IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v6y2020i1d10.1057_s41599-020-0467-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Environmental sustainability is not worth pursuing unless it is achieved for ethical reasons

Author

Listed:
  • Fabio Zagonari

    (Università di Bologna)

Abstract

This paper analytically characterizes the four main environmental sustainability paradigms (i.e., WS, weak sustainability; AG, a-growth; DG, de-growth; and SS, strong sustainability) by introducing uncertainty about future preferences for consumption and future technologies. SS represents an ethical approach because of its maximum aversion to inter-generational inequality of resources, whereas DG depicts preference changes, AG depicts technology changes, and WS represents the reference paradigm without accounting for preference or technology changes. By comparing the costs and benefits of these paradigms, solutions derived for the whole parameter domains based on data for a globally representative individual suggest that whenever environmental sustainability is pursued for welfare reasons within a utilitarian perspective (i.e., WS, AG, DG), it is not worth pursuing. In contrast, if environmental sustainability is achieved for ethical reasons within an egalitarian perspective (i.e., SS), it is worth pursuing, even with an increased world population. In terms of feasibility (i.e., whether there are realistic parameter values such that a given sustainability paradigm can achieve its goal), solutions are ranked ethics > preference > technology (i.e., SS > DG > AG), whereas WS is unfeasible. Thus, WS, AG, and DG are inconsistent sustainability paradigms, SS empirically solves the theoretical dispute on absolute rights, and environmental sustainability must be treated as an ethical issue. A conceptual discussion about environmental ethics and a statistical analysis based on panel data at a country level support the same insights. In terms of reliability (i.e., whether there are national policies or international agreements which can support a feasible sustainability paradigm), SS could be enforced by a global environmental agreement, supported by 66/55% of governments (i.e., top-down approach) and by 56/51% of citizens (i.e., bottom-up approach), in the most certain/uncertain scenarios, respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabio Zagonari, 2020. "Environmental sustainability is not worth pursuing unless it is achieved for ethical reasons," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:6:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-0467-7
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-0467-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-020-0467-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-020-0467-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthias Basedau & Simone Gobien & Sebastian Prediger, 2018. "The Multidimensional Effects Of Religion On Socioeconomic Development: A Review Of The Empirical Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 1106-1133, September.
    2. Franco, Marco P.V. & Gaspard, Marion & Mueller, Thomas, 2019. "Time discounting in Harold Hotelling's approach to natural resource economics: The unsolved ethical question," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 52-60.
    3. Gokul Iyer & Katherine Calvin & Leon Clarke & James Edmonds & Nathan Hultman & Corinne Hartin & Haewon McJeon & Joseph Aldy & William Pizer, 2018. "Implications of sustainable development considerations for comparability across nationally determined contributions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 8(2), pages 124-129, February.
    4. Emeline Bezin, 2019. "The economics of Green consumption, cultural transmission and sustainable technological change," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-02087970, HAL.
    5. Andreas Spahn, 2018. "“The First Generation to End Poverty and the Last to Save the Planet?”—Western Individualism, Human Rights and the Value of Nature in the Ethics of Global Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-16, June.
    6. Fabio Zagonari, 2020. "Comparing Religious Environmental Ethics to Support Efforts to Achieve Local and Global Sustainability: Empirical Insights Based on a Theoretical Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-36, March.
    7. Volker Mauerhofer, 2019. "Activities of Environmental Convention-Secretariats: Laws, Functions and Discretions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-20, June.
    8. Schaffartzik, Anke & Mayer, Andreas & Eisenmenger, Nina & Krausmann, Fridolin, 2016. "Global patterns of metal extractivism, 1950–2010: Providing the bones for the industrial society's skeleton," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 101-110.
    9. Aznar-Márquez, J. & Ruiz-Tamarit, J.R., 2016. "Environmental pollution, sustained growth, and sufficient conditions for sustainable development," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 439-449.
    10. Emeline Bezin, 2019. "The economics of Green consumption, cultural transmission and sustainable technological change," Post-Print halshs-02087970, HAL.
    11. Bezin, Emeline, 2019. "The economics of green consumption, cultural transmission and sustainable technological change," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 497-546.
    12. Santarius, Tilman & Soland, Martin, 2018. "How Technological Efficiency Improvements Change Consumer Preferences: Towards a Psychological Theory of Rebound Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 414-424.
    13. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2010. "Externality or sustainability economics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2047-2052, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Etxano, Iker & Villalba-Eguiluz, Unai, 2021. "Twenty-five years of social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) in the search for sustainability: Analysis of case studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    2. Fabio Zagonari, 2024. "Sustainable business models and conflict indices for sustainable decision‐making: An application to decommissioning versus reusing offshore gas platforms," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 180-196, February.
    3. Gabrielle Samuel & Federica Lucivero & Lucas Somavilla, 2022. "The Environmental Sustainability of Digital Technologies: Stakeholder Practices and Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-14, March.
    4. Fabio Zagonari, 2023. "Pope Francis vs. Patriarch Bartholomew to Achieve Global Environmental Sustainability: Theoretical Insights Supported by Empirical Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Valentina Rotondi & Luigino Bruni & Luca Crivelli & Stefano Mancuso & Paolo Santori, 2022. "In praise of the persona economica: listening to plants for a new economic paradigm," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-6, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Liwen Chen & Bobby Chung & Guanghua Wang, 2022. "Stay-at-Home Peer Mothers and Gender Norms: Short-run Effects on Educational Outcomes," Working Papers 2022-039, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    2. Bezin, Emeline & Ponthière, Gregory, 2019. "The tragedy of the commons and socialization: Theory and policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    3. Mattauch, Linus & Hepburn, Cameron & Spuler, Fiona & Stern, Nicholas, 2022. "The economics of climate change with endogenous preferences," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    4. Ambec, Stefan & De Donder, Philippe, 2022. "Environmental policy with green consumerism," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    5. Eugénie Joltreau, 2022. "Extended Producer Responsibility, Packaging Waste Reduction and Eco-design," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 527-578, November.
    6. Han, Fei & Zhou, Jiehong & Yan, Zhen & Yin, Shijiu, 2022. "Nudge to be Green? The Influence of Social Comparison on Consumers' Consumption Behaviors: A Case Study of Green Takeaway Packaging," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322228, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Jinyan Peng & Kai Li & Yingpeng Gao, 2022. "How the Internet Affects China’s Green Consumption Development: Empirical Research Based on Baidu Index Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, December.
    8. Fabio Zagonari, 2023. "Pope Francis vs. Patriarch Bartholomew to Achieve Global Environmental Sustainability: Theoretical Insights Supported by Empirical Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Liwen Chen & Bobby W. Chung & Guanghua Wang, 2023. "Stay-at-Home Peer Mothers and Gender Norms: Short-run Effects on Educational Outcomes," Working Papers 2023-03, University of South Florida, Department of Economics.
    10. Fabio Zagonari, 2019. "Responsibility, inequality, efficiency, and equity in four sustainability paradigms: insights for the global environment from a cross-development analytical model," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 2733-2772, December.
    11. Cem Iskender Aydin & Begum Ozkaynak & Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos & Taylan Yenilmez, 2017. "Network effects in environmental justice struggles: An investigation of conflicts between mining companies and civil society organizations from a network perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, July.
    12. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    13. Nikos Chatzistamoulou & Phoebe Koundouri, 2020. "The Economics of Sustainable Development," DEOS Working Papers 2005, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    14. Britz, Wolfgang & Li, Jingwen & Shang, Linmei, 2021. "Combining large-scale sensitivity analysis in Computable General Equilibrium models with Machine Learning: An Example Application to policy supporting the bio-economy," Conference papers 333285, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    15. Ghodeswar, Archana & Oliver, Matthew E., 2022. "Trading one waste for another? Unintended consequences of fly ash reuse in the Indian electric power sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    16. Yaliu Yang & Yuan Wang & Cui Wang & Yingyan Zhang & Cuixia Zhang, 2022. "Temporal and Spatial Evolution of the Science and Technology Innovative Efficiency of Regional Industrial Enterprises: A Data-Driven Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-21, August.
    17. Efraim Hernández-Orozco & Ivonne Lobos-Alva & Mario Cardenas-Vélez & David Purkey & Måns Nilsson & Piedad Martin, 2022. "The application of soft systems thinking in SDG interaction studies: a comparison between SDG interactions at national and subnational levels in Colombia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 8930-8964, June.
    18. Shao, Shuai & Guo, Longfei & Yu, Mingliang & Yang, Lili & Guan, Dabo, 2019. "Does the rebound effect matter in energy import-dependent mega-cities? Evidence from Shanghai (China)," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C), pages 212-228.
    19. Cansino, José M. & Román-Collado, Rocío & Merchán, José, 2019. "Do Spanish energy efficiency actions trigger JEVON’S paradox?," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 760-770.
    20. Stefan Gunnarsson & Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Lina Göransson & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson, 2020. "Systematic Mapping of Research on Farm-Level Sustainability in Egg and Chicken Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-13, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:6:y:2020:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-020-0467-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.