Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: insights for the global environment from a cross-development analytical model

Abstract

This paper develops a theoretical framework to assess the feasibility of global environmental sustainability solutions based on one or more value changes. The framework represents four sustainability paradigms (weak sustainability WS, a-growth AG, de-growth DG, strong sustainability SS) and five value changes (i.e., a sense of responsibility for nature β, future generations γ, or current generations in developing countries δ; aversion to inequality for current generations ε or future generations ζ). It defines solutions in terms of consumption, environment use, and welfare for representative individuals in both developed (OECD) and developing (non-OECD) countries. Solutions are characterised by efficiency (i.e., Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks) with respect to welfare and by intra-and inter-generational equality for consumption, environment use, and welfare, by confirming internal consistency and consistency with alternative equity approaches for utilitarianism (i.e., Harsanyi), egalitarianism (i.e., Arneson for welfare; Dworkin for consumption or environment use; Sen for consumption and environment use), and contractarianism (i.e., Rawls). Theoretical and operational insights are described for alternative sustainability paradigms and equity approaches. In terms of feasibility, by considering improved technology θ, decreased population η, and modified consumption α, the ordering is γ > δ > ε > ζ and AG > SS > DG > WS: β is unfeasible. In terms of internal consistency, γ > δ = ε = ζ and SS > AG > DG: WS is internally inconsistent. In terms of consistency with an equity approach, γ > δ = ζ > ε and SS > AG > DG > WS.

Comparing Religious Environmental Ethics to Support Efforts to Achieve Local and Global Sustainability: Empirical Insights Based on a Theoretical Framework

“…These calculations are valid for members of each religion, but it's also interesting to learn how these apply to a globally representative individual. To estimate this, I used the population-weighted mean values for GDP PPP (i.e., USD13 348) and EF (i.e., 2.79 ha) for a globally representative individual (Zagonari, 2018). The result was values of λ 0 = 4.78 and µ 0 = 37.24.…”

“…Sustainability is likely to require a combination of improved technology and changes in ethical values [4]. However, changes in consumption or in the individual's perceived responsibilities to nature, the current generation, and future generations, whether simultaneously or separately, might lead to policy decisions that are unable to solve the problem of excess assumption or that are unfeasible [5].…”

“…The dichotomy, therefore, lets us examine how differences in rights within and between generations, differences in equity within and between generations, and human-focused altruism affect our ability to achieve global sustainability. It also lets us consider how differences in the rights of non-humans, the resulting interspecies equity, and biosphere-focused altruism can be combined in a way that acknowledges nature's intrinsic value and how this shapes the individual's perception of their duty to nature [5]. By consulting the above-mentioned primary texts rather than relying on secondary sources, I have tried to avoid the need to settle centuries of debate over religious precepts and over the relative authority of competing interpretations of different versions of a given sacred text [15].…”

“…For Islam, either α is decreasing with increasing μ: α > 0 ⇿ μ < θ and μ < θ λ ; α < 1 ⇿ < θ λ α μ ⁄ < 0 ⇿ < λ θ (5) Or α is increasing with increasing μ:…”

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

“…In this context, two main groups of environmental ethics can be identified: secular and religious ethics. Secular ethics focus on our perceived responsibility to nature, perceived responsibility to future generations, perceptions of the relative rights of humans and non-humans, and beliefs in inter-generational and intra-generational equity (Zagonari, 2018). In contrast, religious ethics have a different primary focus in each religion: Judaism focuses on stewardship (here, maximizing the use of resources to achieve the highest sustainable total welfare), Islam focuses on trusteeship and parsimony (here, minimizing the use of resources), Hinduism and Buddhism focus on maintaining equilibrium, and Christianity focuses on love of neighbors (Zagonari, 2020).…”