Web version of Responses by SGR to the above Consultation, in May 2004 and July 2004
The ‘invited’ consultation which we took part in was divided into 2 online sessions. The aim of the first session was to answer some or all of the 42 questions posed in the consultation document by 28th May. 150 organisations (including SGR) responded and their responses were summarised by the organisers in a further document. 3 further questions were asked following on from this summary document (Session 2), with a deadline of 31st July. Below are the submitted SGR responses to the 2 sessions.
In Session 1, we responded to 10 of the 42 questions, focussing on the areas closest to SGR’s main activities.
Our responses to both sessions are short due to very tight word limits imposed by the online process. It was very difficult to present our views adequately within these limits, hence we had to be selective about which aspects to focus on.
Sustainable development should be about delivering a high quality of life across society while minimising environmental impacts. Economic development should be pursued only in a way which is consistent with this broader aim.
We agree with nine of the ten suggested guiding principles. The tenth, ‘Creating an open and supportive economic system’, is potentially in conflict with some of the others. It should explicitly mention that economic development should be compatible with social and environmental objectives, in particular including measures which prevent domination of markets by large private interests.
In order to tackle the very serious problem of climate change, we need a much more concerted effort devoted to tackling greenhouse gas emissions from road transport and aviation which continue to rise. Indeed, current Government policies, which are supportive of the building of new roads and airport expansion, run counter to other climate change policies. A range of measures is needed including, in particular, the strengthening of public transport (especially much-neglected bus services); and a marked increase in the price of air travel.
Sustainable development, rather than economic growth, needs to be made the driving force behind applied science and innovation (as we have argued in our response to the recent consultation on the Government’s proposals for a 10-year science and innovation strategy). This means:
In this area, there needs to be:
The focus for the policies and measures in this area should be on goods and services with a high environmental/ human health impact. Choice of such goods and services should include consideration of any scientific assessments of their impact (eg through the use of Life-Cycle Assessment), but it is likely that priorities will include cars (especially those with low-fuel economy); air travel; electronic equipment; junk food; and goods transported over a large distance.
In order to promote sustainable development internationally, it is essential to work for long-term peace and security (as the consultation document acknowledges). The UK Government needs to integrate this thinking into its military and security policies, in particular through a large-scale shift of resources from the development and deployment of military technology to measures aimed at peace-building. As part of this change, there need to be far stricter rules on the export of UK armaments and other military technology.
Those respondents who argue for the continued prioritisation of economic objectives do not appreciate the severe damage being caused to the global environment nor the high levels of global inequity. The single most important aim for the UK sustainable development strategy should be to ensure that at least equal resources are devoted to environmental and social issues as to economic ones.
There are two issues which we would like to emphasise as they have received little attention to date. Science and innovation policy continues to be dominated by narrow economic/military priorities (as outlined in the recent 10year strategy). Sustainable development needs to be made the focus instead. Current military and security policy is also incompatible with sustainable development. It should take more account of the role of unsustainable resource use in contributing to conflict. Some of the large funding devoted to the military could be better spent on international sustainable development.
In Science & Innovation Policy
In Military and Security Policy
A single composite indicator of environmental damage would make both policy-makers and the public aware that current levels of UK consumption are far from sustainable. The Ecological Footprint is the most well developed such indicator, but it is difficult to explain. However it could be used as the basis of a clearer indicator, ie ‘Number of Planet Earths needed if everyone consumed at the average UK level’. This has been used in an informal way by many commentators, and so is likely to get wide recognition. Some further methodological development must be undertaken, however.
Government needs to give more support to independent public interest organisations such as environment/community groups in their attempts to get across the sustainable development message. This is key as information coming from the Government can be treated with suspicion. A critical difficulty faced by these public interest groups is lack of resources, especially funding, which Government could provide.
|
To Arms & Arms Control Index For further information contact Dr Stuart Parkinson Send correspondence about the web-site to webmanager@sgr.org.uk This page last modified: 31st July 2004 |
|||