It’s Time for a Supranational Sustainable Development Authority

The bizarre economy that we live in has affected us in many ways than our simple mind can fathom. After World War II there was massive push in innovation. Human were gifted with inventions like the Airplane, color T.V., polyvinyl cups, and precooked dinners. Nevertheless, these “gifts” came at an enormous cost. That cost was pushed onto the environment and people living in that environment. “The Market Economy” by Marge Piercy illustrates the movement in American aimed at bring attention to a global problem as well as an effort to save the planet along with the people living on it.

Have you ever thought about how your actions or opinions affected the environment around you? We’re constantly unaware of what we do that impacts the environment’s condition. One author named Wendell Berry blames the public in his article regarding the way society and the industry has treated the environment and its natural resources. This raises concerns whether we should be putting more importance on the economy or the land that we live in for the sake of our future survival. While I agree with most of Berry’s points and perspectives I slightly disagree with a few of his opinions, but nonetheless he brings up a great matter in today’s modern society.

In a slightly facetious fashion, scientist Edward O. Wilson points out to the general public both sides of the coin in regards to environmentalism and conservation of natural resources. He appeals to the emotional, logical and ethical sides of readers by pointing out the harsh effect that the desires and actions of both “radical environmentalism” and “anti- environmentalists” can have on the economy and working class citizens. These passages both comically show the overwhelming consequences that the extreme of any one standpoint can bring.

Sustainability is the foundation upon which resilient and adaptive design was built. It “is based on a simple and long-recognized factual premise: Everything that humans require for their survival and well-being depends, directly or indirectly, on the natural environment” (Sustainability and the US EPA). Concern for the environment grew in the 1960’s, and after the creation of the EPA in 1970 the term sustainability came into use. “Sustainable development emerged as a result of significant concerns about the unintended social, environmental, and economic consequences of rapid population growth, economic growth, and consumption of natural resources.” (Sustainability and the US EPA). In the U.S., the history of sustainability is rooted in American

One of the major issues in global affairs today consists of the supply of energy and other minerals and commodities. Michael Klare in “The End of Easy Everything” argues that the transformation from an effortless to a more resilient resource period will be financially, environmentally, socially, and politically costly. Looking at the state of the supply of energy oil and natural gas today, I tend to agree with the findings as presented by Michael Klare.

Economic growth and social development are complementary and have a close but complex relationship. With the economic growth, it is clear there have been lasting damaging effects on the environment today. For example, water, air, and land pollution have worsened, and the environment of wild animals and plants have been severely damaged. Many species today are threatened with extinction, deforestation and over-exploitation of mineral resources. With the recent nomination for head administrator for the Environmental Protect Agency (EPA) and approval of Oklahoma Attorney General, Scott Pruitt, has led to some questionable doubts about Trumps advocacy for the environment and if his actions are going to create a positive impact on our environment.

People need to understand that the environment is everybody’s responsibility. We need to take accountability for providing a green future for future generations. We must act before its too late. We must sacrifice, compromise, and be willing to

One may believe that in this day and age, the decisions mankind makes are conscientious; however, political leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, whose policies geared towards economic prosperity over earthly protection, are far apart in years yet similar in principle. Competitors such as Jimmy Carter and Hillary Clinton, both of whom lost their respective elections, had policies involving environmental protection and social reform. In spite of this, upon years of attempted nudges towards

Sustainable development is defined as “Development that meets the needs of the present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (IISD, par. 1 ).

President Roosevelt said Every step of the progress of mankind is marked by the discovery and use of natural resources previously unused. Without such progressive knowledge and utilization of natural resources population could not grow, nor industries multiply, nor the hidden wealth of the earth be developed for the benefit of mankind. From the first beginnings of civilization, on the banks of the Nile and the Euphrates, the industrial progress of the world has gone on slowly, with occasional set-backs, but on the whole steadily, through tens of centuries to the

Sustainable development is filling today’s needs without challenging the needs of future generations. It’s about bettering the standards of living by preserving human health, maintaining the environment, using available resources well, and progressing long-term economic competitiveness. To do this, the integration of environmental, economic, and social priorities into protocols and programs are required. This also requires different levels of action, from citizens, to industries, to government action. In 2008 a change to how the Canadian Government would accomplish its commitment to sustainable development was made called the Federal Sustainable Development Act. This Act made it so every 3 years, a complete approach showing the whole government

“America has a problem and the world has a problem,” (Friedman 1) and this problem stems from our effect on the environment. As America lives off of the land and improve it for our needs, we are not taking into consideration our need for a clean environment. Pollution and weakening species are continuing to plague our world, creating unsafe and unhealthy conditions for all life on planet earth. Although, recent years have shown small progress into improving the environment’s condition, the United States has not been able to pick up true and steady growth on the green movement. The United States’ environment will continue to dwindle until the mass mobilization of environmentalism is completely backed by governmental authority.

Sustainable development is at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework of 2012, and is defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development includes three key pillars- social, environmental and economic, however in reality these issues often overlap and do not fit directly into one category (Hopwood, Mellor and O’Brien, 2005).

the world’s environment as a threat, but as another opportunity and soon implemented a responsible

Living in a world where there is no guarantee of a safe tomorrow, where every breath we take is toxic and every morsel of food we eat is filled with pesticide, protecting and saving mother earth should top our to-do list. But sadly, this is the least of our concerns. We are at the tipping point, on the verge when we cannot go back and rectify our mistakes and if we delay any further, it’s going to be too late. There are questions we need to ask ourselves and the governments from time to time: Are our governments doing enough to protect our green? Are they pitching in enough money to save our environment? And if they are, is all the money put to its rightful use? Better coordination between governments and proper funding is required to