Environmental Management: Principles and practice

Limits to growth, sustainable development and
environmental ethics
When neo-Malthusians were drawing attention to limits, the Club of Rome (an
informal international group concerned about the predicament of humanity) reported
on a systems dynamics computer world-model (Meadows et al., 1972: The Limits to
Growth). This publication reported on studies to determine future scenarios, using
global forecasts of accelerating industrialization; population growth; rates of
malnutrition; depletion of non-renewable resources; and a deteriorating environment.
The report was designed to promote public interest, and concluded that ‘If present
growth trends…continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached
within the next hundred years’ (by 2072). Meadows and his colleagues concluded
that by effective environmental management—a condition of adequate ‘ecological
and economic stability’ could be sustained.
With The Limits to Growth in mind, some began calling for reduced or even
‘zero growth’. However, any state embracing such ethics would face considerable
disruption of its economy. From the early 1970s there was a much more palatable
alternative—sustainable development. This seemed to offer a way for continued
growth to avoid conflict with environmental limits (Barrow, 1995b). The goals of
sustainable development and the Club of Rome are the same—adequate sustained
quality of life for all without exceeding environmental limits. It is possible to stretch
some limits, using technology, so sustainable development may be pursued not just
by altering demands or finding resource substitutes.
In a sequel to The Limits to Growth the same principal authors refined their
original systems dynamics model and fed in much-improved data. Beyond the Limits
(Meadows et al., 1992) argued that the 1972 warnings were broadly correct, that
some of the limits have already been exceeded, and that, if present trends continue,
there is virtually certain to be global collapse within the lifetime of children alive
today see Figure 2.1). However, they argue that it is still possible to have ‘overshoot

---

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS
23
Source: Meadows 
et al. (1992:235, Fig. 8.1)
FIGURE 2.1 Time horizon of the World3 model

---

CHAPTER TWO
24
but not collapse’, and to achieve the goal of sustainable development if excessive
population growth and material consumption are cut and there is increase in
efficiency of materials and energy use soon. Beyond the Limits throws down an
urgent challenge to environmental management and indicates a timescale for
action.
For effective environmental management there must be means of resolving
controversies regarding proper conduct (Cairns and Crawford, 1991:23): to a large
degree ethics enable this. Ethics can be defined as a system of cultural values
motivating people’s behaviour (Rapoport, 1993). They draw upon human reasoning,
morals, knowledge of nature, and goals to act as a sort of plumb-line for development
and shape a worldview. Ethics operate at the level of individuals, institutions, societies,
and internationally. Some environmentalists have blamed Judaeo-Christian ethics
for the tendency over the last two thousand years for western peoples to see themselves
in dominion over nature, and to pursue strategies of exploitation, rather than of
stewardship (White, 1967).
From the late sixteenth century the Protestant ethic spread in the west, and
ideas of utopia were discussed—the individual was encouraged to be responsible
for self-improvement through good acts and hard work (Weber, 1958; Hill, 1964).
However, few tried to shift laissez-faire attitudes towards environmental
management before the 1960s. Activists in the 1960s and 1970s added little to
environmental science; however, they did stimulate a quest for new development
and environment ethics (Cheny, 1989; Dower, 1989; Barrow, 1995a:14–16). From
the 1980s interest in the environment has grown, stimulating books and journals
(e.g. Environmental Ethics; Ethics & Behaviour; Ethics, Place and Environment;
Environmental Values; Science, Technology & Human Values). Interestingly, some
progressive environmental ethics literature has come from business. Unfortunately,
there is plenty of environmental ethics theory, but little ethical pragmatism! Carley
and Christie (1992:78) tried to summarize the range of environmental ethics,
dividing them into:
(a)
Technocratic environmental ethics=resource-exploitative, growth-oriented;
(b)
Managerial environmental ethics=resource-conservationist, oriented to
sustainable growth;
(c)
Communalist environmental ethics=resource-preservationist, oriented to limited
or zero growth;
(d)
Bioethicist or deep ecology environmental ethics=extreme preservationist, anti-
growth.
Grouping (a) is anthropocentric and places faith in the capacity of technology to
overcome problems. Grouping (d) is unlikely to attract support from enough
people to be a viable approach, and offers little guidance to environmental
managers. Carley and Christie felt the ethics of groups (b) and (c) were more
likely to support sustainable development and provide guidance for environmental
management.

---

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FUNDAMENTALS
25