According to the critics of conventional sustainability models, particularly within the business context, it is questionable whether the objective of balancing the social, economic and environmental triad is feasible, and whether human equality and prosperity (as well as population growth) can be achieved with the present rate of natural degradation (Rees 2009). The current scale of human economic activity on Earth is already excessive; finding itself in a state of unsustainable ‘overshoot’ where consumption and dissipation of energy and material resources exceed the regenerative and assimilative capacity of supportive ecosystems (Rees 2012). Conceptualizing the current ‘politics of unsustainability’, reflected in mainstream sustainability debates, Blühdorn (2011) explores the paradox of wanting to ‘sustain the unsustainable, noting that the socio-cultural norms underpinning unsustainability support denial of the gravity of our planetary crises. This denial concerns anything from the imminence of mass extinctions to climate change. As Foster (2014) has phrased it: ‘There was a brief window of opportunity when the sustainability agenda might, at least in principle, have averted it’. That agenda, however, has failed. Not might fail, nor even is likely to fail – but has already failed. Yet, instead of acknowledging this failure and moving on from the realization of the catastrophe to the required radical measures, the optimists of sustainable development and ecological modernization continue to celebrate the purported ‘balance' between people, profit and planet. This is an Accepted Manuscript of a book chapter published by Routledge/CRC Press in "A Future Beyond Growth: Towards a Steady State Economy" on 4/14/16 ,available online: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315667515 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
MULTIFILE
There is mounting evidence that efforts to mitigate the adverse effects of human activity on climate and biodiversity have so far been unsuccessful. Explanations for this failure point to a number of factors discussed in this article. While acknowledging cognitive dissonance as a significant contributing factor to continuing unsustainable practices, this article seeks to explore hegemonic rationality of industrial expansion and economic growth and resulting politics of denial. These politics promote the economic rationale for exploitation of the environment, with pursuit of material wealth seen as the most rational goal. Framed this way, this rationality is presented by political and corporate decision-makers as common sense and continuous environmentally destructive behavior is justified under the guise of consumer choices, hampering meaningful action for sustainable change. This article underlines forms of alternative rationality, namely, non-utilitarian and non-hierarchical worldview of environmental and human flourishing, that can advance sustainability. LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/helenkopnina/
Shani and Arad (2014) claimed that tourism scholars tend to endorse the most pessimistic assessments regarding climate change, and that anthropogenic climate change was a "fashionable" and "highly controversial scientific topic". This brief rejoinder provides the balance that is missing from such climate change denial and skepticism studies on climate change and tourism. Recent research provides substantial evidence that reports on anthropogenic climate change are accurate, and that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, including from the tourism industry, play a significant role in climate change. Some positive net effects may be experienced by some destinations in the short-term, but in the long-term all elements of the tourism system will be impacted. The expansion of tourism emissions at a rate greater than efficiency gains means that it is increasingly urgent that the tourism sector acknowledge, accept and respond to climate change. Debate on tourism-related adaptation and mitigation measures is to be encouraged and welcomed. Climate change denial is not.
LINK
