability, Proceedings of the IPCC Expert Meeting on Development, Equity and Sustainability, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 27-9 April, 1999, Colombo, Sri Lanka: LIFE, Biltoven, Netherlands: RIVM and Washington, US: World Bank: pp.109–142.
24. In fact, the situation is worse than this in practice, since the inevitable time lag caused by the long set-up and run times of GCM climate models means that the impacts analysis is usually based on an earlier generation of climate model results than those being developed on the basis of new emission scenarios.
25. This issue is sometimes framed in terms of the ‘double dividends’ or ‘ancillary benefits’ potentially associated with climate policy. The argument presented in this paper suggests that that is a somewhat wrong-headed way of thinking of these issues, equivalent to letting the (climate change) tail wag the (sustainable development) dog.
26. Hourcade, J-C. et al. (1996) ‘Estimating the costs of mitigating greenhouse gases’, Chapter 8 in J. Bruce, H. Lee and E. Haites, (Eds.) Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Report of Working Group III of the IPCC Second Assessment Report, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Hourcade, J.-C. and Robinson. J. (1996) ‘Mitigating factors: assessing the costs of reducing GHG emission’, Energy Policy, Vol. 24, Nos. 10/11, pp.863–873.
28. Brown, L. (1981) Building a Sustainable Society, WorldWatch Institute, New York: W.W. Norton.
29. Clark, W.G. and R.E. Munn, (1986) Sustainable Development of the Biosphere, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. Cobb, C., Goodman, G.S. and Wackernagel, M. (1999) ‘Why bigger isn’t better: genuine progress indicator (1999 update)’, San Francisco: Redefining Progress Report, available through http://www.rprogress.org/
31. Cobb, C., Halstead, T. and Rowe, J. (1995) ‘The genuine progress indicator: summary of data and methodology’, San Francisco: Redefining Progress Report, available through http://www.rprogress.org/)
32. Daly, H. (1973) Toward a Steady-State Economy, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.
33. Daly, H.E. (1977) Steady-State Economics: The Economics of Biophysical Equilibrium and Moral Growth, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman & Co.
34. Daly, H.E. (1996) Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development, Boston: Beacon Press.
35. Daly, H. and Cobb, J. Jr. (1989) For the Common Good, Boston: Beacon Press.
36. Kaya, Y. (1990) ‘Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: interpretation of proposed scenarios’, Paper presented to the IPCC Energy and Industry Subgroup, Response Strategies Working Group, Paris, France (mimeo).
37. Lowe, E. (1992) ‘Discovering IE: an overview and strategies for implementation’, Draft for discussion. Oakland, CA: Change Management Center.
38. Putnam, R.D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
39. Schumacher, E.F. (1973) Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered, London: Vintage.
40. von Weizsacker, E., Lovins, A.B. and Hunter Lovins, L. (1997) Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Having Resource Use. London: Earthscan.
41. Welfens, Maria J. (1993) ‘De-materialization strategies and systems of national accounts’, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. 8 pp.431–436.
42. World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), (1993) ‘Getting eco-efficient’, Report of the BCSD First Antwerp Eco-Efficiency Workshop, November, Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.