Free Exchange

April 16th, 2008

Views: 627

Posted by ChrisG at 12:15 pm

It seems that Peter Foster, writing for the Canadian version of the WSJ, thinks that “sustainability” is on the way out. It appears that sometimes a “sustainable” initiative can lead to “unsustainable” results, as in the case of biofuels. This will naturally have epoch-ending results for what Foster sees as a kind of ideological colossus, about to be brought inevitably crashing down by its own internal contradictions.

It was inevitable, however, that, just as the old socialism imploded because it simply didn’t work (except for its rulers and their hangers on) so the new socialism would also grind to a halt.

Always amazing how freemarketarians are keen to play around with the language of vulgar Marxism when the slightest opportunity presents itself, the kick from taking a ride on the back of a historical Absolute obviously too juicy to resist. But what’s interesting here is how Foster’s use of traditional anti-capitalist tropes goes further than this, to the point where he effectively lambasts all manner of institutions for greenwashing.

Criticizing the more or less random application of the word “sustainable” to anything which isn’t intended to automatically self-destruct the day after tomorrow means that Foster is on the same page as, for example, Wolfgang Sachs. Whether “sustainability” itself as a goal is incoherent (in the terms of the Brundtland Commission’s definition – which Foster fails to fully quote – ensuring that present needs are met without preventing the fulfilment of future needs, a statement which doesn’t appear to involve an obvious performative contradiction) is not something we’ll discover from reading Foster, who only manages to revert to that other well-established status-quo defender’s tic, trying to connect a concept one doesn’t agree with to some kind of mental disorder.

Meanwhile, a report is released which notes that food production is currently sufficient to feed the population of the world (so no need for yield-raising technical fixes, then – no wonder the US, Canada and Australia, champions of GM, are annoyed at its publication), but that trade liberalisation is responsible for making sure that ruinous inequalities of distribution persist.

Opening national markets to international competition can offer economic benefits but can lead to long term negative effects on poverty alleviation, food security and the environment without basic national institutions and infrastructure being place.

Hmmm, shades of Karl Polanyi.

Foster offers as a reason for the attractiveness of sustainability-language the “counterintuitiveness” of free-market economics. This it has in common with post-Newtonian natural science, of course. However, the difference is that some predictions made by post-Newtonian natural science have been, on occasion, verified.

Lim Li Chung, of Third World Network in Malaysia, said: “It clearly shows that small-scale farmers and the environment lose under trade liberalisation. Developing countries must exercise their right to stop the flood of cheap subsidised products from the north.”