The Role of Natural Capital in the Week versus Strong Sustainability Debate - Coursework Example

?Topic: The Role of Natural Capital in the Weak versus Strong Sustainability Debate Affiliation: Title: Date: Growth and development is an on-going process in every aspect of the world. Cultural, social, economic and political aspects are central to development undertakings in an economy or a business unit that utilizes resources for the benefit of the larger population. Sustainability of development especially in the contemporary world is a crucial aspect to account for. Economists and environmentalists account for sustainability differently, tailored by their arguments that are based on the variables influencing the presented arguments. The issue of sustainability is therefore subject to both traditional and contemporary arguments, the underlying interest being to define the natural world in the view of both arguments. The weak versus strong sustainability debate emanates from both environmental and economic concerns. A sustainable development is one that is rooted on the strongholds of both the economy and the environmental. In this regard, two principle concepts emerge. These are: natural and manufactured capital. The debate surrounding these two concepts gives rise to weak versus strong sustainability debate, with the role of natural capital being the focal point in the debate. The defining variables of both weak and strong sustainability are essential to consider in the evaluation of the role of natural capital in the context of the two. Sustainable development is defined as that development that provides the potential and ability to meet present needs without jeopardising the potential and ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Hartwick, 2007, p.972-974). In other words, the needs of both present and future generations are central to the achievement of sustainable development. It is important to note that the needs referred to are cultural, social, economic and political in nature. This means that sustainable development is an all-round treatment of variables that enhances welfare in the society. Efforts to promote the welfare of the present generation should not negatively affect the livelihood and welfare of future generations. In order to achieve this, economic and environmental concerns are critical to address. The process to sustainable development is not a smooth process. There are biases associated with sustainable development, each of which influences the process in one way or another. These biases include: tragedy of the commons, common costs, private profits, uncertainty, future discounting among others (Pearce, 2006, p.85-101). A number of phenomena are presented by the highlighted biases. Common ownership of resources is evident, exacerbating the need to grab resources within the shortest time possible. Industrial pollution is inevitable in land, air and water. Furthermore, the cost of pollution is transferred to the society, while profits are reaped by privately owned enterprises. The process of sustainable development is therefore highly characterized by externalities, both positive and negative. Uncertainty continues to encompass economic and environmental undertakings prior to sustainable development. Global warming around the world remains evident, but its extent is uncertain. There are underlying ecological and/or economic disasters that need to be accounted for in sustainable development process. It is also argued that sustainable development is primarily concerned with the future. While this is true, the present must be set in a way that aids concern for the future. The availability of resources today does not guarantee the same availability in future. Utilization and conservation of resources for the present and future generations yields the weak versus strong sustainability debate, with emphasis on natural capital today and in future. Natural capital is defined as the capacity of the environment to provide goods and services for use by the population (Pezzey, 2009, p.26). The population in this case refers to all aspects of the cultural, social, economic and political variables that define the needs of the population. The integration of natural capital in the weak versus strong sustainability debate is a crucial undertaking, as it enhances the evaluation of sustainable development in present and future times, prior to the position and role of both natural and manufactured capital in development. Weak sustainability is primarily concerned with the aggregate capital stock. The central issue in weak sustainability is ensuring that the value of the capital stock is maintained. This means that trade-offs are inevitable between natural and man-made capital. Present and future projects of development employ both types of capital, with substitution being realized in the process (Pearce, 2005, p.184). That is to say, one type of capital may be substituted by another. It is important to note that it is the natural environment that provides natural capital. Its use without replacement means that depletion will be realized at point or another. On the other hand, manufactured capital is a derived capital; man-made in nature. The aiding variables to the manufacturing are in one or another aided by the natural environment, making natural capital the central focus of both weak and strong sustainability debates. Generational development in the context of weak sustainability does not diminish over time. In other words, development under this aspect remains constant, if not increasing. There are no provisions of diminishing development in weak sustainability. Weak sustainability is therefore held to maintain intergenerational equity between present and future generations. To achieve this, both natural and man-made capital are said to be substitutes. Either of the two can therefore be substituted for the other in a bid to ensure that development in this case is non-diminishing. The capital portfolio of a nation is critical to account for in bid to maintain weak sustainability. The management of such a portfolio takes the form of individual acting-at-a-point-in-time, nation-wide or even planet-wide (Brekke, 2007, p.143). This management approach seeks to equate present and future generation in terms of welfare and opportunities. In this process, welfare proxies for both present and future generations must be the same. However, the role of natural capital in these undertakings continues to outplay manufactured capital. The substitution of natural capital for manufactured or man-made capital is achievable in the long term, meaning that natural capital remains vibrant and highly relied upon in determining intergenerational needs and welfare. Debates for and against strong sustainability revolve around natural stock that is non-decreasing over time, as opposed to weak sustainability which concentrates on aggregate capital stock and maintenance of its value over time. In the strong sustainability context, natural and man-made capitals are not substitutes in any way. In other words, none of the two can substitute the other, neither in the short term nor in the long term. The argument is to present future generations with the same natural capital stock as that being enjoyed by the present generation. However, while future stocks may be higher than those enjoyed by the present generation, these stocks can be lower in future as compared to their levels in present times. Ensuring that the stock of natural capital remains the same or increasing for that matter is a process that encompasses conservation. The stock of natural capital conserved in present times is the same stock that is termed available for future generations. The stock of natural capital conserved comprises of human capital, technological capability, natural resources and environmental quality (Daly, 2002, p.185-193). Strong sustainability in the context of natural capital takes into account a number of capital types; social, economic and ecological. Independent maintenance of these types of capital is advocated for, presenting natural capital as an absolute emphasis of the underlying debate. Natural capital plays a critical role in driving social and economic life of a nation. Specifically, economic production employs natural resources as the primary input. This further aids consumption of produced goods and services, and consequently leads to the realization of social and economic welfare in the society. The idea of strong sustainability is to spread and extend this process to future generations. This process does not decrease, but increases are essentially factored in. In all these undertakings, human capital cannot factor in as a substitute. Natural capital, defined by natural resources therefore, play the role of providing present and future generations with their livelihood and survival over time. The ground taken by strong sustainability is subject to diverse and ever changing debate on specific definitions of natural stock. Ecological movements argue that systems and subsystems of natural environment, natural species and physical stock must be accounted for in natural stock preservation (Bromley, 2008, p.231-240). In the view of these claims, the pursuit of strong sustainability is challenged. This is because natural change is normal in natural species and ecosystems. Secondly, the industrial economy of the present times depends on present natural resources. Thirdly, the introduction of certain rights in a given system contradicts some other rights elsewhere, in the same system or in a different one altogether. It is important to note that humans are part of nature after all. The weak versus strong sustainability debate highlights the essentiality of natural capital. While the argument is whether natural capital can be substituted for manufactured capital or not, both weak and strong sustainability debate accounts for natural capital. In other words, it is an avoidable stock that influences by great margin, the opportunities and welfare of generations over time. Intergenerational equity is highly attributed to natural capital. Production and consumption of present and future generations is determined by natural resources available to them at a given point in time. There are unique aspects of natural capital that are termed critical. This is in the view of productive assets which when used, they cannot be replaced. On the same note, the fact that natural capital is not substitutable for human capital or shadow prices further defines the criticality of natural capital (Holling, 2006, p.217). The conservation of the environment and ecosystems are central to the evaluation of critical natural capital. Economic undertakings should also account for critical natural capital in the entire production-consumption process. The criticality of natural capital can be viewed in the example of ozone layer. A depletion of the ozone layer by any given percentage is not a reversible process. This is the reason why weak versus strong sustainability debate critically revolves around natural resources and the capital they create at every level of the society. In the weak versus strong sustainability discussion presented above, the role of natural capital has been integrated into the diverse and ever changing arguments for and against weak versus strong sustainability debate. The evident roles therein can be categorized into simple outlines each of which encompasses variables and concepts that are central to the underlying roles. Natural capital provides, regulates and supports generations over time, complementing cultural services to the people from time to time. A collaboration of these efforts leads to the realization of a sustainable development that favours both present and future generations. Natural capital provides goods and services whose combination yields provisioning services of the ecosystems. Products provided in this case include food, water, fuel wood, fibre, biochemical and genetic resources (Cabeza-Gutes, 2006, p.147-156). The factoring in of future generations in the natural capital discussion must account for regulation activities at all levels of development. Regulation of natural capital comes with enormous benefits. These benefits emerge from climatic, disease, water and among other regulations, the primary objective being to account for intergenerational equity. Cultural benefits are also incorporated in natural capital discussion, marking non-material benefits that are reaped from natural capital in pursuit of either weak or strong sustainability. The benefits that are enjoyed under cultural services provisions are spiritual and religious, recreation and ecotourism, aesthetic, inspirational, educational, sense of place and cultural heritage (Solow, 2004, p.29-45). Other supporting services are integral to natural capital considerations, covering production and consumption, and natural resource formation over time. Amid these benefits, there are negative aspects to account for in pursuit of sustainable development. These aspects encompass the fact that ecosystems deplete with natural resource extraction. On the same note, a scenario of thriving financial capital with disappearance of natural capital is likely to occur. In conclusion, the weak versus strong sustainability debate remains an extensive, diverse and dynamic affair. The position of natural capital in the debate however remains critical. Whether the sustainability is weak or strong, natural capital is fundamental to account for. This debate not an argument on the essentiality of natural capital, but rather whether it is substitutable or not. Sustainable development is therefore deeply rooted natural resource utilization in the present times, and conservation for future generations. In this pursuit, it is fundamental to address environmental problems that pose threats to natural resources and their availability in the future. References Brekke, K.A., (2007), Economic Growth and the Environment: On the Measurement of Income and Welfare, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar. Bromley, D., (2008), Searching for Sustainability: The Poverty of Spontaneous Order, Ecological Economics 24: 231-240. Cabeza-Gutes, M., (2006), The concept of weak sustainability. Ecological Economics, vol. 17: 147-156. Daly, H. E., (2002), Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just and sustainable. Ecological Economics, vol. 6: 185-193. Hartwick, J. M., (2007), Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources. American Economic Review, vol. 67: 972-974. Holling, C. S., (2006), The resilience of terrestrial ecosystems: Local surprise and global change, In: W. C. Clark and R. E. Munn (eds.), Sustainable development of the biosphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pearce, D. W., and Atkinson, G., (2005), Measuring sustainable development, In: D. W. Bromley (ed.), The Handbook of Environmental Economics, Oxford: Blackwell. Pearce, D. W., K., Hamilton and Atkinson, G., (2006), Measuring Sustainable Development: progress on indicators, Environment and Development Economics, vol. 1: 85-101. Pezzey, J., (2009), Economic Analysis of Sustainable Growth and Sustainable Development, Environmental Department Working paper no. 15, Environmental Department, The World Bank. Reprinted as J. Pezzey, 1992, Sustainable Development Concepts: An Economic Analysis, World Bank Environment Paper 2. Solow, R. M., (2004), Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 41: 29-45. Read More