T HE NEED FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Prior to the Rio summit, several industrialized countries pushed for equal responsibilities for stabilizing GHGs. These countries were severely criticized and accused of “environmental colonialism” (Agarwal and Narain 1991). NGOs in developing countries claimed that the basis from which industrialized

countries wished to allocate responsibility for GHG emissions was fundamentally wrong. Industrialized countries failed to take history and equity into account.

Colonialism did not end when the former rulers retreated; they still reassert their power and dominance, thus shaping circumstances in developing countries. The global environment is one venue in which the effects of colonialism are manifest.

Agarwal and Narain rejected the notion of accounting for GHG emissions regardless of their sources and origins. Instead, GHG emissions should be divided into “luxury emissions” and “subsistence emissions,” the former generated by over-consumption in the West and the main reason for the

environmental problem, while the latter are produced by the poor to meet their basic needs (ibid.).

This notion imbues the principle of “common, but differentiated responsibilities,”

because developing countries are allowed their “subsistence emissions” in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012). Still, the intention of the UNFCCC has always been that once the industrialized countries “(…) have shown leadership and started to reduce their emissions, developing countries will

follow their lead” (Depledge 2004: 37). This is known as the “leadership paradigm.”

Industrialized countries can achieve their binding targets by utilizing flexible mechanisms such as the CDM, JI and emissions trading. The mechanisms are market-based and in line with the current capitalist system. This is prescribed by the central notion of ecological modernization and sustainable development. The CDM is premised on the assumption that ecological considerations when doing business will result in a win-win situation for those participating. The circle of winners is expanded through the Kyoto Protocol because of the global dimension and effects of climate change; the private businesses who promote ESTs get to expand to new markets and the developing countries and their citizens get newer and more sustainable energy sources. In the long run, it is the planet itself that will benefit because there will be less GHG emissions from countries climbing up the development ladder, while the industrialized countries are obliged to stabilize their own emissions.

In addition, Mol and Sonnenfeld (2000) claim that:

(…) “actual social practices and institutions involving society-nature interactions, are already transforming to a major extent within the boundaries set by the current institutional order, showing that a tight coupling of environmental improvements and radical social change can at least be questioned. There is no – or better: no longer any – simple one to one relationship between radical environmental goals and radical social transformation, as eco-centrists seem to believe” (ibid: 35).

The latter applies well to the intention of the Protocol and especially in the CDM.

A radical environmental goal is curbing GHG emissions by introducing ESTs and allowing trade between those who emit small quantities of GHGs and those who are off the chart. Radical social transformation is altering the sources of energy supply and system away from carbon.

An ecological focus amid the conduct of business is also part of sustainable development. The WCED operates with a win-win ethos and encourages economic growth as long as it's environmentally and socially sustainable. That

implies a type of growth which is less material- and energy-intensive and is kept within the bounds of what is ecologically possible (Langhelle 2000).

The definition of sustainable development given by the WCED has a dynamic character. To pursue a path of sustainable development means resolving trade-offs between economic, social and ecological concerns (Ruud 2006). These concerns can be explained like this (Ruud, lecture 13.10.2006):

1. The social dimension: Principles and criteria for policies designed to: (A) satisfy the

“essential needs” of “the world’s poor” – South and North; present and future generations.

2. The economic dimension: Principles and criteria for policies designed to: (B) achieve stable economic performance adequate to achieve (A).

3. The environmental dimension: Principles and criteria for achieving (A) and (B) without damaging the long-term functionality (sustainability) of natural life-support systems – locally, nationally, regionally and globally.

The dynamic character of sustainable development implies that one can expand the carrying capacity, in ecological sense, for a resource by gaining new

knowledge or inventing new technology (Langhelle 2000, WCED 1987:43). It is therefore legitimate for developing countries to exploit their non-renewable energy resources, such as coal, in order to provide energy for their poor

population. However, the WCED stated that there are ultimate limits. Implicitly this means that technology and social organization are variables that can be manipulated in such a way that changes in those variables, in theory at least, can make economic growth possible within the limits set by nature (Langhelle 2000).

Technological innovation and changes in societal structures are also key features in ecological modernization; however ecological modernization does not

acknowledge that there are limits to economic growth.

In either case, both approaches fit well into the context of the Kyoto Protocol and the CDM. Developing countries can expand their energy base if they make use of the CDM and thus use alternative forms of energy such as wind power,

hydropower, solar power and biomass. An increased access to energy and energy production in general will contribute to economic growth.

The appropriate question to pose here is: has there been a “win-win situation” in the case study of the Indian wind power projects?