Why the “future generations” incentive needs to be reinvented

       

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” – the Brundtland Report

An iconic moment in the history of sustainable development rhetoric was when 12-year old Canadian Severn Suzuki-Cullis took to task world leaders in a powerful speech at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) – the Earth Summit – in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. “Coming here today, I have no hidden agenda. I am fighting for my future. Losing my future is not like losing an election or a few points on the stock market. I am here to speak for all generations to come.”

            Very effectively, her speech crystallised the necessity for world leaders to take a firm stand on sustainable development, and to bear responsibility for future generations. More than two decades after her speech, young people are expected to have worse economic prospects than their parents owing to the economic downturn; the critical milestone of 400 parts per million of CO2 got registered at the Mauna Loa observatory in May 2013 and the figure keeps climbing; loss of biodiversity is occurring at an impressive rate while the planets’ key life support systems like forests and oceans are under threat of collapse due to anthropogenic activities including pollution, extractive industries, and climate change. All of this, despite decision-makers’ commitment to “future generations”.

            It is therefore time to shift the narrative. The Brundtland Report of 1987, the seminal document which introduced the concept of ‘sustainable development’, highlights responsibility towards future generations. Over the past years, the words “future generations” have been used steadfastly in major political narrative. At the same time, youth have been increasingly clamouring for a seat at the policy-making table, only to be placated with the words “you are the leaders of tomorrow”, which does not carry the potency of a formal recognition that “you are leaders in your own right today”.  What needs to shift, and urgently, is the recognition of the present – the now.

            Instead of looking at sustainable development for future generations, it is important to recognise that this is a dangerous way of creating a time bubble that postpones responsibility to act. Young people are already aware of the degradation to the planet and its systems occurring today; youth also recognise the complexity, unfairness, and sheer irrationality in the economic systems of today. By virtue of their own advocacy to reclaim ownership of policies and processes, as demonstrated by the Arab Spring and the Occupy Movements, youth recognise the social pillar of sustainable development. 

The rhetoric of ‘future generations’ coupled with the ‘leaders of tomorrow’ adds a dimension of procrastination. What exactly do we mean by future generations? How far in the future are we talking about? What makes us responsible for these abstract people in the future? By not putting a concrete time-stamp on action, it is easier to avoid the jarring reality that drastic changes are needed in our economic system to ensure sustainable development now. Furthermore, the threats facing us are profoundly systemic in nature – in fact issues such as climate change and macroeconomic stability are highlighted in the WEF Global Risks Report 2014. This means that very often, actions are delayed because there is no straightforward solution which in return means that nobody knows just how to go about tackling these issues, thus making it easier to postpone, and even ignore one of the most striking messages of Cullis’s speech: “if you don’t know how to fix it, don’t break it!”

The other thing that attributing our current action to future generations does is to place current decision makers in a paternal, detached position turning them from “responsible” to “saviour”. It allows a certain complacency firstly by presuming that future generations will come up with better solutions so we are allowed to fail; and secondly by providing the excuse that “hey, we tried what we could”, because it enables us to acquire the moral upper hand that our actions are benevolently oriented towards the welfare of other people, rather than being guided by the intrinsic values behind sustainable development. The easiest way to illustrate this is by using the example of conservation, say, of tigers or pandas. Should we prevent these species from disappearing so that future generations can enjoy them, or because these magnificent species have an inherent right to inhabit this planet – irrespective of man’s enjoyment or economic rationale behind? Another example would be economic inequality: should we make sure that bad decisions on finance are avoided so that future generations can benefit from prosperity, or should we avoid the said bad decisions because they are inherently stupid and because the inequality and instability that they provoke are bad?

The third reason why the ‘future generations’ talk needs to be changed is because of the sheer pace of destruction. On one level, a key characteristic of youth is their energy, drive, and impatience to effect change, combined with an imperviousness to political rhetoric. On another level, the speed of action from governments, the private sector and even civil society is not matching the speed at which our planet, and with it the prospects for humanity, are being damaged. This, against a background of galloping consumerism and increasingly complex product life cycles and value chains. Young people are consuming more – it’s a fact. More technology, more energy, more products that didn’t even exist a few decades back. 

These products draw resources from a larger base than can be imagined  think of the complexity of our indispensable smartphones for example, and our consumption of energy when we need to charge their batteries, as well as the waste management required when these are disposed of. Future Generations are likely to have even more complex needs and wants which will impose an even bigger toll on the planet, unless we change our patterns of consumption and production now. Action is thus needed – for the present generation itself.

This said, being concerned about future generations is not a bad thing in itself – it can even act as a powerful motivator in the same way that concern for people we’ve never met leads us to mobilise funds and support for people in other countries and humanitarian efforts. However, direct action needs to happen, and it is clear that the “future generation” rhetoric is not being a successful one as far as stirring one’s conscience to take drastic action goes. Maybe in the future it could work.    
source : eco-barkha