Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 15
2
History of Sustainability
Sustainability is based on a simple and long-recognized factual premise:
Everything that humans require for their survival and well-being depends, directly
or indirectly, on the natural environment (Marsh 1864). The environment provides
the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat. It defines in funda -
mental ways the communities in which we live and is the source for renewable
and nonrenewable resources on which civilization depends. Our health and well-
being, our economy, and our security all require a high quality environment.
When we act on that understanding, we tend to prosper; when we do not, we
suffer. For example, the Dust Bowl of the 1930s occurred because wheat farmers
were encouraged by the federal government to plow up sod across large areas of
the high plains in Texas and Oklahoma at a time when precipitation was more
plentiful. When customarily dry conditions recurred, huge dust storms swept
across the unprotected landscape, making farming impractical and life much
more difficult and hazardous due to dust pneumonia. Soil conservation practices,
including crop rotation and fallowing land, were introduced on a large-scale basis
afterward, and the Dust Bowl has not recurred (Egan 2006). Nonetheless, aquifer
depletion, climate change, and unsustainable farming practices all render the
Great Plains increasingly vulnerable to severe drought (Adler 2010).
This chapter provides a brief history of the concept of sustainable develop -
ment or sustainability. Although the Committee on Incorporating Sustainability
in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was not specifically tasked
to provide an historical overview, this history is useful in providing context for
the rest of the report. Conceptually, sustainable development emerged as a result
of significant concerns about the unintended social, environmental, and economic
consequences of rapid population growth, economic growth, and consumption of
15
OCR for page 16
16 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
natural resources. This history has three overlapping story lines, as more fully
explained below. The first occurred in the United States as a conservation move -
ment, which developed from the recognition that our taming of the wilderness
was destroying much of what we valued as part of the U.S. culture—a recogni-
tion that led to conservation laws which began to emerge in the late nineteenth
century. The second was based on the realization that some of the chemical and
physical agents increasingly released into the environment because of industrial
development were harmful to people and the environment—a realization that led
to such events as the original Earth Day and the formation of EPA in 1970 and
the ensuing media and pollutant-based environmental laws.
The third story line is based upon the perception that population growth
and consumption are challenging the ability of Earth’s ecosystems to provide
for future generations and that the response to this challenge requires more than
“place-based” (see Appendix C) conservation or the control of environmental
pollutants. The institutionalization of this began with a series of international
conferences and agreements that were—to a very large degree—based on and
inspired by actions that were already under way in the United States. Although
formal international endorsement of sustainable development occurred at the
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED or Earth
Summit) in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, many of its underlying concepts and prin-
ciples had long been recognized in U.S. law and policy. Since the Earth Summit,
the most successful U.S. efforts have been in response to stakeholder or constitu -
ent demand. However, in contrast to the United States, the third story line also
contains the explicit and strategic use of the concept of sustainable development
in other developed countries.
CONSERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES
The conservation and preservation movements in the United States—and the
laws that were enacted in response to these—represented an effort to reconcile
economic development with the protection of the environment by ensuring the
availability of natural resources for the benefit of both present and future gen -
erations (Van Hise 1927, Fox 1981). It was also a response to the destruction of
native virgin forests by logging and conversion to agriculture, as well as to the
extinction of species such as the passenger pigeon and the near extinction of
the American bison (more popularly known as the buffalo). As the movement
evolved over the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, its objectives
included protection of forests, water, soils, public lands, and wildlife (Beatty
1952, Hays 1959, Reiger 1975, Norse 2005). Early fish biologists and ecolo -
gists also played an important role in advancing the concepts and methods re -
lated to sustainable fish consumption and harvesting and sustainable ecosystems.
There was also an understanding among American’s leading conservationists that
human well-being relied on all natural resources. Gifford Pinchot, the first chief
OCR for page 17
17
HISTORY OF SUSTAINABILITY
of the U.S. Forest Service, wrote that “our unexampled wealth and well-being
are directly due to the superb natural resources of our country” (Pinchot 1910).
Pinchot later added that the first purpose of conservation policy is “wisely to use,
protect, preserve, and renew the natural resources of the earth” (Pinchot 1947).
Conservation was successful due to the vision of leading conservationists such as
Pinchot and John Muir; however, the movement also required political leadership
to gain traction. In the early 1900s, Theodore Roosevelt, the “conservation presi-
dent,” signed legislation establishing five national parks, and created or expanded
many national forests, wildlife preserves, and other conservation areas (Brinkley
2009). “The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute
the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our
National life,” Roosevelt told Congress. “We must maintain for our civilization
the adequate material basis without which that civilization can not exist. We
must show foresight, we must look ahead” (Roosevelt 1907). Other conservation
laws and programs require or encourage greater efficiency in the use of natural
resources, and still others impose limits on harvesting natural resources so that
those resources will be able to regenerate or reproduce for use in the future (Hays
1959; Leopold 1986).
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN THE UNITED STATES
The environmental movement in the United States, which is broad in scope,
responded to growing industrialization, population, and pollution, as well as to
resource exploitation (Lazarus 2004). It was motivated by a public desire for
higher quality of life and well-being, improved human health, and long-term pro-
tection of ecosystems (Hays 1987). A major issue is adverse effects of pollutants,
pesticides, and chemicals on humans and the environment. For example, at least
20 people died and thousands were sickened in 1948 in Donora, Pennsylvania,
during an episode of industrial air pollution. In 1962, Rachel Carson published
Silent Spring, which described the potential impact of pesticides on birds and ani-
mals and suggested that humans were also being harmed (Carson 1962). Public
perception of dirty air and rivers that were no longer suitable for swimming or
fishing, and a landscape littered with industrial waste were driving forces in the
development of media-specific laws and in the formation of EPA. There was
also concern that the federal government was often supporting environmentally
damaging economic development in the form of federal dams, highway projects,
stream-channelization and flood-control projects, and other activities that had
unintended adverse environmental effects (Andrews 2006).
The first major federal environmental law is the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). In declaring a national policy “to create and maintain
conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and ful-
fill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations
of Americans” (42 U.S.C. § 4331(a)), Congress provided a statutory foundation
OCR for page 18
18 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
for sustainability within the EPA. By its very nature, NEPA emphasizes the im-
portance of sustainability. This provision is particularly true because Congress
then stated that “the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government” is to,
among other things, “fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of
the environment for succeeding generations” (42 U.S.C. § 4331(b)(1)). NEPA
then states that this and other similar responsibilities are in addition to exist -
ing grants of agency authority: “The policies and goals set forth in this Act are
supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of Federal agencies”
(42 U.S.C. § 4335; ELI 1995).
Beyond its declaration of policy, NEPA requires that federal agencies pre -
pare an environmental impact statement before taking a major action “signifi -
cantly affecting the quality of the human environment” (42 U.S.C. § 4332 (c)).
The statement is to include both a description of the environmental effects of
the proposed action as well as alternatives to that action. In this way, NEPA
requires federal agencies take into account environmental considerations into
their decision-making processes (42 U.S.C. § 4332 (c)). 1
Through the 1950s and 1960s, Congress passed legislation concerning air
quality, water quality, and other environmental problems. Beginning in 1970,
however, it overhauled these prior laws to impose limits and permitting require-
ments to protect air quality (Clean Air Amendments of 1970) and water quality
(Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 [PL 92-500]), to protect
drinking water (Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974), and to prevent and control ad -
verse effects from the improper disposal of solid and hazardous waste (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] of 1976). These statutes used a “co-
operative federalism” approach in which the federal government sets standards
and states are given substantial financial support to enforce and implement these
requirements.
In 1980, in response to risks presented by sites where hazardous substances
had been improperly disposed, Congress adopted the Comprehensive Environ -
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which estab -
lished Superfund. This act imposes liability on certain parties for conditions
on these sites and establishes a process for their remediation. Additionally, the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which was first
passed in 1947, now mandates that EPA “regulate the use and sale of pesticides
to protect human health and preserve the environment” (EPA 2010).
In the late 1960s, at the beginning of the modern environmental era, fed-
eral responsibility for environmental protection was divided among many federal
agencies, including the U.S. Department of the Interior (water quality), the U.S.
1Both Congress and the courts have decided that the environmental impact statement requirements
of NEPA are generally inapplicable to EPA decisions, in no small part because the statutes EPA
administers contain information gathering and analytical requirements that are considered the
“functional equivalent” of an environmental impact statement (Rodgers 1994, 1999, § 9.5(D)(2)).
That exemption does not appear to apply to other provisions of NEPA, however.
OCR for page 19
19
HISTORY OF SUSTAINABILITY
Department of Agriculture (pesticides), and the U.S. Department of Health, Edu -
cation, and Welfare (air quality). An advisory council identified the government
organization at that time as an impediment to effectively addressing “the environ-
mental crisis, noting that “many agency missions . . . are designed primarily along
media lines. . . . Yet the sources of air, water, and land pollution are interrelated
and often interchangeable.” The advisory council added that “some pollutants—
chemicals, radiation, pesticides—appear in all media. Successful interdiction now
requires the coordinated efforts of a variety of separate agencies and departments.
The result is a blurring of focus, and a certain Federally-sponsored irrationality”
(PACEO 1970).
In response to the advisory council, President Richard Nixon in 1970 created
the EPA by a reorganization plan that transferred to the new agency a variety of
environmental functions from four federal agencies (Reorganization Plan No. 3
of 1970, codified at 5A U.S.C.). The agency’s overall mission, then and now, is
to protect human health and the environment.
EPA is the primary federal agency responsible for administering most of
the major environmental statutes, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
Act, RCRA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and CERCLA. However, EPA is
not the only agency with environmental responsibilities. The U.S. Department
of the Interior, for example, is the federal agency with primary responsibility
for administering the Endangered Species Act (1973) and the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act (1977). The U.S. Department of Transportation
and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) have significant responsibilities for
federal energy efficiency, operation, and cleanup at DOE sites nationwide and
for meeting conservation requirements, which affect the environment in a variety
of ways. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program administers,
in coordination with the EPA, the issuance of permits under section 404 of the
1972 Federal Water Pollution Act amendments, which controls development in
wetlands across the nation.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Although sustainable development was formally endorsed at an international
conference in 1992, it was supported by the United States and is based to a sig -
nificant degree on U.S. law and experience. Since that time, the United States has
approached sustainable development in a manner that is somewhat different from
other countries, particularly developed countries, as discussed below.
Sustainable Development at the International Level
At the end of World War II, the United States led an effort to create a system
of international agreements and institutions based on two pillars—economic
development as well as social development or human rights—that are predicated
OCR for page 20
20 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
on a foundation of peace and security. These key elements formed the basis of the
concept of development as it was formally understood by the international com-
munity (Dernbach 1998; Schlesinger 2003; Borgwardt 2005). The ultimate aims
of development are human well-being, quality of life, freedom, and opportunity
(WCED 1987; Sen 1999; Sarkar 2009; De Feyter 2001).
Development has worked well in many ways. Living standards have increased
around the world, the global economy has grown, and people are living longer
(UNDP 1999). Development has also caused growing problems of resource ex -
ploitation and pollution around the world. These concerns led to the creation of
the Environment Committee in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) (OECD 2001), which held its inaugural meeting under
an American chairperson in November 1970. In 1972, in Stockholm, the United
Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment agreed to establish the
UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) (UNEP 2011a). This conference did not,
however, provide a framework for reconciling development with environmental
protection.
In the 1970s and 1980s, however, it became increasingly clear that the inter-
related issues of widespread poverty and growing environmental degradation
around the world were not being effectively addressed and that the development
model needed to be modified.
In 1980, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) pub -
lished its World Conservation Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sus-
tainable Development (IUCN 1980). The strategy represented the “integration
of conservation and development” in the form of “sustainable development.” It
defined conservation as the “management of human use of the biosphere so that
it may yield the greatest sustainable benefit to present generations while main -
taining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations.” The
IUCN acknowledged the difficulty of merging the two concepts: “Conservation
and development have so seldom been combined that they often appear—and are
sometimes represented as being—incompatible.” It nonetheless concluded that
“integration of conservation and development” is needed to “ensure that modifi -
cations to the planet do indeed secure the survival and well-being of all people.”
The World Commission on Environment and Development (known as the
Brundtland Commission, after its chair, Gro Harlem Brundtland), adopted this
approach in its seminal 1987 report, Our Common Future (WCED 1987). The
commission was created by a UN General Assembly Resolution in 1983 to “pro -
pose long-term environmental strategies for achieving sustainable development
to the year 2000 and beyond” (UNGA 1983). The report, which described “a
threatened future,” provided the iconic definition of sustainable development:
“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the abil -
ity of future generations to meet their own needs.” The Commission also called
upon the UN General Assembly to transform its report into a global action plan
for sustainable development.
OCR for page 21
21
HISTORY OF SUSTAINABILITY
The nations of the world did precisely that at the 1992 UN Conference on
Environment and Development, or “Earth Summit,” in Rio de Janeiro (scheduled
to coincide with the twentieth anniversary of the Stockholm Conference). These
nations, including the United States, endorsed a global sustainable development
action plan, known as Agenda 21 (UNCED 1992a), and a set of 27 principles for
sustainable-development, called the Rio Declaration (UNCED 1992b). Together,
these agreements modify the definition of development by adding a third pillar—
environmental protection and restoration—to the economic and social pillars
of development, and is also known as the “Triple Bottom Line” approach in
the corporate sector. Sustainable development has the same ultimate aims as
development—human well-being, quality of life, freedom, and opportunity. It
also requires a foundation of peace and security (UNCED 1992a,b; Dernbach
1998; UN 2002).
The principles of the Rio Declaration are generally recognized as founda -
tional to global sustainability. Many of the principles are similar to those con -
tained in U.S. conservation and environmental law. They include the following:
• “Human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable develop-
ment” (Principle 1). This principle makes clear that human well-being
and quality of life is the objective of sustainability. This declaration is
similar to that contained in NEPA. Achieving sustainable development
requires recognizing the need to balance the conservation of resources
while protecting humans from the uncertainties of nature.
• “In order to achieve sustainable development, environmental protection
shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be
considered in isolation from it” (Principle 4). This principle—integrated
decision making—is the fundamental action principle of sustainability
because it integrates the social, environmental, and economic decision
making on issues, rather than considering the environmental issues sepa-
rately (Dernbach 2003). This principle is reflected in different ways in
each U.S. conservation and environmental law.
• Precautionary approach. “Where there are threats of serious or irrevers-
ible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason
for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degra-
dation” (Principle 15). The U.S. Clean Air Act and other environmental
laws enable the adoption of standards based on the possibility of harm
rather than complete certainty (Ashford and Caldart 2008). (The rela -
tion between sustainability and precaution also has been considered by
O’Riordan and Cameron 1994, as well as others.)
• Intergenerational equity. The Rio Declaration’s acknowledgement of
the need “to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs
of present and future generations” (Principle 3) is reflected expressly in
NEPA and implicitly in nearly all U.S. laws related to the environment.
OCR for page 22
22 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
The sustainability literature has emphasized the need for social justice
and equity, particularly in the global context. Dernbach (2002) notes the
link between these concepts: “Poor people in developed and developing
countries tend to be exposed to the worst environmental conditions . . .
without efforts to reduce poverty and environmental degradation for the
present generation, it will be difficult to ensure that future generations
will have the same access to the same quality of environment or devel-
opmental conditions as the present generation.”
• Internalization of environmental costs (Principle 16). The “approach that
the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution” is reflected
in varying degrees throughout U.S. environmental law. (At the interna-
tional level, the “polluter pays principle” had earlier been adopted by
the OECD Council on May 26,1972 as part of the OECD Guiding Prin-
ciples Concerning the International Economic Aspects of Environmental
Policies).
• Public participation in decision making (Principle 10).
• “Environmental issues are best handled with participation of all con-
cerned citizens, at the relevant level.” The Rio Declaration also supports
public access to information as well as justice. U.S. environmental law is
based on a variety of opportunities for public participation (ELI 1991).
The commitments to sustainable development made at UNCED have been
essentially reaffirmed, with differing levels of emphasis, in a variety of meet -
ings and conferences since 1992. Box 2-1 identifies some of the key meetings.
Sustainable-development concepts have also been incorporated into a variety
of international treaties, including the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, both of which were opened
BOX 2‑1
International Sustainable Development Conferences
Several commitments and conferences related to sustainable development are
of note:
• genda 21, Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (UNCED
A
1992a,b)
• rogramme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 (UN 1997)
P
• illennium Declaration (UN 2000)
M
• ohannesburg Plan of Implementation, World Summit on Sustainable Develop-
J
ment (UN 2002)
• N Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio de Janeiro, June 4-6, 2012
U
(UNCSD 2011)
OCR for page 23
23
HISTORY OF SUSTAINABILITY
for signature at the Earth Summit. As the twentieth anniversary of the Earth Sum-
mit approaches, sustainable development has become a key part of the generally
recognized international framework for maintaining and improving the human
condition (UNGA 2010). Moreover, apart from international conferences and
declarations, a great many sustainability activities are occurring throughout the
world, and particularly by nongovernmental organizations and the private sec-
tor who often refer to sustainability as the “triple bottom line” (Hawken 2007,
WBCSD 2011).
The long-term importance of this framework is underscored by a 1999 NRC
report, Our Common Journey, which said that it could take at least two gen-
erations (until 2050) to achieve a transition to sustainability (NRC 1999). The
recommended primary goals of this transition “should be to meet the needs of a
much larger but stabilizing human population, to sustain the life support systems
of the planet, and to substantially reduce hunger and poverty” (p.4).
The framework also requires new forms of knowledge. Sustainability science
has arisen as an emerging field that is problem-driven and interdisciplinary and
sets a goal of “creating and applying knowledge in support of decision making
for sustainable development” (Clark and Dickson 2003, Clark 2007). By draw -
ing on multiple disciplines, such as law, engineering, and social and natural sci -
ences, sustainability science is “defined by the problems it addresses rather than
the disciplines it uses” (Clark 2007). Fiksel et al. (2009) noted that “EPA must
continue to use science to fulfill its mandate” to protect human health and the
environment and also to “use sustainability science to move beyond the current
regulatory framework and to develop a more integrated systems-based approach
to address challenges of this new century.”
Sustainable Development Outside the United States
Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration were not simply agreements about sus-
tainability ideas; they were also agreements to achieve sustainability. Certain sub -
sequent actions and experiences of countries and regions outside the United States,
particularly those of the European Union (EU), are thus worth noting briefly. Even
a brief review suggests that many countries, including developed countries, tend to
address sustainable development as a policy objective or framework. As of 2009,
106 UN member countries were implementing national sustainable-development
strategies (UNESA 2011). The EU’s sustainable-development strategy is particu-
larly relevant to the United States. The EU’s sustainable-development strategy
was first adopted in 2001 and then renewed in 2006 (CEU 2006a,b). Its basic
aims are to exploit “the mutually reinforcing elements of economic, social and
environment policy” and to avoid or minimize trade-offs among goals (CEC 2005,
p.4). “Sustainable development offers the [EU] a positive long-term vision of a
society that is more prosperous and more just, and which promises a cleaner, safer,
healthier environment—a society which delivers a better quality of life for us, for
OCR for page 24
24 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
our children, and for our grandchildren” (CEC 2001, p.2). The strategy identifies
the following areas as priorities and contains specific measures to address them:
climate change and clean energy; sustainable transport; sustainable consumption
and production; conservation and management of natural resources; public health;
social inclusion, demography, and migration; and global poverty and sustainable
development challenges (CEU 2006b). In a 2009 review of progress in imple-
menting its sustainable-development strategy, the European Commission said that
“the EU has demonstrated its clear commitment to sustainable development and
has successfully mainstreamed this sustainability dimension into many policy
fields” (CEC 2009, p.3). The review added that integration of policy objectives
is “improving the cost-efficiency of policy decisions” (p.3), and noted progress
in developing “a low-carbon and resource-efficient economy” (p.3), which it said
would be a key to economic recovery. Still, “unsustainable trends persist and the
EU still needs to intensify its efforts” (p.15). The European Commission issues a
biennial report that monitors the EU’s progress in implementing its sustainable-
development strategy; the most recent report was issued in 2009 (Box 2-2) (CEC
2009).
The OECD, which is composed of 34 of the world’s most highly developed
countries, including the United States, creates and analyzes information and
trends concerning the environment and sustainable development and provides
opportunities for relevant government officials in OECD countries to meet and
share information and ideas concerning good policy practice in the areas of
environment and sustainable development and to adopt internationally binding
agreements in some of them, notably, chemical safety and hazardous waste. For
example, in 1989, in the context of freshwater use, the OECD developed the
BOX 2‑2
2009 Monitoring Report of EU
Sustainable‑Development Strategy
The European Commission’s report uses more than 100 indicators but identi-
fies 11 “headline indicators” to provide an “overall picture of whether the EU has
achieved progress toward sustainable development in terms of the objectives and
targets” identified in the strategy. Progress on two indicators—gross domestic
product (GDP) per capita and resource productivity—was identified as clearly
favorable, using the symbol of a shining sun. For other indicators, there was no
or moderately favorable change, indicated by the symbol of a sun obscured by
clouds. These indicators included energy consumption of transportation in rela-
tion to GDP growth, healthy life years, the employment rate of older workers, and
the abundance of common birds. Unfavorable trends included greenhouse gas
emissions (moderately unfavorable, symbolized by clouds) and conservation of
fish stocks (clearly unfavorable, symbolized by clouds with lightning) (CEU 2009).
OCR for page 25
25
HISTORY OF SUSTAINABILITY
“user pays principle,” a concept of pricing natural-resource use to “at least cover
the opportunity costs of these services: the capital, operation, maintenance, and
environmental costs” (Ruffing 2010). According to the OECD, “these opportunity
costs should reflect the long-run incremental costs to the community of satisfying
marginal demand” (Ruffing 2010). Such a charging system is usually known “as
long-run marginal social cost pricing” (Ruffing 2010).
Sustainable Development in the United States
Many of the key principles and concepts in sustainable development are
rooted in, or similar to, concepts in U.S. conservation and environmental law.
Generally, U.S. conservation and environmental law has advanced sustainability
in some areas. Nonetheless, the United States has not used a national strategy or
sustainability “indicators” (see Appendix C), and a great deal more needs to be
done to achieve sustainability in the United States.
U.S. environmental and conservation laws are related to all three pillars
of sustainability, not just the environmental pillar. The laws have at least nine
purposes, including protection of human health, preservation for aesthetics or
recreation, biocentrism, sustainability of the resource base, environmental jus-
tice, efficiency, pursuit of scientific knowledge and technology, intergenerational
equity, and community stability (Campbell-Mohn 1993). The purposes of envi-
ronmental and conservation laws are not limited to environmental protection;
these laws also have social and economic development goals and effects. There is
inherent difficulty in labeling any of these purposes as strictly social, environmen -
tal, or economic. Protection of human health, for instance, can be understood as
environmental because it primarily concerns protection from pollutants, waste, and
chemicals that are emitted or discharged into the environment. Yet human health
protection can also be understood as social and economic because it involves
humans rather than the environment and other species and often involves equity
issues, such as the benefits accrual to parties different from those burdened with
significant risk. On the other hand, biocentrism, which “seeks to preserve natural
systems because they have inherent value beyond their usefulness to humans,” and
which is only weakly reflected in U.S. environmental law (Campbell-Mohn 1993),
along with ecological risk, fit primarily in the environmental pillar.
In addition, cost-effective programs have been established in the United
States that resulted in lower pollutant emissions. For example, in 1990 Congress
amended the Clean Air Act to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from large coal-
fired power plants by 50 percent over 10 years (104 Stat. 2468, P.L. 101-549).
The act used a cap-and-trade program to achieve that result. Under this pro -
gram, plants with lower control costs that reduce their emissions beyond legal
requirements are allowed to “trade” their excess reductions to plants with higher
control costs, thus enabling a cost-effective way to achieve the emission limit.
The program cost only 20 to 30 percent of projected expenditures (EDF 2011).
OCR for page 26
26 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
In addition, a 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) study found that
this program accounted for over $70 billion annually in quantified human health
benefits—the largest of any major federal regulatory program implemented in the
last 10 years (OMB 2003).
Finally, environmental and conservation laws have also had the effect of
fostering sustainability in the United States. The air is cleaner and more healthful
to breathe, our rivers and lakes are cleaner, and waste is much better managed,
even as the economy has grown (EPA 2008). This development means that EPA
has fostered sustainability to some degree through its implementation of these
laws. In spite of the similarities between U.S. environmental law and sustain -
able development, there are some important differences. Most obviously, sus -
tainable development is a normative conceptual framework that is broader than
the sum of U.S. environmental and conservation laws. Sustainable development
also raises questions that are not fully or directly addressed in U.S. law or policy,
including how to define and control unsustainable patterns of production and
consumption and how to encourage the development of sustainable communi -
ties, biodiversity protection, clean energy, environmentally sustainable economic
development, and climate change controls. Each of these questions needs to be
addressed across government agencies.
During President Clinton’s Administration, the United States took a step in
the direction of a national effort on behalf of sustainability with the President’s
Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). Created by an executive order
in 1993 and terminated by another executive order in 1999, the council issued
a series of reports containing recommendations for sustainability. Its primary
report was Sustainable America: A New Consensus for Prosperity, Opportunity,
and a Healthy Environment for the Future (PCSD 1996). It stated, “A sustainable
United States will have a growing economy that provides equitable opportunities
for satisfying livelihoods and a safe, healthy, high quality of life for current and
future generations” (p.iv). None of the PCSD’s reports, however, constituted a
national strategy or provided for any continuing effort on behalf of sustainability
at the national level; nor did the federal government follow up on many of the
report’s recommendations. Since the elimination of the PCSD, there has been no
federal governmental body or organization tasked with determining or imple -
menting a coordinated sustainable-development policy for the United States.
According to the most recent OECD review for the United States, the country
was well above the OECD average for per capita water use and per capita carbon
dioxide emissions. U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen
oxides were also well above the OECD average per unit of gross domestic prod -
uct (GDP) (OECD 2005). The report also stated, “Decoupling of environmental
pressure from economic growth has been achieved in some areas, but the United
States still faces challenges with respect to high energy and water intensities,
environmental health risks, marine habitat conservation and maintenance of bio-
diversity” (p.1).
OCR for page 27
27
HISTORY OF SUSTAINABILITY
In addition, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) has published a series
of reports since 1997 describing and assessing U.S. sustainability efforts, and
making recommendations (Dernbach 1997, 2002, 2009). These reports indicate
that U.S. progress is modest at best. The 2009 report nonetheless identified six
areas where considerable progress is occurring. These areas are local gover-
nance, brownfield redevelopment, business and industry, colleges and universi-
ties, kindergarten through 12th grade education, and religious organizations.
A common characteristic of these areas is that their efforts are driven by the
threats of climate change (NRC 2010a, IPCC 2007), the global deterioration
of ecosystems (MEA 2005), and the availability of more sustainable ways of
approaching these and other issues (e.g., NRC 2010b; TEEB 2010). Another
common characteristic of these six areas is that their efforts are driven by their
members, customers, citizens, and stakeholders. For corporations, other sustain -
ability drivers include cost savings, competitive advantage, economic opportunity,
and consumer demand, not simply avoidance of government regulation (Feldman
2009; Porter and Kramer 2011). For communities, other sustainability drivers are
cost savings, reducing demand on utilities and infrastructure, and a desire to have
more attractive places to live and work (Mazmanian and Kraft 2009, Weiss 2009).
In all six of the areas, sustainability practitioners are learning what works and
what does not work from their peers, are using new communication technologies
to share information more rapidly, and are engaging in steadily more ambitious
and effective efforts to maximize environmental, economic, and social value.
Sustainability efforts in the United States are also increasingly affected by
three facts. First, the sustainability literature has made it clear that environmental
law and regulation provide only a set of legal approaches for sustainability and
that other approaches and incentives (e.g., subsidies, tax law, economic develop -
ment law, and private certification) also have an important role to play (UNCED
1992a, Richardson and Wood 2006). The other tools have come into greater focus
as ways, for example, to foster more sustainable communities (Fitzgerald 2010).
Somewhat similarly, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Better Build-
ings Initiative is using grants to state and local governments to help develop an
economic infrastructure that will make it easier for homeowners and business
owners to do cost-effective energy efficiency upgrades and retrofits of existing
buildings (DOE 2011).
Second, the economic recession that began in 2008 has helped reframe the
sustainability dialogue to some degree in terms of “green jobs” and “green busi -
ness.” In June 2009, the OECD governments, including the United States, adopted
a “Declaration on Green Growth,” recognizing that “a number of well-targeted
policy instruments” (p.2) encouraging green investment could help enable a
short-term economic recovery and create a more sustainable infrastructure for
the long term. The OECD also called for the development of “a Green Growth
Strategy in order to achieve economic recovery and environmentally and socially
sustainable economic growth” (OECD 2009, p.3). The Green Growth Strategy
OCR for page 28
28 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
was subsequently submitted to the Meeting of the OECD Council at Ministe -
rial Level, 25-26 May 2011 for endorsement (OECD 2011). In its 2011 report,
Towards a Green Economy, the UN Environment Program advocates a shift in
investment in key sectors (e.g., agriculture and energy) and suggests policies
such as “reduction or elimination of environmentally harmful subsidies” (p.9) to
achieve this shift (UNEP 2011b). The clean-energy sector in particular is seen by
many, particularly at the state and local level, as a source of economic and job
creation opportunity for the United States (Byrne et al. 2007). One of the two
themes for the conference to be held on the twentieth anniversary of the Earth
Summit, the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro in
June 2012, is “a green economy in the context of sustainable development and
poverty eradication.” (The other theme is the institutional framework for sustain-
able development [UNCSD 2011]).
The third factor affecting U.S. sustainability decisions is global competi -
tiveness. The globalization of economic activity and the accompanying result
of emergent global scale problems (e.g., biodiversity, climate change, risk of
pandemics), limitations of current institutional approaches at the global, national,
regional and local levels, and the evolution of global, middle-class consumer
values in major emerging markets help explain why sustainability has emerged as
such a powerful challenge and opportunity for EPA and other institutions in the
United States. China is increasingly seen as a major, even dominating, economic
competitor in renewable energy and certain other forms of clean energy. The
reasons for China’s competitiveness include the government’s support for such
energy businesses, the inexpensive labor costs, and the large size of the Chinese
market. China provides an additional reason for the United States to more aggres -
sively pursue development of clean-energy technologies and sustainability. The
EU also emphasizes the value of sustainability to its economic competitiveness.
In its 2006 Annex to the “Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy,” the
economy is listed first. (Sustainability “promotes dynamic economy with full
employment, and a high level of education, health protection, social and territorial
cohesion and environmental protection” [CEU 2006b, p.2]).
Sustainability in This Report
The 2009 Executive Order [EO 13514] applies a definition of sustainabil -
ity that is drawn from NEPA: “to create and maintain conditions, under which
humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the
social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations.” This
report also uses that definition.
The phrase, “create and maintain,” captures the two senses in which the term
sustainability is used by the committee in this report—as a process and as a goal.
Sustainability is a process because the United States and other countries are a
long way from being sustainable, and it is thus necessary to create the conditions
OCR for page 29
29
HISTORY OF SUSTAINABILITY
for sustainability (NRC 1999). Sustainability is also a goal. As sustainability is
achieved in particular places and contexts, it is necessary to maintain the condi-
tions supporting it in the face of social, technological, environmental, and other
changes. Although the exact nature of a sustainable society is difficult to know in
advance, the basic conditions for that society (e.g., absence of large scale poverty
and environmental degradation and intergenerational responsibility) can be stated
(WCED 1987).
Looking Ahead
Thus, sustainability is gaining increasing recognition as a useful framework
for addressing otherwise intractable problems. The framework can be applied
at any scale of governance, in nearly any situation, and anywhere in the world.
Although it was created to address serious problems—growing global environ -
mental degradation and poverty—sustainability provides a way to address these
problems in a way that can also create even greater opportunity.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Finding: EPA’s historical mission is to protect human health and the
environment (p.19).
2.1 Recommendation: EPA should carry out its historical mission to protect
human health and the environment in a manner that optimizes the social,
environmental, and economic benefits of its decisions.
REFERENCES
Adler, R.W. 2010. Drought, sustainability, and the law. Sustainability 2(7):2176-2196.
Andrews, R.N.L. 2006. Managing the Environment, Managing Ourselves: A History of American
Environmental Policy, 2nd Ed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Ashford, N.A., and C.C. Caldart. 2008. Environmental and occupational health protection law. Pp.
390-401 in International Encyclopedia of Public Health, Vol. 2, 1st Ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Beatty, R.O. 1952. The conservation movement. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 281(May):10-19.
Borgwardt, E. 2005. A New Deal for the World: America’s Vision for Human Rights. Cambridge:
Belknap Press.
Brinkley, D. 2009. The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America. New
York: HarperCollins.
Byrne, J., K. Hughes, W. Rickerson, and L. Kurdgelashvili. 2007. American policy conflict in the
greenhouse: Divergent trends in federal, regional, state, and local green energy and climate
change policy. Energ. Policy 35(9):4555-4573.
Campbell-Mohn, C., ed. 1993. Sustainable Environmental Law: Integrating Natural Resource and
Pollution Abatement Law from Resources to Recovery. St Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
OCR for page 30
30 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
CEC (Commission of the European Communities). 2001. A Sustainable Europe for a Better World:
A European Strategy for Sustainable Development. Communication from the Commission,
Brussels, May 15, 2001[online]. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/
com/2001/com2001_0264en01.pdf [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
CEC. 2005. On the Review of the Sustainable Development Strategy: A Platform for Action. Commu -
nication from the Commission to the Council, and the European Parliament, Brussels, Decem -
ber 12, 2005 [online]. Available: http://www.central2013.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/
Document_Centre/OP_Resources/COM__2005__658_Sust_Dev.pdf [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
CEC. 2009. Mainstreaming Sustainable Development into EU Policies: 2009 Review of the European
Union Strategy for Sustainable Development. Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and Commit-
tee of the Regions, Brussels, July 24, 2009 [online]. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/
docs/com_2009_400_en.pdf [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
CEU (Council of the European Union). 2006a. Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European
Council (15/16 June 2006). 100633/1/06. Council of the European Union, Brussels, July 17,
2006 [online]. Available: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/
ec/90111.pdf [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
CEU. 2006b. Review of the EU Sustainable Development Strategy (EU-SDS)-Renewed Strategy.
10117/06. Council of the European Union Brussels, June 9, 2006 [online]. Available: http://
register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10117.en06.pdf [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
CEU. 2009. 2009 Review of the European Union Strategy for Sustainable Development. Council of
the European Union, Brussels, December 1, 2009 [online]. Available: http://register.consilium.
europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st16/st16818.en09.pdf [accessed July 12, 2011].
Clark, W.C. 2007. Sustainability science: A room of its own. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
104(6):1737-1738.
Clark, W.C., and N.M. Dickson. 2003. Sustainability science: The emerging research program. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 100(14):8059-8061.
De Feyter, K. 2001. World Development Law: Sharing Responsibility for Development. Antwerp:
Intersentia.
Dernbach, J.C. 1997. U.S. Adherence to its Agenda 21 Commitments: A Five-Year Review. The
Environmental Law Reporter 27(10504).
Dernbach, J.C. 1998. Sustainable development as a framework for national governance. Case W. Res.
Law Rev. 49(1):1-103.
Dernbach, J.C., ed. 2002. Stumbling toward Sustainability. Washington, DC: Environmental Law
Institute.
Dernbach, J.C. 2003. Achieving sustainable development: The centrality and multiple facets of inte -
grated decision making. Ind. J. Global Leg. Stud. 10(1):247-284.
Dernbach, J.C., ed. 2009. Agenda for a Sustainable America. Washington, DC: Environmental Law
Institute.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2011. Better Buildings. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy [online]. Available: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
betterbuildings/ [accessed Apr. 19, 2011].
EDF (Environmental Defense Fund). 2011. The Cap and Trade Success Story. Environmental De -
fense Fund, New York [online]. Available: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1085 [accessed
Apr. 18, 2011].
Egan, T. 2006. The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American
Dust Bowl. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
ELI (Environmental Law Institute). 1991. Public Participation in Environmental Regulation. Wash -
ington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.
ELI. 1995. Rediscovering the National Environmental Policy Act: Back to the Future. Washington,
DC: Environmental Law Institute.
OCR for page 31
31
HISTORY OF SUSTAINABILITY
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008. EPA’s Report on the Environment.
EPA/600/R-07/045F. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. May 2008 [on -
line]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ncea/roe/docs/roe_final/EPAROE_FINAL_2008.PDF [ac -
cessed Apr. 19, 2011].
EPA. 2010. Summary of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/
lfra.html#Summary%20of%20the%20Federal%20Insecticide,%20Fungicide,%20and%20
Rodenticide%20Act [accessed June 9, 2011].
Feldman, I.R. 2009. Business and industry: Transitioning to sustainability. Pp. 71-92 in Agenda for a
Sustainable America, J.C. Dernbach, ed. Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute.
Fiksel, J., T. Graedel, A.D. Hecht, D. Rejeski, G.S. Sayler, P.M. Senge, D.L. Swackhamer, and T.L.
Theis. 2009. EPA at 40: Bringing environmental protection into the 21st century. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 43(23):8716-8720.
Fitzgerald, J. 2010. Emerald Cities: Urban Sustainability and Economic Development. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Fox, S. 1981. The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and His Legacy. Madison, WI:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Hawken, P. 2007. Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and
Why No One Saw It Coming. New York: Viking Press.
Hays, S.P. 1959. Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency: The Progressive Conservation Move -
ment, 1890-1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hays, S.P. 1987. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-
1985 (Studies in Environment and History). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Sci -
ence Basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [online]. Available: http://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_
science_basis.htm [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 1980. World Conservation Strategy. Living
Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN [online]. Avail-
able: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/WCS-004.pdf [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
Lazarus, R.J. 2004. The Making of Environmental Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leopold, A. 1986. Game Management. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Marsh, G.P. 1864. Man and Nature; or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. Cambridge,
MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Mazmanian, D.A., and M.E. Kraft. 2009. Toward Sustainable Communities: Transition and Transfor-
Transfor-
mation in Environmental Policy, 2nd Ed. Cambridge: MIT Press.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Norse, E.A. 2005. Destructive fishing practices and evolution of the marine ecosystem-based man -
agement paradigm. Pp. 101-114 in Benthic Habitats and the Effects of Fishing, P.W. Barnes,
and J.P. Thomas, eds. American Fisheries Society Symposium 41. Bethesda, MD: American
Fisheries Society.
NRC (National Research Council). 1999. Our Common Journey: A Transition toward Sustainability.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 2010a. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
NRC. 2010b. Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2001. OECD Environmental
Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, May 21, 2001 [online]. Available: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/40/1863539.
pdf [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
OCR for page 32
32 SUSTAINABILILTY AND THE U.S. EPA
OECD. 2005. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: United States. Paris: OECD.
OECD. 2009. Declaration on Green Growth. C/MIN(2009)5/ADD1/FINAL. Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development, June 25, 2009 [online]. Available: http://www.
greengrowth.org/download/2009/news/OECD.declaration.on.GG.pdf [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
OECD. 2011. Towards Green Growth: Green Growth Strategy Synthesis Report. C/MIN(2011)4. Organ-
isation for Economic Co-operation and Development, May 2, 2011 [online]. Available: http://www.
oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=C/MIN(2011)4&docLanguage=En
[accessed June 7, 2011].
OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 2003. Informing Regulatory Decisions: 2003 Report to
Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State,
Local, and Tribal Entities. Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC [online]. Avail -
able: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/inforeg/2003_cost-ben_
final_rpt.pdf [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
O‘Riordan, T., and J. Cameron, eds. 1994. Interpreting the Precautionary Principle. London: Earthscan.
PACEO (President‘s Advisory Council on Executive Organization). 1970. Ash Council Memo:
Federal Organization for Environmental Protection, Memorandum for the President, from
President‘s Advisory Council on Executive Organization, Executive Office of the President,
Washington, DC. April 29, 1970 [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/history/org/origins/
ash.htm [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
PCSD (President‘s Council on Sustainable Development). 1996. Sustainable America: A New Con -
sensus for Prosperity, Opportunity, and a Healthy Environment for the Future. President‘s
Council on Sustainable Development, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://clinton2.nara.
gov/PCSD/Publications/TF_Reports/amer-top.html [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
Pinchot, G. 1910. The Fight for Conservation. New York: Doubleday, Page & Company.
Pinchot, G. 1947. Breaking New Ground. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Porter, M.E., and M.R. Kramer. 2011. The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value. Harvard Business Review,
Jan.-Feb. 2011[online]. Available: http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-shared-value/ar/1
[accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
Reiger, J.F. 1975. American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation. New York: Winchester Press.
Richardson, B.J., and S. Wood. 2006. Environmental Law for Sustainability. Portland, OR: Hart
Publishing.
Rodgers, W.H., Jr. 1994. Environmental Law, 2nd Ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Rodgers, W.H., Jr. 1999. Environmental Law, 2nd Ed. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
Roosevelt, T. 1907. Seventh Annual Message to the Senate and House of Representa -
tives, December 3, 1907 [online]. Available: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.
php?pid=29548#axzz1JuA6cqEy [accessed Apr. 18, 2011].
Ruffing, K.G. 2010. The role of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in
environmental policy making. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 4(2):199-220.
Sarkar, R. 2009. P. xvi in International Development Law: Rule of Law, Human Rights, and Global
Finance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schlesinger, S.C. 2003. Act of Creation: The Founding of the United Nations. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Random House.
TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity). 2010. Mainstreaming the Econom -
ics of Nature: A Synthesis of the Approach, Conclusions and Recommendations of
TEEB. Malta: Progress Press [online]. Available: http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.
aspx?fileticket=bYhDohL_TuM%3d&tabid=1278&mid=2357 [accessed Apr. 19, 2011].
UN (United Nations). 1997. Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21. A/RES/S-19/2.
United Nations General Assembly, September 19, 1997 [online]. Available: http://www.un.org/
documents/ga/res/spec/aress19-2.htm [accessed May 5, 2011].
UN. 2000. Millennium Declaration. United Nations General Assembly, September 8, 2000 [online].
Available: http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm [accessed May 5, 2011].
OCR for page 33
33
HISTORY OF SUSTAINABILITY
UN. 2002. Johannesburg Plan of Implementation. World Summit on Sustainable Development, 26
August-4 September 2000, Johannesburg, South Africa United Nations Conference on Trade
and Development. New York: United Nations [online]. Available: http://www.unctad.org/en/
docs/aconf199d20&c1_en.pdf [accessed May 5, 2011]
UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). 1992a. Agenda 21. United
Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3-14 June 1992
[online]. Available: http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/articles/Agenda21.pdf [accessed
Apr. 18, 2011].
UNCED. 1992b. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio
de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992, Annex I. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
A/CONF.151/26 (Vol. I). United Nations General Assembly [online]. Available: http://www.
un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm [accessed Apr. 15, 2011].
UNCSD (United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development). 2011. Earth Summit 2012: Ob -
jectives and Themes [online]. Available: http://www.earthsummit2012.org/index.php/objectives-
and-themes [accessed Apr. 19, 2011].
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 1999. Human Development Report 1999. New
York: Oxford University Press [online]. Available: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_1999_
EN.pdf [accessed June 9, 2011].
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2011a. Environment for Development [online].
Available: http://www.unep.org/environmentalgovernance/ [accessed Apr. 19, 2011].
UNEP. 2011b. Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Erad-
ication. A Synthesis for Policy Makers. United Nations Environment Programme. [online].
Available: http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Portals/88/documents/ger/GER_synthesis_en.pdf
[accessed Apr. 19, 2011].
UNESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). 2011. National Sustain -
able Development Strategies: The Global Picture 2010. U. N. Department of Economic and
Social Affairs, Sustainable Development Division [online]. Available: http://www.un.org/esa/
dsd/dsd_aofw_nsds/nsds_pdfs/NSDS_map.pdf [accessed Apr. 19, 2011].
UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). 1983. Process of Preparation of the Environmental Per-
spective to the Year 2000 and Beyond. Resolution 38/161. United Nations General Assembly,
December 19, 1983 [online]. Available: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/38/a38r161.htm
[accessed June 8, 2011].
UNGA. 2010. Implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of
Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Resolution
64/236. United Nations General Assembly, March 31, 2010 [online]. Available: http://www.
uncsd2012.org/files/OD/ARES64236E.pdf [accessed June 8, 2011].
Van Hise, C.R. 1927. The Conservation of Natural Resources in the United States. New York:
Macmillan.
WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). 2011. Vision 2050. World Busi -
ness Council for Sustainable Development [online]. Available: http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/
TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?MenuID=1 [accessed May 31, 2011].
WCED (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common
Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, J.D. 2009. Local governance and sustainability: Growing progress, major challenges. Pp. 43-
56 in Agenda for a Sustainable America, J.C. Dernbach, ed. Washington, DC: Environmental
Law Institute.
OCR for page 34
