A Pathway Environmental Harmony Social

Sustainable living refers to a lifestyle that reduces societal or personal use of the global natural resources (Carley and Spapens, 2017). According to Nellemann and Corcoran (2010), the core principles of sustainability should be in natural balance as well as respecting the symbiotic relationship between humanity and the biological/ecology cycles of the earth. The argument here is that sustainable living necessitates serious attempts to lower the carbon footprint through altering the methods of transportation, energy consumption, and changing of diet and thus propel environmental protection, social, and economic development (Capra, 2004; Winter, 2007). However, this is opposed by others arguing that the emphasis of continued and limitless economic and social development (and even after emphasising environmental protection) are diametrically opposed to the planet’s sustainability and thus it is difficult to realise them through encouraging sustainable living (Clarke, et al., 1994; Eisenstein, 2014; Higgins, 2013). This opposing argument implies that environmental protection, social, and economic development cannot be considered the major reasons why greater measures should be taken to encourage sustainable living. Despite the opposition, it is indeed possible for sustainable living to be used as a catalyst for environmental protection, social, and economic development. Therefore, this essay argues that indeed greater measures should be taken to encourage sustainable living for the world to realise improved environmental protection, social, and economic development.

The first important argument explaining why greater measures should be taken to Encourage Sustainable Living regards environmental protection. Glossary of Environment Statistics defines environmental protection as the prevention to preserve and conserve the healthy environmental media standard levels through minimising polluting substances within the environmental media (Hansen et al., 2013). Many human activities have induced threatening health problems and affected natural and economic resources through global warming, pollutions, soil erosion, and the greenhouse effect. Various arguments indicate that it is worth to fight for environmental protection. The first reason for this is environmental pollution, the addition of a harmful substance which has the potential of affecting human life (Wells et al., 2007). Another reason why environmental protection should be fought for is global warming which results from deforestation. Flood and warm climate change increase the opportunity for vector diseases and pests to spread out. Fight for a better environment is necessary since pollution resulting from the burning of fossil fuels leads to severe environmental problems like the formation of acid rain due to the production of nitrogen monoxide (NO) and sulphur dioxide (SO2). For example, there is blame by Norway regarding the poisoning of the lakes and seas as a result of many years of acid rain formation because of unclean air pollution coming from Britain’s power stations (Gunningham, et al., 2004). Alternatively, forests also act as carbon sinks, a process in which trees absorb carbon dioxide from the environment and release some oxygen to the atmosphere in return (Gunningham et al., 2004). However, activities such as unplanned deforestation minimise oxygen concentration and result in an increased earth’s temperature. Given these facts, people should, therefore, fight for a better environment for sustainable living (Inglehart, 1995). The implementation of environmental protection reduces flood and warm climate changes which increases the spread of vector diseases and pests. Climate change and floods destroy the safe and healthy environment. Therefore, environmental protection is one of the reasons why greater measures should be taken to encourage sustainable living.

The second significant explanation of why greater measures should be taken to Encourage Sustainable Living is the Social development. Social development mirrors the desires of a society to live in equality and prosperity (Andreasen, 1995). Individual community members are believed to actively taking part in the developmental processes leading to a sustainable lifestyle (becoming a conscious community). The aspect of social development is essential for any country because it can influence the development of a sustainable environment. That is, an active society results indirectly to a stable and robust country whether socially, economically, or politically (Malecki, 1997). As social development occurs, the implication of having a sustainable environment is a healthy nation in terms of avoiding diseases through, for example, breathing clean air and having clean water to drink. All of the above cannot just be achieved overnight, but can be realised when greater measures are taken to encourage sustainable living. For example, sustainable living can make available financial resources for financing social development, which if people were not living sustainably, could have been spent in, say for example, correcting externalities (Mehrotra and Jolly, 2000). Consequently, based on the example given, available funds can be used by the government to reduce environmental racism where the affected minority and oppressed groups also feel the positive impact of social development (Craven, 1995). The discussion here clearly indicates that social development is one of the major reasons why greater measures should be taken to encourage sustainable living.

The last crucial argument illustrating why greater measures should be taken to Encourage Sustainable Living regards the sustainable economic development. It is an economic growth technique in which the resources are used to meet the present generation’s demand without compromising the ability of the future generation to meet their own needs (Porter, 2000). Therefore, sustainable economic development is a concept that can arise from sustainable living. The fact that to achieve sustainable economic development requires a country not only to think about the current generation but also those to come implies that it can only be achieved through sustainable living. In this case, sustainable living means people use natural resources efficiently. That is, avoid wasting natural resources by encouraging their sustainable use. Consequently, economic development in this case would indicate an improvement in social indicators such as gains in health services and conditions, schooling, and literacy (Lucas, 1988). Furthermore, it should be noted that the concept of sustainability of natural resources is a similar one to that discussed initially, of environmental protection. With sustainable living, people will shift towards the use of renewable energy like solar, and thus move away from using fossil fuels or bio-fuels (use of natural resources for fuel), which is in fact expensive. This will further ease economic spending and thus allow for economic development as saved finances will be channelled towards education, health, and other vital economic pillars. Consequently, moving away from the usage of natural resources as sources of fuel will further contribute significantly to the reduction of carbon emissions (Gunningham et al., 2004). Thus, through sustainable living, economic development can be realised, the reason why greater measures should be taken to encourage the former (sustainable living).

In conclusion, the essay has presented various arguments explaining why greater measures should be taken to encourage sustainable living. First, the issue of environmental protection is of greater importance and vital to realising a safe environment for both the current and future generations. Thus, the argument is that sustainable living will tends to increase environmental protection measures because there is no sustainability in our lifestyles without us pushing for a safe environment. Second, it is argued that sustainable living can influence sustainable lifestyles and environment where diseases will be reduced and thus have a healthy nation because of access to clean water to drink and air to breath. Furthermore, the above will also contribute positively towards fighting environmental racism by having conscious communities. Third, it has been argued that sustainable living has a positive effect on economic development. That is, countries can realise sustainable economic development through the sustainable use of natural resources and discouraging their use as sources of fuel. Here, sustainable living forces people to embrace the use of renewable energy, and thus avoid using expensive bio-fuels, which in turn provide saved funds for use in other important areas of development. Thus, it can be concluded that, indeed greater measures should be taken to encourage sustainable living, for the world to achieve its environmental protection, sustainable social and economic development.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to A Multifaceted Approach.

Bibliography

• Andreasen, A.R., 1995. Marketing social change: Changing behaviour to promote health, social development, and the environment (p. 101). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Capra, F., 2004. The hidden connections: A science for sustainable living. Anchor.
• Carley, M. and Spapens, P., 2017. Sharing the world: sustainable living and global equity in the 21st century. Routledge.
• Clarke, R. A., et al., 1994. The Challenge of Going Green, The Harvard Business Review, July-August 1994 Issue. [Online] Available at: [Accessed August 31st 2018].
• Craven, M., 1995. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: a perspective on its development. Clarendon Press.
• Eisenstein, C., 2014. Let's be honest: real sustainability may not make business sense. [Online] Available at:
• Gunningham, N., Kagan, R.A. and Thornton, D., 2004. Social license and environmental protection: why businesses go beyond compliance. Law & Social Inquiry, 29(2), pp.307-341.
• Hansen, J., Kharecha, P., Sato, M., Masson-Delmotte, V., Ackerman, F., Beerling, D.J., Hearty, P.J., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Hsu, S.L., Parmesan, C. and Rockstrom, J., 2013. Assessing “dangerous climate change”: required reduction of carbon emissions to protect young people, future generations and nature. PloS one, 8(12), p.e81648.
• Higgins K. L., 2013. Economic growth and sustainability – are they mutually exclusive? Striking a balance between unbounded economic growth and sustainability requires a new mindset. London, Elsevier.
• Inglehart, R., 1995. Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science & Politics, 28(1), pp.57-72.
• Lucas Jr, R.E., 1988. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of monetary economics, 22(1), pp.3-42.
• Malecki, E.J., 1997. Technology and economic development: the dynamics of local, regional, and national change.
• Mehrotra, S. and Jolly, R., 2000. Development with a human face: Experiences in social achievement and economic growth. Oxford University Press.
• Nellemann, C. and Corcoran, E., 2010. Dead planet, living planet: biodiversity and ecosystem restoration for sustainable development. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
• Nurdin, M.F., 2015. Welfare Development Policy Issues and Challenges. Abstrak.
• Porter, M.E., 2000. Location, competition, and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic development quarterly, 14(1), pp.15-34.
• Wells, M.J., Fono, L.J., Pellegrin, M.L. and Morse, A., 2007. Emerging pollutants. Water Environment Research, 79(10), pp.2192-2209.
• Winter, M., 2007. Sustainable Living: For Home, Neighbourhood and Community. Westsong Pub.