Strong sustainability

Strong sustainability is a sociopolitical and ethical concept within the sustainability discourse for dealing with the societal and natural framework conditions on earth. It goes back to Konrad Ott and Ralf Döring , whose theory is also referred to as the “Greifswald approach” and largely draws on the work of Herman Daly .

“Strong sustainability” is defined as the requirement to preserve the remaining stocks of natural capital and also to invest in it. It goes hand in hand with a socio-political perspective that is based on a human-related value system that respects the natural world and calls into question profit-oriented systems.

Thus can a society that anhäufe Although property and Wissenskapitalien, their stocks of natural capital, however, neglect or exploitation run on them are not considered sustainable. This also applies to societies that exploit the natural capital of other peoples or profit from them.

development

The idea of sustainable development ("sustainable development") goes back to German forest science (around 1713) and at the end of the 20th century it was widely recognized as a guideline for environmental policy following the so-called Brundtland Report . The use and meaning of the term " sustainability " has since expanded continuously due to this success story.

Ott and others criticize in this context “There is hardly anything left that has not been given the attribute 'sustainable'. A term that increases in extension, however, loses its meaning ('intension'). ” According to Ott, this leads to the trivialization of the term from which primarily those who wanted to prevent an ecological orientation of the term benefited.

Strong sustainability versus weak sustainability

Ott and Döring dialectically contrast strong sustainability with the concept of weak sustainability . The central element of “weak sustainability” is that it assumes the substitutability of capital. According to Ott, the natural and social endowment of our world can be viewed as an ensemble of capital:

• Physical capital (means of production, transport and infrastructure)
• Human capital (existing knowledge, social institutions, etc.)
• Natural capital (our natural environment, animals, plants, raw materials, etc.)

For representatives of the weak form of sustainability, a system is also sustainable if the total capital (consisting of natural resources, human and physical capital) remains the same or increases. A decline in natural capital, i.e. the extraction of raw materials or the decline in natural habitats, is sustainable even if this is offset by increasing capital in other areas. In the concept of “weak sustainability”, for example, a forest can be substituted in future generations if its natural and cultural tasks are satisfied by other means. In this system, the focus is not on preserving the environment, but on maintaining and increasing overall prosperity . Thus the “weak sustainability” can also be described as anthropocentric . The triple bottom line of sustainable development shows the opinion of the representative of a "weak sustainability", the interchangeability (substitutability) between the three dimensions of sustainability. Ecology is equated with economy and the social dimension, which in practice can theoretically and partly practically justify overexploitation of nature.

The assessment of countries in terms of their sustainability, the sustainability indicators and political strategies vary depending on the choice of sustainability concept. “Strong sustainability” is based on the assumption that “weak sustainability” primarily addresses economic savings rates and “strong sustainability” primarily addresses physical variables (in relation to the destruction and consumption of natural capital).

The “strong sustainability” approach is based on B. the environmental space concept, the well-known ecological footprint or the “ guard rail model ”. According to him, the ecological parameters that ensure stable living conditions on earth in the long term form a development corridor that must be observed. Only within this corridor is there scope for the implementation of economic and social goals. As with Felix Ekhardt's later approaches , Ott relies on "intergenerational fair" sustainability.

Criteria for strong sustainability

Against the theoretical background of "strong sustainability", Ott formulated the following management rules:

1. Renewable resources may only be used to the extent that they are regenerated.
2. Finite raw materials and energy sources may only be consumed to the extent that, during their consumption, a physically and functionally equivalent substitute for renewable resources is created.
3. Pollutant emissions must not exceed the absorption capacity of the environmental media and ecosystems, and emissions of non-degradable pollutants must be minimized regardless of the extent to which free carrying capacity is still available.

Effect in the sustainability debate

The sustainability debate is repeatedly influenced by different currents. The concept of ecosystem services introduced by Costanza in 1997 opposes Ott's strong sustainability at least in a few points. While Ott also speaks out against a theoretical substitutability of natural capital, the advocates of the ecosystem service approach try precisely to convert the “services” of natural systems into an adequate monetary value .

From the point of view of critics, the three-pillar model gives the floor to a weak sustainable development. As early as 2002 (Chapter 1.4), the German Advisory Council on Environmental Issues (SRU) criticized the federal government for the fact that the three-pillar model calls for the mutual integration of economic, ecological and social issues. It thus contradicts the so-called cross-sectional principle of environmental policy , which was also anchored in the Amsterdam Treaty and which initially called for the integration of environmental concerns into all policy areas. The SRU has been advocating strong sustainability since 2002. In 2008 he said with regard to the “national sustainability strategy” that “strong sustainability” requires that natural capital, on the use of which all economic activity depends, be preserved in the long term. The use of nature's services must be regulated globally and fairly. The federal government at the time (Schröder II cabinet) subscribed to this understanding of sustainability: “Maintaining the earth's carrying capacity is the absolute outer limit; Within this framework, the realization of the various political goals is to be optimized. ” According to the SRU, the balancing of economic, social and ecological goals (the so-called three-pillar model) becomes a secondary question. The Council saw it as a given that the Federal Government was saying goodbye to an understanding of sustainability as a “feel-good issue”. Overall, the time horizon of the sustainability strategy according to the SRU should be extended to at least 50 years for a requirement. The goal of intergenerational equity can only be implemented with a longer time perspective.

Current examples from climate protection confirm the irreplaceability of nature. The conservationist and filmmaker Ulrich Eichelmann presents a few examples with a wide range in his film Climate Crimes (2012). Eichelmann shows how the destruction of nature takes place under the highly publicized title of "sustainable climate protection projects" to generate "green energy". The filmmaker refers to various dam projects, for example in the Mesopotamian swamps in Iraq, in the tropical rainforests of Amazonia and in southeast Turkey (Illisu). The rapid expansion of hydropower, biogas and diesel is destroying natural landscapes that cannot be replaced by “compensatory measures”.

In this context, the post-growth economist Niko Paech speaks out in favor of an economic form of "non-growth" and against a "sustainable" green economy .

literature

• Konrad Ott, Ralf Döring: Theory and practice of strong sustainability. 2nd Edition. Metropolis Verlag, Marburg 2008, ISBN 978-3-89518-695-0 .
• Konrad Ott: Introduction to environmental ethics. Junius Verlag, Hamburg 2010, ISBN 978-3-88506-677-4 .
• Christian Baatz, Konrad Ott, Barbara Muraca: Strong Sustainability as a Frame of Sustainability Communication. In: Jasemin Godemann, Gerd Michelsen: Sustainability Communication. Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoretical Foundations. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, ISBN 978-94-007-1696-4 , pp. 13-26.

Web links

• Ralf Döring : How strong is weak sustainability, how weakly strong? In: Economic discussion papers. of the Ernst Moritz Arndt University Greifswald, Faculty of Law and Political Science, No. 08/2004 (online at: econstor.eu , PDF; 424 kB)
• strong and weak sustainability. In: Lexicon of Sustainability. Strong sustainability with a tabular representation of the differences between the two approaches, taken from: Steurer: Paradigms of Sustainability. In: Journal for Environmental Policy and Environmental Law. 24.2001 / 4, pp. 537-566. (online at: sustainability.info )

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Tanja von Egan-Krieger, Konrad Ott, Lieske Voget: The protection of the natural heritage as a postulate of responsibility for the future. In: APUZ. 24/2007.
2. ^ Online encyclopedia of the Aachen Foundation Kathy Beys . accessed on March 22, 2013.
3. ↑ Ralf Döring, Konrad Ott: Sustainability Concept. ( Memento of the original from February 22, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , zfwu, 2/3 (2001), 315-339, p. 320 accessed online on March 22, 2013. (pdf; 312 kB) 
4. ↑ Federal Agency for Civic Education: The protection of the natural heritage as a postulate of responsibility for the future. May 31, 2007, accessed online on March 22, 2013.
5. ^ Robert Costanza et al: The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital . In: Nature . 387, May 1997, pp. 253-260, doi : 10.1038 / 387253a0
6. ^ Michael Kraack, Heinrich Pehle, Petra Zimmermann-Steinhart: Environmental integration in the European Union. The environmental profile of the EU in a comparison of policy fields. (Integration of Europe and order of the world economy, Vol. 23). Nomos, Baden-Baden 2001 ISBN 3-7890-7623-6 .
7. ↑ Progress towards "strong sustainability". ( Memento of the original from February 22, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. on: umweltrat.de