Environmental sustainability is not worth pursuing unless it is achieved for ethical reasons

Fabio Zagonari

doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0467-7

Abstract

This paper analytically characterizes the four main environmental sustainability paradigms (i.e., WS, weak sustainability; AG, a-growth; DG, de-growth; and SS, strong sustainability) by introducing uncertainty about future preferences for consumption and future technologies. SS represents an ethical approach because of its maximum aversion to inter-generational inequality of resources, whereas DG depicts preference changes, AG depicts technology changes, and WS represents the reference paradigm without accounting for preference or technology changes. By comparing the costs and benefits of these paradigms, solutions derived for the whole parameter domains based on data for a globally representative individual suggest that whenever environmental sustainability is pursued for welfare reasons within a utilitarian perspective (i.e., WS, AG, DG), it is not worth pursuing. In contrast, if environmental sustainability is achieved for ethical reasons within an egalitarian perspective (i.e., SS), it is worth pursuing, even with an increased world population. In terms of feasibility (i.e., whether there are realistic parameter values such that a given sustainability paradigm can achieve its goal), solutions are ranked ethics > preference > technology (i.e., SS > DG > AG), whereas WS is unfeasible. Thus, WS, AG, and DG are inconsistent sustainability paradigms, SS empirically solves the theoretical dispute on absolute rights, and environmental sustainability must be treated as an ethical issue. A conceptual discussion about environmental ethics and a statistical analysis based on panel data at a country level support the same insights. In terms of reliability (i.e., whether there are national policies or international agreements which can support a feasible sustainability paradigm), SS could be enforced by a global environmental agreement, supported by 66/55% of governments (i.e., top-down approach) and by 56/51% of citizens (i.e., bottom-up approach), in the most certain/uncertain scenarios, respectively.

Highlights

The literature has recently begun to discuss to what extent global environmental sustainability is a technology issue or a preference issue (Bezin, 2019; Santarius and Soland, 2018; Tran, 2016; Aznar-Marquez and Ruiz-Tamarit, 2016; Zagonari, 2015)
Religious ethics have a different primary focus in each religion: Judaism focuses on stewardship, Islam focuses on trusteeship and parsimony, Hinduism and Buddhism focus on maintaining equilibrium, and Christianity focuses on love of neighbors (Zagonari, 2020)
I will present the sets of η and θ which satisfy the conditions defined in Methods for the four sustainability paradigms in the main scenario for the world representative individual in 2012 with a constant world population

Summary

Introduction

The literature has recently begun to discuss to what extent global environmental sustainability is a technology issue or a preference issue (Bezin, 2019; Santarius and Soland, 2018; Tran, 2016; Aznar-Marquez and Ruiz-Tamarit, 2016; Zagonari, 2015). The literature has recently begun to emphasize the role of ethics in achieving global environmental sustainability (Menning, 2016; Lenzi, 2017; Spahn, 2018). In this context, two main groups of environmental ethics can be identified: secular and religious ethics. Zagonari (2019a) empirically shows that the perception of a sense of duty to nature is a beneficial but unfeasible and unreliable way to achieve sustainability in developed countries; in contrast, the perception of a duty to future generations is detrimental to sustainability in both developed and developing countries; belief in the rights of future generations is a beneficial and reliable but unfeasible way to achieve sustainability in developed countries; intra-generational inequality is detrimental, and inter-generational inequality is essential, to achieving sustainability in both developed and developing countries; in contrast, all secular ethics are unfeasible and unreliable in developing countries. The religious ethics were adequate, feasible, and reliable for Hinduism or Buddhism, Islam, and Judaism, but were unfeasible for Christianity

Objectives

Methods

Discussion

Conclusion