How can we conciliate economic growth and sustainable development? 

 

At first sight, when the population of an area increases the pressure exerted over the environment also grows. Economic growth increases this pressure as well, for example through the expansion of some ways of living that encourage consumption.
Nowadays, all of the countries in the world have as a priority economic growth and they forget the environment on their way to achieving this goal. Governments are obliged at the end of the year to publish positive economic data. Nevertheless the actual issue is that these goals can be achieved by letting aside the effects of our actions in the environment. Thus, we forget that this is going to have awful consequences in the future. For example, in Latin America, between 2000 and 2010, 4 million hectares of forests were destroyed. This deforestation is principally leaded by the agribusiness sector or by some industries that use wood as commodities. If we talk about the Colombian case, each year, the equivalent to 4 million soccer fields are destroyed, or 7.6 fields by minute. At this rhythm Colombia will no longer have forests in 40 years.
In this table we will try to understand the way in which countries can manage to combine economic growth and consider the limited resources that we have in our world. Sustainable development is a method that is going to create answers to actual necessities without compromising future demands of the next generations. Is it really the solution? What are the new challenges of this economic system? Between the sovereign debt crisis and the magnitude of climate change impact over societies, this solution is still the most accurate answer.
 

 

What are the best economical incentives to promote ecological behaviours? 

 

In 2007, Rafael Correa made a unique proposition to the United Nations. He asked for a compensation for not exploiting the gas reserve situated in Yasuni Natural Park. The total amount of this compensation had to correspond to the exact quantity of gas that the Ecuadorian government refused to extract from this reserve. In fact, the Ishpingo, Tambococha et Tiputini (ITT) group had estimated these reserves to be nearly 920 million barrels, in other words 20% of the country’s reserve. The ecological cost of the exploitation of the reserve is not negligible; we estimate that the extraction of gas in this area would produce 400 million tons of CO2 each year. This is why the government asked for international help. He was hoping to receive a 3.6 billion dollar compensation, which would favor the fight against climate change. Nevertheless he only obtained 13.3 million dollars, 0.37% of what he asked for. Because of this international refusal, the Ecuadorian president had the obligation to exploit these reserves in order to satisfy the needs of his country.
When we see the destruction that these drills cause on the environment, it seems legitimate to ask if yesterday’s priorities have to still be the ones that we have today? Can Earth’s rights be destroyed only for economical reasons? In this entire context, Correa’s theory doesn’t seem so crazy. Countries that wish to join the fight against climate change should receive a compensation for this? Is there a gap between the theory of climate change fight and the economical reality? What are the sacrifices that we are willing to do? How can we create some incentives to promote this state of mind? 

 

How can we benefit in terms of economic prosperity and growth, from the limited ressources that we have on Earth?

 

Currently there are 7 billion people on Earth. The question of the sufficiency of resources has become a priority. Even more when by 2100 there are going to be 10 billion people. Nowadays, some resources are becoming more precious and more demanded every day, like Coltan, a metal used in all electronic devices.
Since the 1970’s, cultivated areas have increased, but not as fast as the population. Between 1980 and 2011, the cultivated area grew by 3,2%, whereas the population grew by 45%. Cultivable areas are becoming every day a very important subject for governments. They have to keep its population’s food supply. How can these states control the overpopulation of their lands? How can we manage the needs of 7 billion people? And even more when we see that the American way of life is being exported to different areas. People are consuming more everyday, and this is a big problem.
Water is already missing in some parts of the Globe, and in the future even more countries are going to be in need of waterHow are we going to manage these future crises? How can we give healthy and drinkable water to everybody?
In a globalized context, the control of natural resources has become a necessity. The most powerful countries in the world are searching for innovative ways of controlling different important resources. In this context, should the sovereignty principle be used more often? Or is it being redefined by the current situation?
For us, all economies should turn themselves to renewable resources that allow a sustainable development. Nevertheless, these measures have a very big price for countries that have to completely change their energy system.