Comments on: Sustainable development is nonsense

by: currency trading

Fri, 21 Apr 2006 05:55:02 +0000

your blog is very helpful, thank you for your effort

by: cellphones

Fri, 07 Apr 2006 21:12:19 +0000

Howdy everyone, I’m Claudia, really nice blog, lots of great info, Thanks a lot!

by: mutual funds

Tue, 04 Apr 2006 22:45:05 +0000

Hello, I’m Dorthy, very informative blog, Thanks

by: Melissa

Mon, 23 Jan 2006 09:25:45 +0000

I totally agree with Janjri!

by: Janjri

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

What a sad misguided man Mr. Louw is. His views on the environment and western politics today are as old fashioned and conservative as those of his western colleagues from 100 years ago. Let me first point out that continuous development is sustainable if the resources on which it depends continue to exist. Mr. Louw seems to forget this when he says sustainable development is western rhetoric. Lets say for example when oil runs out in the next 40 yrs, any economy which depends on oil for development is going to come crashing down and take all the people that depend on it with it. Sustainable development is a must, and should be a band wagon to jump on as soon as possible, if anybody wants to come out on top in the next 40-50 yrs, especially countries like India and those of Africa. Theres really nothing to say about Mr. Louws areguments becuase they are so ludicrous and ignorant that one can only hope he sees some light in the future, for the benefit of the african people. And just so Mr. Louw knows, the reason the western countries are so well developed is becuase they utilized thier resources beyond thier capacity and then had to become imperialists, like england once did and like the US is now doing - Now they are paying the price of thier miscalculation. They produce the most garbage, most pollution and have the most species extinct, the exact opposite of Mr. Louws statement. I think we could be better human beings by learning from the mistakes of the west and not making thier mistakes, especially when the most important areas our within our own countries - the tropics. To continue correcting Mr. louws erroneous statements, nobody is immune to ozone depeltion. If the Earth had no ozone layer, life would never have been able to exist, white black brown or yellow. To say that black people are immune is just plain stupid. Becuase they are not, and the crops and cattle on which they survive are even less immune, so the ozone depletion and global warming are real problems, that are faced by all human beings, nature you see is not racist. In conclusion I would ike to say that in opposition to the idea that environmnetalism is a western idea, i would say that it is an idea the west has borrowed form the east. And that libertarinism, or complete privatizationis is exactly what western economies would want, becuase that means more MNCs coming into the country and depleting it of its natural and fiscal resources, while the people continue to suffer the fates they did befor, but now also have to face depleting natural resources. Mr. louw is wrong and misguided, i only hope he learns the error of his ways before it is to late.
Janjri Jasani
India

by: seven_times_six

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Janjri: For an environmentalist, surely you must be concerned about spewing such garbage and spreading ideological pollution.

One thing I don’t understand: The Janjris of the world are obviously against MNCs, at the very least against a frenetic industrializing pace, then why are they so concerned about a reduction in fossil fuels - that can only serve to reduce the pace of industrialization no? I mean, unless they think that depeletion is a discrete step: one day we shall be consuming 100 million gallons, and the next day zero!

This itself should reveal the shallow and illogical nature of their ideological pollution.

by: Ck

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Leon think s that there is only one path forward for development and that is the western model. Developing nations like India and China do not have many of the attributes (natural resources and land) which the western nations had. They also do not have access to slave labor like the US (slaves), USSR (the Gulag), Europe (the colonies) - but they do have access to a large population. In such a situation it does not make sense to invest in the same areas that the western nations did and to rather play to their strengths - which as I see it are the development of human resources.

We do no have to repeat the same mistakes that the west made and can leap-frog ahead to what the west is investing in now rathar than what they invested in in the 70s. India did not need to invest resources in ancient CDMA cell phone technology like the US did and instead leaped ahead to GSM which the US is now developing at great expense. Similarly India and China need not go down the fossil fuel path that the west chose (which they are now paying for in blood) and instead develop a Hydrogen Economy whih China is already doing. Why repeat the mistakes which other nations have made and try to force tehm on your own economy when you can find alternatives ways to achieve development at a lower long-term cost?

Leon is also sorely mistake if he thinks environmentalists are anti-development. It is very much the opposite and very often the envionementalists are the drivers of innovation. To list a few of them which I personally have worked on:
- Lean Manufacturing - helping companies cut costs by developing systems that re-use waste and help them manitain small inventories of raw materials.

- Higher fuel economy - working with scientists and the car manufacturers (I work with GM and Ford) to develop more fuel efficient cars and also with the oil companies to develop better fuels.

- Information Exchange - using XML Web services to allow companies to apply for and receive permits online cutting down on paperwork and bureacracy.

How are any of these activities - anti-development - they help to stream line business processes and my company’s services are actively sought both by the private and the public sector and surprisingly I work for an environmental consulting firm. Surely we can’t be anti-market if Ford and GM want to hire us as well as BP and Shell?

Every major corporation in the west has an active environmental divisoin or hire environmental consultants to work for them. Accenture, Booz, Allen, Hamilton, SAIC, CSC, Beaing Point (formerly KPMG) - some of the biggest cosnulting firms in the world are involved in environmental conulting (I know because I am on contract with them on a lot of projects).

So its quite obvious to me that Leon has no idea what it is that environmentalists do or how mainstream they have become. Rather than work against industry, we for the most part work with them. Like Jnajri said, Leon is just quoting some decade old stereotypes without knowing that the world has changed around him and his view are just plain outdated.

by: Quizman

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I also dislike some of the more rabid environmentalists. I’m as much a lover of liberty as they come, but some key points made in the interview troubled me.

b) leave a legacy of technology and wealth with which to deal with environmental problems that may happen in the future.

Unfortunately, the child who has menopause at the age of 13 in Bhopal, or the child who lost her father at Chernobyl will not concur. The environmental problems that we face are happening here and now and people on the left and the right recognize this. What they differ on, are the means to tackle them.

The most developed countries are the ones with the cleanest air, the cleanest rivers, the least human suffering, the best conservation of nature, and the least endangered species

This did not occur accidentally. It was a result of scientists and environmentalists working together to put pressure on industry.

Development by itself does not contribute to a clean environment. Development coupled with liberty is what makes a difference.

The worst polluters of rivers and lakes are developing countries. The Bandra creek used to be a blue sea when I was a kid. It is now a black gutter. Civil society in India has not organized itself to put pressure on the polluters, chief among them being govt firms. Even in countries like Rumania and Ukraine, the biggest polluters are the large socialist industries. Liberty acts as a safety valve to check the abuse of the environment.

Even more conspicuously racist are ozone concerns.

This suggestion is of course, bizarre. Read this.

His take on “eco-imperialism”, confuses domestic with wild animal trade. Calling people “racist” or “imperialist”, does not a meaningful debate make.

by: Janjri

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Six times seven, as an environmentalist, i am not anti-development, i am not anti-MNC i am just tryint to point out Leon like u seem to be misguided about the roles environmentalists play. If today India could move from being a fuel based economy and sustainable develop its industries, in 50 yrs time when an energy crisis is bound to come, we will not be faced with the problems of others. Secondly there are many MNCs, not all, but mnay who might oblige environmental laws in countries like the US and Canada, but are very willing to bend the rules in countries like Indonesia, India and China where development is everything, are you willing to sacrafice our natural resources to them? Next time you comment think about what you say, use smaller words and you might actually get across some real content rather than comfirming your ignorance of the subject.

by: sauvik

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

janjiri wrongly presumes that ‘in 50 years an energy crisis is bound to come’. there is enough peat, flint, timber for charcoal and coal left in the world that we no longer use, because we no longer need it, and have moved on to better, claner and cheaper fuels. nowadays, you should carry coal to newcastle, because all mining has stopped there, although there is still a lot of coal left under the ground. you will, of course, not carry coal to newcastle today because people there use electricity and gas: no one uses coal. we no longer use whale oil, and whales are surviving happily not because of greenpeace, but because of rockefeller and the standard oil company, which supplied the market with an alternative, cheaper fuel. similarly, fuel cells for cars and homes are just around the corner, and maybe in 20 years the arabs will be sitting on oil which no one will want to buy. as julian simon said: ‘it is the human mind that is the ultimate resource’, because it get us all the resources of the earth. indeed, the word ‘natural resource’ is an oxymoron; because anything natural becomes a resource only after humans touch it, and it is no longer ‘natural’. do read up on the julian simon vs. paul ehrich bet on the scarcity of natural resources. it is this that disproves the ’scientific’ validity of ’sustainable development’: it shows that the ONLY way to sustain life is with liberty under the common law. what is unsustainable is poverty without property. in many african countries, like socialist tanzania, forest cover has almost been totally wiped out because charcoal is their only fuel, and there are no property rights to timberlands: julius nyrere’s socialism.