Sustainable Development the Term \'Sustainable

Sustainable Development

The term 'sustainable development' is one that many people still do not understand the meaning of, and there are arguments as to whether it is even a correct and proper term for what it is intending to describe. Broadly, however, sustainable development involves the balancing act that is required between human needs and the preservation and protection of the natural environment (Girard, 1998). This balance is not easy to attain, because there are always individuals ready to argue for one side of the issue or the other, and often they have difficulty finding any kind of willingness to meet in the middle. This is unfortunate, but it is the human condition in today's society and it does not appear to be changing.

In the meantime, ecologists and others are studying the environment in an attempt to find new ways to balance human needs with environmental protection (Glasbergen, 2000). There are so many aspects of the environment that are important to ecologists that many of them do not study the entire environment, but just one part of it. For example, one ecologist might study plants, another might study animals, and yet another might study pollution and its effects on the environment. Still others might study something more specific; only endangered species for example, or only one particular type of habitat. All of these separate things make up ecology, which basically becomes a study of the world when looked at in the context of how much it encompasses and what all is contained within it (McDonald, 1996).

Ecologists who study plants and animals often focus most specifically on a particular species that might be disappearing, or on a particular kind of habitat that is slowly dwindling away. Often these two things are tied together. For example, if a certain type of bird will only nest and raise its young in a particular type of tree, then loggers who come and cut down those trees for human usage are hurting the ecological makeup of the area in two ways.

They are destroying the trees, which are needed for shade and many other things that the surrounding animals might need, and they are destroying the bird population by removing the prime nesting spots. This is going to hurt the bird population, since these particular birds may refuse to nest anywhere else. Often, these kinds of dangers are not realized until the bird (or fish, or mammal) is nearly extinct, and at that point it becomes difficult to save the species from total extinction, especially if the habitat that they require cannot readily be found somewhere else (Gibbs, 1998b). Sometimes these kinds of animals end up in zoos or special sanctuaries, and they can possibly be bred in captivity, but the amount of offspring that are produced this way will be significantly smaller than the amount that would have been produced in the wild (Gibbs, 1998a).

Pollution is the other main issue that ecologists have to deal with. They are not only concerned about a particular habitat being destroyed, but they are concerned about it becoming unusable due to contamination from nearby factories and other industrial companies that create pollution. Even though there are laws in place to stop too much pollution from being placed into the atmosphere, the amount that is released is often hard on the surrounding plants and animals, and many companies cheat when it comes to how much pollution they actually release into the air, water, and soil. This is a very big concern for ecologists, as protecting the forests, deserts, and other habitats of specific animals is very important to them (Gilbert, 1996). Sometimes they know that a particular chemical or pollutant is dangerous and can work to stop its release into the area, but sometimes chemicals are only found to be dangerous after a period of time, and this causes problems for the surrounding wildlife and for the ecologists who then have to try to find a way to clean up the tainted environment.

Sustainable development allegedly balances the problems like those discussed above with work to keep the environment as stable as possible and still give humans what they need (Gilbert, 1996). However, in many areas of the country this is not actually taking place. Instead, the natural environment is being destroyed because of social and political decisions that are being made elsewhere. While sustainable development mostly reflects environmental issues, political and social concerns also come into play (Gilbert, 1996). Unfortunately, the political and social desires of the human race as a whole often overrides the environmental concerns that are addressed and therefore more damage to the environment is done. One example of good legislation gone bad, or at least not carried out, where sustainable development and environmental issues are concerned is the clean water act.

The Clean Water Act, officially titled the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, was implemented in 1948. Naturally, it has been amended and changed quite a bit throughout the years. In 1977 in was amended and titled the Clean Water Act, which was reauthorized in 1991. Permits, discharge limits, and water quality standards are some of the things that the act is responsible for, as well as striving "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's water" (Federal, 2002).

The Act is designed to make sure that the waterways that are not polluted stay clean, and that the waterways that already are polluted get cleaned up instead of getting worse. It is not an easy thing to do, because companies are always building new plants and buildings which could impact the waterways of the nation. All of these must be inspected.

Any time materials are placed into a waterway in the United States, or any time that there will be activity of some kind in either riparian or wetland areas, a permit can be obtained after the governing body has been assured that the work to be done will not harm the environment or damage the area and the water. Permits are also needed for companies to dump anything into a nearby body of water. Tests must be conducted to make sure that the dumping does not pollute the waterway for the wildlife that use it, and that it does not contaminate the drinking water of anyone living nearby. Not surprisingly, some federal projects are exempt from this ruling (Federal, 2002).

There are many benefits to the Clean Water Act. The most obvious one, of course, is that people all over the nation will have clean, safe water to drink, bathe in, water their crops with, etc. But there are many other reasons why the Clean Water Act is such a good idea, and these reasons are both economic and social.

For example, the government offers many subsidies and incentives to companies that are pollution-conscious in their dealings with the environment and the waterways. These incentives can work either for the companies or against them, depending on how much of an effort they make not to pollute the water. They could be fined because they had too much pollution runoff, or given some kind of incentive if they avoid having too much pollution runoff. It is a very delicate balance of fines, permits, and compensations, but it seems to work well for the government and for everyone involved, provided the company fined is willing to pay the fine and fix the problem. Those that are not can sometimes cause a court battle, which can be costly (Economic, 2002).

Socially, it is important as well. When environmentally conscious people are aware that a particular company is not polluting the water, they are more likely to use the goods or services of that company, mention it to their friends, and are more comfortable in their opinion of that company. That is good for the people because it makes them feel good about the company and the environment. It is also good for the people because they are not being exposed to the pollution that they would have to contend with if they lived near a company that was not conscientious about the amount of pollution it was dumping into the drinking water of local residents.

Not only do the people in the area benefit but the company benefits as well, since a better public image means increased profits for them. It also means that they will probably continue to try to be careful where pollution is concerned because they know that not polluting brings in customers as well as keeping down fines and other regulation problems from the government.

Another benefit to the Clean Water Act, as well as several other pollution-control acts, is self-auditing. The government gives the companies the right to audit themselves; in fact, they encourage it. If the company finds a violation, the best thing they can do is report it and then deal with it promptly. The fines are a lot less severe when the company finds a problem, is honest about it, and takes immediate steps to correct it than when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or other governing body happens to find a violation (Pfaff, 1999). It can be especially bad if it appears that the company was trying to cover up the problem. That is why self-auditing is such an important benefit to companies.

Unfortunately, many companies choose not to self audit. They do not want to look for problems because they expect to find some. Finding problems means reporting problems, which means paying fines. A lot of companies do not want to pay them, even if they are less when they are found through self-auditing. These companies just leave their pollution problems uncorrected and hope that the EPA won't pay them a surprise visit where they will have to try to hide their problems.

Clearly, the economic benefits and the social benefits of pollution control and the Clean Water Act are quite high, although not everyone realizes how important it is to make sure that the water stays clean; not only for the people and animals who live here now, but for future generations. Companies get rewarded for not polluting, and because companies are not polluting, people, animals, and plants everywhere are enjoying clean, clear water. When companies do not pollute it is a win-win situation for everyone involved, including the federal government, because they do not have to deal with all of the costs associated with companies who pollute the water. Costs can be a big problem for companies and for the government. Regulating pollution control is very expensive.