Introduction
Trying to get mature adults to agree on a specific definition of "sustainability" is one of the toughest tasks to date. Although various organizations and thought leaders try to explore, analyze and defeat them to a precise meaning without success, it seems that the environment, society and economy have in common with all of this. Northwest Environmental Watch is a non-profit research and communications center located in Seattle, which is by far the most appropriate definition based on the definition I have given. It says that sustainability is "an economy and a way of life. People and nature are thriving and this culture can last." Executive Order 00-07, signed by Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber in May 2000, stated Persistence means using, developing and protecting resources at a certain speed and in a way that enables people to meet current needs and also to provide that future generations can meet their own needs. "It goes even further," sustainability requires meeting the environment at the same time. Economic and community needs. "This is again closely related to the position of Northwest Environmental Watch. Now let's take a risk to explore the three most critical influencers and analyze their role in achieving sustainable development goals.
World population growth
Agenda 21, the strategy of saving the Earth's Earth Summit. [Sitarz 1993] is a good explanation of the relationship between population growth and the health of the Earth's environment: "The spiraling growth of the world's population has driven the growth of global production and consumption. Any effort to conserve natural resources and improve living standards is very difficult. There is an urgent need to develop strategies aimed at controlling world population growth." [p. 44]
Scientists have long believed that the Earth has no power and limits if we believe it is a spherical surface, and it can carry or support it. The rapid growth of the population on Earth will soon lead to the full utilization of the natural resources of the world's depleted resources. As Mei observed [May 1993]: "...the scale and scope of human activity grew for the first time to be comparable to the natural processes established by the biosphere and to maintain it in a place where life is prosperous. The photosynthesis of plants on the earth and in the ocean, between 20% and 40% of the Earth's productivity, is now eligible for human use. "This is really a shocking problem. If we continue to grow our population at the current rate, then we will be in a situation where sustainability will become a myth. Population growth should not be considered in isolation at any time. Its growth associated with depleted natural resources on Earth has drawn attention.
Governments, associations and reputable individuals have been gathering together and expressed their opinions on the "something" of "saving lives and the earth". At almost every summit, global warming has been a problem on the agenda. But everything that appears in the discussion and the so-called "action plan" are vague terms such as "we need to control the population". No action steps have been taken to actually stop population growth. The report named "Agenda 21, the Earth Summit Strategy for Save the Earth" under the heading "National Population Policy": "The long-term consequences of population growth must be fully assessed by all countries. They must quickly develop and implement appropriate plans. To cope with the inevitable increase in the population." [p. 45]. Surprisingly, such reports are constantly contradicting. First, they did not take concrete steps to stop growth, even if they underestimated the immediate problems. On the one hand, they expressed the urgent need to "control" population growth in order to achieve sustainable development goals. They point out the same breathing, and population growth is "inevitable." Therefore, when they do believe that population growth is inevitable, they claim that "appropriate measures" to contain or control population growth make sounding like a contradiction. No?
Consumer-oriented lifestyle
According to the definition of early sustainable development, the consumer-oriented lifestyle can be best analyzed through the social practice environment approach. So far, we have been driving an ever-increasing population for environmental crises in underdeveloped and developing countries. In addition to the fact that our homeland is equally evil in this respect, our consumer-oriented lifestyle has a bigger problem. It is making a substantial contribution to killing existing natural resources and has become a Important issues that need to be addressed. Sustainable development goals.
According to the doctoral professor. anger. G. Saracen is in his social policy formulation social practice approach; the theory, methodology and policy formulation of sustainable domestic consumption, "Social practice provides a comprehensive model for analyzing and understanding the transformation of sustainable consumption in everyday life. ". He also said that individual consumers "develop the storyline in terms of the environmental dimension of lifestyle" and provide legitimacy and rationality for the choices they make at different stages of the lifestyle. "The three major consumer needs in society, Mainly family and maintenance, food consumption, tourism and transportation, leading to rapid urbanization and home building, increased vehicle and road construction, food preparation and construction factories. As you can see, the consumer-oriented approach is directly proportional to industrialization. And industrialization directly affects the environment, and its natural resources are exhausted. When the need of the day is to increase the rapid agricultural opportunities to cope with the consumption of environmental natural assets, it is not a consumer-oriented lifestyle, it needs to maintain and achieve sustainable Is the contradiction of sexual goals?
housekeeper
The final topic we will explore is the role of stewardship. Sustainability is no longer a personal problem or problem. Although the lives of everyone on this planet are affected, the severity of the problem is so great that no department or government can take responsibility. This is a global issue that needs to be solved collectively. So far, the negligence of direct responsibility has been one of the main problems that are not moving towards achieving the goal. Here, everyone, every government, every organization or association, and every educational institution must have management rights and take steps to achieve sustainable development goals.
That being said, the second aspect of the stewardship that needs to be resolved is "Who leads?" As the most developed United States, we play a direct role in leading the world to achieve its goals. As they say, the best way to lead is through examples. "Our own country is the main polluter on the planet, producing more greenhouse gases than any other country, especially carbon dioxide....calling our government to change its national policy so that the United States can begin to ease, rather than continue to increase, The burden of our biosphere and its impact on people on Earth. "[The Joint Call for Religion and Science to the Environment] announces the mission to Washington "Washington, DC, May 12, 1992] What has really taken action steps since then ?
in conclusion
Bottom line: The term "sustainability" is used so freely. If we continue to work harder for a better tomorrow, what do we do for the present? Every result of the meeting, the conclusion of each summit, is full of redundant use of fuzzy terms, such as "efforts to be taken", "control will be exercised", "reducing population growth" and so on. It has been interspersed with a brake game. But hasn't any agency ever answered specific questions about "how"? Now is the time. We have done this. Without each of us living today, every ruling government and every responsible organization wants to be responsible for the complete extinction of human species on Earth.
Orignal From: Environmental Sustainability - Phantom?
No comments:
Post a Comment