




































African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management Vol. 1 (2), pp. 033-048, September, 
2013. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

 

 

Review 

 

Integration of social, ecological, political and 
technological issues into economic development 

programs: Key to sustainable development of 
human society 

 

Rajiv K. Sinha
1
*, Brijalkumar Soni

1
 and Binod Shankar

2
 

 
1
School of Engineering (Environment), Griffith University, Nathan Campus, Brisbane, QLD-4116, 

Australia. 
2
Department of Environment and Water Management, A.N. College, Patna, India. 

 
Accepted 6 May, 2013 

 
We need to plan for ‘Development without Destruction’ and manage our environment based on the 
ethical principle of social equality, economic prosperity with ecological security to achieve the goals of 
sustainable development. Environmental management and economic development programs should go 
hand in hand for achieving sustainability in global human society. Changes in the way we develop our 
economy, eat and drink, live and move, use and discard (as waste) the Earth’s resources, enjoy our 
lifestyle are needed to be changed quickly to bring us back into balance with our life support systems 
on Earth. We have also to overcome the ‘greed’ of having more and be ‘contented’ after our ‘needs’ are 
fulfilled. Greed based society can never be sustainable. The key to growing sustainably is not to 
produce less but to produce differently, in a way which is environmentally friendly and compatible, that 
is, by embracing the philosophy of ‘Cleaner Production’; not to consume less but to consume 
judiciously and efficiently within the regenerative capacity of the Earth ecosystems and with minimum 
waste generation. 

 
Key words: Technological, social, economic, ecological and political considerations, good health, social equity, 
eradication of poverty. 

 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
Major environmental issues affecting human future 
and sustainability on earth 
 
Environmental problems of major concern are local, 
regional/national and global. The local concerns are air, 
water and noise pollution, declining groundwater table 
and increasing shortage of potable water, chemical spills 
and contaminated sites (land), acid sulfate soil, indoor air 
pollution and household hazardous wastes, urban sprawl 
and congestion, increasing health risks of urban 
residents, waste landfills and toxic emissions, solid waste 
(specially plastic waste) and sewage, green-land clearing 
and threatened species. The regional concerns are rural 
 
 

 
*Corresponding author. E-mail: Rajiv.Sinha@griffith.edu.au. 

 
 
 

 
decline, declining rain and depleting natural water 
resources, increasing soil salinity, increasing natural and 
man-made disasters, disposal of chemical and 
radioactive wastes, ocean oil spills and marine pollution, 
degrading coastal ecosystems, acid rains etc. The global 
environmental concerns are threat of global warming and 
climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, 
deforestation and biodiversity erosion, overpopulation 
and resource depletion especially in poor developing 
countries (Sinha, 2006). 
 

 
Vanishing water resources on earth: Destroying the 
elixir of life 
 
Out of the total water on earth, only 2.5% are freshwater, 
97.5% are seawater and only less than 1% is useful for 



Sinha  et al.               033 
 
 

 
human use and consumption which are also being 
destroyed by human wastes and chemicals. Underground 
water table is rapidly falling throughout the world. Within 
25 years, half of the world’s population could face 
hardship in finding enough freshwater for drinking, 
sanitation and food production. About 3 million litres of 
water is needed to produce 1 ha of corn; about 12 to 20 
million litres to produce 1 ha of rice; about 250 L to 
produce 1 kg of wheat; about 25,000 L to produce 1 kg of 
meat; about 50 L to produce 1 L of whisky; about 250 L to 
produce 1 kg of steel and about 18,000 L to refine 1 ton 
of petroleum. About 45 industrial chemicals have been 
found in surface water. They are ‘Endocrine Distruptors’ 
in very low-parts-per billion. The cost of providing safe 
drinking water and sanitation to everyone in the world by 
2025 will be US $ 180 billion per year. 
 

 
Chemicals in the breathing air: Destroying the source 
of life on earth 
 
Several millions tones of gases, carbon monoxide (about 
106 million tonnes), carbon dioxide (4550 mt), sulfur 
dioxide (90 mt), oxides of nitrogen (60 mt), methane (84 
mt), hydrocarbons (47 mt), CFC and halons (1 mt) and 
suspended particulate matter (30 mt) enter into our 
atmosphere every year from our industries and 
automobiles. Diesel vehicles emit over 100 micro-
particles several of which are carcinogenic. Some 189 
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) have been identified in 
the atmosphere. UNEP estimates that over 3 million 
people in world die every year from air pollution related 
diseases and the non-cigarette smoker lung cancer rate 
due to outdoor air pollution in world today is estimated to 
about 2000 cases per year. According to WHO, coal 
power plants in the U.S. cuts short nearly 24,000 lives, 
including 2,800 from lung cancer and nearly 38,200 from 
heart attacks each year. 
 

 
Degrading and eroding soil mantle: Destroying the 
food base on earth 
 
Billions of tones of top soil (the fertile layer) are eroded 
away every year, being washed away into the sea or 
carried away with wind converting into wasteland. Every 

year, nearly 27 million hectares or say, 47 ha min
-1

, of 

valuable fertile land are lost by desertification. Every 
minute a chunk of ‘fertile agricultural land’ of the size of 
tennis court is being converted into wasteland. Over the 
last two decades, the world has lost some 500 million 
metric tons of topsoil. Only the ‘top thin layer’ of the soil 
with humus is vital to grow food and is sustaining the 
entire civilization. Formation of just 1 cm of soil from 
parent rock take from 100 to 1,000 years and 2.5 cm of 
topsoil can take from 100 to 2,500 years. FAO has 
warned that the world's soil was degrading so fast that in 

 

  
 
 

 
little more than 30 years it might no longer be able to feed 
its growing population. 
 
 
Depleting forest and biodiversity: Destroying the 
protector of life on Earth 
 
Each year, around 17 to 18 million hectares of tropical 
forests rich in species diversity are cleared for timber, 
paper and fuel wood, and for fodder growing to export to 
meat producing industries in Europe and America. Every 
day a minimum of 3 (some put it 30) species of life is 
permanently disappearing from the face of Earth and at 
current rate of habitat destruction it can become 3 
species every hour in coming years. Disappearance of 1 
plant species may eventually lead to the extinction of up 
to 30 insect and animal species in the food chain as they 
depend upon plants for survival. Meat eating society is 
taking heavy toll on our biodiversity. The same amount of 
plant food that would feed 1.5 billion pure vegetarians 
would only feed 210 million meat eating people. Each 
time we take a medicine; there is one chance in two that 
our purchases owe its origin from wild species. A number 
of them are ‘life-saving’ medicine. Besides green plants 
are the main ‘source of life sustaining oxygen in air’ and 

‘sink of greenhouse gas CO2’ on earth. 
 

 
Piling toxic chemicals on earth: The demons of 
development and inducer of deadly human diseases 
 
Worldwide about 80 to 100,000 chemicals are in use 
every day in our industries and other developmental 
activities and some 1000 new chemicals are added each 
year. There are some 861 neuro-toxic chemicals in use in 
our cosmetics, perfumes and toiletries. The deadly 
chemicals DDT and PCBs have reached even up to the 
poles. A relationship between ‘chemicals and cancer’ is 
scientifically proved and women are more vulnerable. 
According to UNEP and WHO, some 25 million farmers 
and agricultural workers are poisoned by chemical 
pesticides every year and nearly 3 million people suffer 
from ‘acute pesticide poisoning’ and some 10 to 20 
thousand people die every year from it in both the 
developed and the developing countries. Studies indicate 
that there is significant amount of ‘residual pesticides’ 
contaminating our food stuff long after they are taken 
away from farms for human consumption. Vegetable 
samples were contaminated 100% with HCH and 50% 
with DDT. US scientists predict that up to 20,000 
Americans may die of cancer, each year, due to the low 
levels of ‘residual pesticides’ in the chemically grown food 
(UNEP Report, 1992). Exposures to chemical pesticides 
are linked with serious diseases and developmental dis-
orders like ‘nervous system disorders’, ‘immune system 
suppression’, breast and other cancers’ ‘reproductive 
damages’, ‘impairment of brain development in children’ 



034       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
and ‘disruption of hormonal systems’ 
 
 
Rising greenhouse gases inducing global warming 
and climate change: Invitation to severe natural 
disasters 
 
CO2, the major greenhouse gas inducing global warming 
was 280 ppm in the pre-industrial times and now stands 
at 370 ppm, 30% higher. It is currently rising by 0.5% 
every year. Powerful greenhouse gases e.g. methane 
and nitrous oxide are emitted from solid waste 
management programs by composting or more from 

waste landfills. Molecule to molecule, CH4 is 20 to 25 

times more powerful and N2O is 296 to 310 times more 

powerful GHG than carbon dioxide (CO2). Every 24 h, 
human activity on earth generates some 16 million tons of 

greenhouse gas CO2 and release into the atmosphere. 

Coal power plant gives out about 800 to 1000 g of CO2 
for every unit (kWh) of electricity produced. In one year, 

an average car emits 4.3 tons of CO2. Agriculture has 
also been responsible for huge emissions of greenhouse 
gases and induction of global warming. Of the increase of 
atmospheric carbon over the last 150 years, about a third 
(33.3%) is thought to have come from agriculture. Over 
the last century, the world has warmed between 0.3 and 
0.6°C. If emission of all the GHG are not arrested the 
world will on average be 1.3°C warmer by 2020. Global 
warming disturb rainfall patterns, ‘suppress human 
immune system’ and induce natural disasters. 
 

 
Mounting human wastes on earth: Poisoning the soil, 
air and water 
 
MSW is mounting on earth everywhere. In U.S., each 
sunset sees a new mountain of nearly 410,000 tons of 
garbage. The European Union throws away an estimated 
2 billion tones of MSW each year. The character and 
composition of MSW are changing in modern techno-
logical society with the non-biodegradable ‘synthetic 
material’ coming into existence. Biomedical waste 
constitute considerable portion of MSW, 10% is 
‘infectious’ and 5% is non-infectious but potentially toxic 
and radioactive. Several toxic chemicals are used in 
modern homes, resulting into generation of household 
hazardous waste, which are mixed and disposed with the 
MSW ending up in landfills with serious consequences for 
environment and society. The ‘electronic waste’ has 
become serious problem. It is like ‘tsunami’ of ‘e-waste’ in 
world. It is virtually a chemical waste mixed with general 
MSW ending up in landfills. Waste landfills emit more 
powerful greenhouse gases (Methane and nitrous oxides) 
and toxic trace gases like ‘xylene’ and ‘toluene’ and toxic 
leachate that can contaminate groundwater. In 2005 
waste landfills in Australia emitted some 17 million tons 

CO2-e (equivalent) of greenhouse gas equivalent to the 

 
 
 
emissions from 4 million cars. Every 1 kg of solid waste 
diverted from landfills prevents 1 kg of greenhouse gas 

emission equivalent to CO2. 
 
 
Depleting stratospheric ozone shield: Exposing 
mankind to radiation hazards 
 
Hole in the ozone shield in the stratosphere over the 
Antarctica is growing larger and deeper, exposing man 
and other species to increased levels of harmful UB-V 
radiation. Some 66,000 tones of ozone depleting 
chemicals are released into the environment every year 
due to human activity. Increased UB-V radiation can 
cause suppression of human immune system making 
people vulnerable to infectious diseases. It can cause 
non-melanoma skin cancers and blindness from juvenile 
cataracts worldwide; 
 

 
VULNERABILITY OF THE HUMAN SOCIETY ON 
EARTH – HOW SUSTAINABLE IS OUR FUTURE? 
 
N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a principal ingredient in 
rocket fuel and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a 
gasoline additive were discovered in surface and ground 
water sources; thousands of kilometers away from where 
they were used. DDT and PCBs were found on poles, 
thousands of kilometers away from where they were 

produced; radioactive isotopes strontium-90 (Sr
90

) and 

cesium-137 (Cs
137

) which are routine emissions from all 
nuclear power plants were found in the bone marrow of 
children in India far away from the sources of their 
emissions. All these chemical and radioactive 
contaminants followed the air routes to reach those 
distant destinations. From the atmosphere they 
precipitated down to Earth and entered into the human 
ecosystem. This shows how vulnerable we have become 
in the wake of material development and also pose a 
major question on how much sustainable is our future on 
Earth (Meadows et al., 1992). 
 
 
GLOBAL MOVEMENT FOR SUSTAINABILITY 
 
First UN Conference on Human Environment, 
Stockholm, Sweden, 1972 
 
The first ever World Conference on Human Environment 
was held in Stockholm in June 1972 where 
representatives from more than 70 countries participated 
and pledged to save the environment. This may be 

regarded as the ‘1
st

 Earth Summit’. The Conference was 
chaired by Mrs. Gro Harlem Bruntdland the then Prime 
Minister of Norway who was later entrusted with the task 
of forming the ‘World Commission on Environment and 
Development’ (WCED) in 1987 where she conceived the 



Sinha  et al.               035 
 
 

 
term ‘sustainable development’.  

At Stockholm, the world leaders declared – “Man is 
both creature and moulder of his environment, which 
gives him physical sustenance and affords him the 
opportunity for intellectual, moral, social and spiritual 
growth. Both aspects of man’s environment, the natural 
and the man-made, are essential to his well-being and to 
the enjoyment of basic human rights, the right to life 
itself”. 
 

 
Bruntdland commission report on sustainable 
development (1987) 
 
The report of the ‘World Commission on Environment and 
Development’ (WCED) was published as ‘Our Common 
Future’ (WCED, 1987). It redefined the concept of 
development which should encompass three 
components: 
 
1. A systems of socio-economic development to meet the 
‘needs’ (but not the ‘greed’) of the present generation 
without compromising with the abilities of the future 
generations to meet their own needs.   
2. A system of stable socio-economic and ecological 
development that should improve the total quality of all 
life (human beings, plants and animals) on Earth now and 
in the future too, while maintaining the social and 
ecological integrity (natural and man-made ecosystems) 
of the earth upon which all life depends.   
3. A system of socio-economic development which can 
provide good quality of life to all the people (rich and 
poor, men and women, adults and children) born on 
Earth, while protecting their basic life-support systems 
(air, water, soil, flora and fauna) and also safely disposing 
all the wastes (domestic, commercial and industrial) 
generated by them (Label et al., 1987, Goodland and 
Serafy, 1991).  
 

 
UN Conference on Environment and Development, 
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1992 
 
The UN Conference on Environment and Development 
was held at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. This was the 

‘2
nd

 Earth Summit’ organized 20 years after Stockholm 
and was participated by 172 countries (more than twice 
that participated at Stockholm). ‘Environment and 
Sustainability’ and ‘Sustainable Development’ was the 
focus of discussion. The world leaders declared –  
“Human beings are the center of concerns for sustainable 
development. They are entitled to a healthy and 
productive life in harmony with nature”.  

The Agenda 21 (agenda for the 21
st

 century) was 
adopted at UNCED. It was the blueprint for global 
sustainable development. Agenda 21, pronounced that 
“Humanity stands at defining moment in history. We are 

 

  
 
 

 
confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and 
within nations, a worsening of poverty, ill health and 
illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of natural 
ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being”. 
However, integration of environment and development 
concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the 
fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for 
all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a 
safer more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this 
on its own but together we can in a global partnership for 
sustainable development’.  

Agenda 21 cautioned that the growing population and 
poverty in the developing countries and the unsustainable 
pattern of consumption in the developed industrialized 
countries would thwart the spirit and pace of sustainable 
development throughout the world. For ‘environmental 
sustainability’, ‘socio-economic prosperity’ and 
‘environmental literacy’ of the global human society, and 
‘political stability’ throughout the world should be a pre-
condition. Poor and the deprived people, and the 
politically discriminated would violate all economic and 
ecological imperatives in order to survive (because 
survival is more important than sustainability) thus 
leading to unsustainability. Highly educated can be 
‘environmentally illiterate’ and fail to realize the 
importance of sustainability. 
 
 
3

rd
 World Summit on Sustainable Development 

(WSSD), Johannesburg, S.A., 2002 
 
The WSSD (2002) was held at Johannesburg, South 
Africa to take stock of the situation about the 
achievements made towards attaining sustainability in the 
field of human development during the last 10 years since 

the 2
nd

 Earth Summit in 1992. The task at Johannesburg 

was to recapture the momentum of the movement for 
sustainability begun at Stockholm (1972) and Rio (1992). 
 

In the 10 years between Rio (1992) and Johannesburg 
(2002), critical environmental problems such as 
greenhouse gas emission (global warming), loss of old 
growth and primary forests (biodiversity erosion), ocean 
plunder and waste of resources (piling waste), lurched 
from bad to worse. On the socio-economic front, the rich 
and the powerful got richer and more powerful, while the 
poor became poorer and weaker. The concept of 
‘sustainable development’ and the much lauded 
movement for sustainability remained on paper.  

These are some of the disheartening episodes of the 
efforts made towards achieving global human 
sustainability: 
 
1. Two billion people currently do not have access to 
modern energy services;   
2. About than 1.1 billion people globally do not have 
access to safe drinking water. It is predicted that water  



 
 
 

 
supply will be the major constraints on sustainable 

development in the 21
st

 century.  
3. About 2.4 billion people lack adequate and improved 
sanitation;   
4. More than 1.2 billion people still live on less than 1 
dollar (IR 40.0) a day, that is, much below the poverty 
line;   
5. More than 3 million people die of air pollution, and the 
same number dies from diseases caused by unsafe and 
polluted water. The target of ‘Health for All by the Year 
2000’ never became a reality.   
6. New highly toxic chemicals’ e.g. N-
nitrosodimethylamine (a principal ingredient in rocket 
fuel), methyl tertiary butyl ether (a gasoline additive), and 
‘acrylonitrile’ (used in textile industry) have appeared in 
surface and ground water;   
7. Half of the tropical rainforests and mangroves 
(treasure of pristine biodiversity) have already been lost;   
8. About 75% of the marine fisheries have been fished to 
capacity;   
9. In September 2000, the ozone hole over Antarctica 
covered more than 28 million square kilometers;   
10. Some 75 billion tones of ‘top soil’ are eroding every 
year. Around 2 billion hectares of soil, 15% of Earth’s 
land is now classed as degraded (WHO, 1997; UNDP, 
2004; Steffen et al., 2004).  
 

 
Report of the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO)-3 
on sustainability 
 
The planet is at ‘critical crossroads’ concluded the 
UNEP’s ‘Global Environmental Outlook 3’ report (GEO-3). 
The study, collaboration between UNEP and some 1,000 
individuals and 40 institutions around the world is the 
most authoritative assessment to date of where we (the 
Homo sapiens) have been, where we have reached, and 
where we are likely to go. GEO-3 shows how far the 
world has gone on the road to sustainable development 
since the Rio Earth Summit 1992. It said that though the 
world has made great strides in placing environment on 
the global developmental agenda, the twin evils of 
‘poverty’ (in the developing world) and the ‘excessive 
consumption’ (in the developed world) due to too much of 
‘prosperity’ continue to put enormous pressure upon it. 
Dire poverty and environmental degradation feed on each 
other. Ironically, growing poverty all over world is the 
main stumbling block on the road to environmental 
protection and sustainable development (UNEP-GEO, 
2004-05). 
 
 
People’s mandate on sustainable development 
 
Several opinion polls were conducted on the eve of 
Johannesburg Summit (WSSD, 2002) by international 
agencies to know the views of people across world and 
assess their awareness on the question of environmental 

 
 
 

 
sustainability built up since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. 
Market and Opinion International (MORI) polled in 30 
countries containing two third of world’s population and 
found that 91% people in Greece, above 60% in the U.S., 
Germany, Russia, France, Italy, Spain, Japan, Mexico, 
Brazil, Chile, the Republic of Korea and China, and about 
54% in India wanted legal protection for the environment 
through legislative actions. Some 69% people in U.K. 
agreed that environmental degradation especially waste 
and pollution is affecting their daily life.  

Opinion poll by Roper Worldwide found that 39% 
people in these 30 countries were of the view that 
environmental protection and sustainable development 
was of paramount importance today. The percentage of 
people expressing this view was significantly higher in 
India, Argentina, the Philippines and Germany. Gallup 
Polls made in the U.S. found that 57% Americans were 
more concerned about pollution of rivers, lakes and 
streams while 29% cited fears about global warming. (Yet 
the U.S. has not signed the Kyoto Protocol). In another 
poll, 65% Americans saw erosion of biodiversity as the 
most serious problem facing the humanity. The MORI 
Millennium Poll wanted to know from people which 
section of the society was mainly responsible for the 
environmental degradation and the responsibility for its 
repair and restoration. Almost 6 in every 10 asserted that 
the ‘corporate sectors’ were mainly damaging the 
environment to make profit even at the cost of 
environment, and hence protection of environment was 
their moral responsibility. Indians also said that the 
company’s and industries must bear responsibility of 
environmental repair. But in the U.S., a majority of people 
asserted that environmental protection was government’s 
core responsibility and 90% of them wanted information 
on companies environmental and social records. 49% of 
the Europeans surveyed said that they would NOT buy a 
product made in a country with poor environmental and 
social standards (UNDP, 2003, 2004).  

Opinion polls clearly show that people worldwide 
realize the importance of environmental protection and 
sustainable development for their existence and put the 
blame mainly on the corporate sectors specially the 
transnational corporations (TNCs) for all the 
environmental evils. 
 

 
THE STRATEGIES FOR SUSTAINABLE 
DEVELOPMENT 
 
Planning for sustainable development is like ‘preventing’ a 

disease to occur in the first place. As prevention reduces the 

chances of individual suffering from the disease, so does, 

environmental planning and management for the whole 

society. It would significantly reduce, if not completely 

prevent, the risk of environmental damage and the sufferings 

of the society caused due to it. At least, it will prevent any 

major ‘environmental disaster’ which struck the human 

society in the past (Sinha, 1994). 

036       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 



Sinha  et al.               037 
 
 

 
Sustainable development will deliver social, economic 
and ecological benefits, for it will conserve resources, 
reduce waste, prevent loss of energy and protect human 
health. The World Business Council for Sustainable 
Development (WBCSD) was formed in 1995. It is a 
coalition of 120 international companies that have a 
shared commitment to protect the environment through 
cleaner production and waste minimization in industries 
(Schmidheiny et al., 1997). 
 

 
Seven pillars of sustainable development 

 
The new paradigm of development is not the game of 
economics alone. All issues- economic, ecological, social 
(health), cultural (educational), legal (legislative), political 
and technological have to be merged into a collective 
decision making for sustainable development. They are 
mutually reinforcing. Technology plays greater role as 
they drive development (Axinn, 1996).  

Earlier economy was at the center of decision-making. 
This assumed that all environmental problems could be 
solved if economy was sound. This has now become an 
obsolete theory. Now ecology has to be at the center. We 
have to integrate ecological thinking into social and 
economic planning. The developmental activities have to 
be ‘economically viable’, ‘ecologically compatible’, 
‘socially equitable’, ‘culturally acceptable’ and ‘politically 
justifiable’. Then only it can be environmentally 
sustainable. This will require giving up the ‘culture of 
consumerism’, ‘producing fewer consumers that the Earth 
can sustain and also achieving ‘equity in resource use 
and consumption’ across the world. Over-consumerism 
and too much of prosperity in one part of the world, or 
overpopulation and poverty in other part, would thwart the 
spirit of sustainable development.  

The most important sustainability issue today is to save 
and protect the very life-support systems (air, water, food 
and soil) and the biodiversity, protect human health, 
arrest global warming and depletion of stratospheric 
ozone shield, arrest desertification, augment clean 
energy and material resources to continue and maintain 
the pace of development, and to safely dispose all the 
wastes generated by the society. 
 
 
What we need to sustain 
 
1. The ecosystems and the accompanying biodiversity 
with the variety of species and their habitats;   
2. The natural capital of earth e.g. the stock of productive 
soils, forest and the fresh water and all the non-
renewable resources by preventing their unsustainable 
use;   
3. The ecological integrity of earth and the resilience of 
natural life-support systems by maintaining an adequate 
number of primary producers;  

 

  
 
 

 
4. The social integrity of earth by maintaining an 
acceptable level of non-consumerist population 
(secondary consumers) within the ecological limits and 
the ‘carrying capacity’ of earth (IUCN, WWF, UNEP, 
1991). 
 

 
THE TECHNOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR 
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT: DEVELOPMENT OF 
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES 
 
Science and technology came as a ‘mixed blessing’ for 
mankind. It brought peace and prosperity, comfort and 
facility, health and wealth for mankind through rapid 
utilization of the natural resources. It provided all the 
basic amenities of life and fulfilled all the human 
aspirations – copious amount of energy to drive all 
developmental activities and provides comforts of life, a 
good and secured dwellings to live and durable clothes to 
wear, a rapid means of transport and quick means of 
communication, nutritious foods to eat, clean water to 
drink, prompt healthcare and sanitation facilities, a 
system of weather forecast and advance warning system 
for coping with natural disasters and genetic engineering 
for improving the economic value of useful plants and 
animal species.  

When used judiciously and legitimately for human 
development, science saved life and property, but when 
‘misused’, it spelt disaster. Technology practically 
transformed the ‘traditional human society’ which was 
more vulnerable to the vagaries of nature, more 
dependent for survival on nature, less adapted to survive 
against odds, to ‘modern human society’ which is less 
vulnerable to the vagaries of nature, more fit to survive in 
difficult situations, less dependent on nature for survival 
and more competent to manage their affairs.  

Technology is the backbone and driving force of 
sustainable development. However, unfortunately some 

of the technologies of the early 20
th

 century proved to be 
a ‘curse in disguise’. They triggered the pace of economic 
development by indiscriminately using the scarce 
resources, and generated huge amount of waste and 
pollution undermining the very resource base upon which 
development was to be made. Towards the end of the 
last century when human environment specially the life-
support systems air, water, soil and the natural 
ecosystems started showing signs of degradation that the 
scientific community realized that something wrong was 
going with the existing technologies used in the 
development process. This necessitated the development 
of more ‘appropriate technologies’ for human deve-
lopment which has been termed as ‘green technologies’ 
or ‘sustainable technologies’ (Adams, 2001).  

Technological developments (environmental 
technologies) in the past decades and especially after 
the1980s have delivered spectacular improvements in the 
environmental quality, cleaner air and water, low 



038       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
emission automobiles, less toxic and hazardous wastes, 
water and energy efficient homes and appliances etc. 
Some of the remarkable technological achievements of 

the 20
th

 and 21
st

 century marching towards sustainability 
are: 
 
1. A significant reduction in the air borne lead (Pb) has 
been achieved by developing ‘Lead Free Petrol’ and use 
of Natural Gas and Ethanol as auto-fuel.   
2. A considerable reduction in the emission of CO, HC 
and NOx by modification in the IC engines, by installation 
of ‘catalytic converters’, and introduction of direct fuel 
injection and ‘lean-burn combustion technologies’.   
3. More fuel efficient, quieter and less polluting 
automobiles driven on environmentally benign auto-fuels 
like compressed natural gas (CNG), liquidified petroleum 
gas (LPG) and ethanol, less body and wheel weight and 
aerodynamic bodies to induce less resistance to wind. 
Hybrid-vehicles are also quiet and much less polluting. 
Hydrogen fuel which is 4.5 times powerful than petrol with 
‘zero emission’ (only water vapor) makes a big promise 
for a sustainable future. U.S., Germany and China are 
ahead. BMW, Germany has several fleets operated on 
hydrogen. Iceland also has buses running on hydrogen 
fuel.   
4. Development of more energy efficient electrical 
appliances and instruments such as automatic lighting 
control system (ALCS), compact fluorescent light bulbs, 
low voltage tungsten halogen and sodium lamps etc. 
They save electricity from 70 to 80%. Modern ACs, 
fridges, washing machines, dishwashers use 75% less 
energy than older models. Reverse cycle AC (for cooling 
and heating) use 67% less electricity, rheem pump hot 
water system (using air to heat water) use only 60% 
energy. Electric stove with fan forced oven are 30% more 
efficient than conventional electric stove. Gas stoves are 
much more energy efficient and microwaves uses 55% 
less electricity. Compact fluorescent lamps use 70 to 80% 
less electricity for same light with 8 times longer life and 
prevent emission of nearly a ton of GHG in its lifetime 
(Energy efficient appliances and instruments   
have reduced the emission of greenhouse gas carbon 

dioxide (CO2) in the same proportion).   
5. Development of eco-efficient water appliance. A 
significant reduction in the waste of potable water has 
been achieved by developing ‘automatic closing taps’, 
‘water efficient showers’ and ‘dual-flushing cisterns’ in the 
bathrooms and toilets and development of ‘sprinkler and 
drip irrigation’ systems in agriculture. New bathing shower 
uses 9 to 16 L of water per minute as compared to 20 to 
30 L used by inefficient showers. The dual-flush cistern 
saves 6 L of water each time in urinal flushing. New cloth 
washing machines and dishwashers are very efficient in 
water use. Drip and sprinkler systems saves40 to 60% of 
fresh water in farming.   
6. Development of ‘clean coal technology’ by generation 
of clean coal seam gas (methane) through underground  

 
 
 
 
combustion on coal beds and reaction with hydrogen is a 
brilliant new idea to utilize the huge coal reserves of 
world. It is like ‘using coal without mining’. Australia is 
pioneering in the technology. It also utilizes 90% of coal 
as compared to hazardous conventional mining which 
only utilize 60%. This has led to significant reduction in 

the emission of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) 
and other toxic pollutants. Methane is piped out and 
supplied to power plants for electricity generation.  

The ‘flue-gas desulfurization technology’ in 
conventional coal power plants has also led to significant 

reduction in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission which causes 
acid rains. More efficient air pollution control equipment 
and devices such as ‘electrostatic precipitators’, ‘bag 
filters’ have also been developed for conventional coal 
power plants.  
7. Natural gas, micro-hydel, solar, wind, tidal and 
geothermal power projects for electricity generation has 
also come up successfully in world and significantly 
reduced pollution and greenhouse gas emission. More 
efficient WIND TURBINES has been developed and they 
perform very high along the seashore of world. Denmark 
is generating over 90% of its electricity need through 
seashore wind turbines.   

The ‘solar photo voltaic cell technology’ has brought a   
revolution and a new era in economic ‘lighting and 

heating’ devices and reduction in greenhouse gas (CO2). 
PV system is now used on large scales in domestic, 
industrial and commercial sectors especially in both 
urban and rural areas. China is leading in solar power 
generation. Australia is also coming up fast in a 
revolutionary way supported by Govt.   
8. Development of technologies for recycling of metals, 
glasses, papers and cardboards, and tough plastics to 
get back those materials for reuse in society. It avoids 
mining of ores of metals and the associated 
environmental hazards, protects trees from cutting to 
make ‘pulp’ and saves huge amount of freshwater and 
energy in their production from virgin materials while also 
reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Production of 
plastics from ‘synthetic organic chemicals’ is also 
hazardous process.   
9. Partial plugging of the ‘ozone hole’ in the stratosphere 
has been achieved by developing lesser evil substitute 
hydrochloroflurocarbon (HCFC) which has 30% less ODP 
than CFC, and large part of it is destroyed in the 
atmosphere before reaching the stratosphere.   
10. In the polystyrene foam manufacturing industry 
‘carbon dioxide’ is being used as the ‘blowing agent’ 
replacing CFC. The new technology has eliminated 3.5 
million pounds of the dangerous ozone depleting and 
global warming chemical chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) every 
year.   
11. In the paper pulp industry an environmentally benign 
oxidant ‘hydrogen peroxide’ is now being used as the 
bleaching agent replacing the dangerous ‘chlorine’.   
12. An environmentally benign non-ionic   and 



Sinha  et al.               039 
 
 

 
biodegradable surfactants called ‘alkyl glycoside’ made 
from saccharide has been developed to replace the non-
biodegradable anionic ‘alkylaryl sulphonate’ used in 
shampoos.  
13. ‘Sodium silicate’ is now used as an environmentally 
benign alternative to the phosphorus-containing additives 
in washing powder.   
14. Hybridization technology and ‘agri-biotechnology’ 
(ABT) has produced high yielding varieties (HYVs) of 
crops (miracle maize, miracle rice and miracle wheat) 
which tripled and even quadrupled food production on the 
same available land area thus increasing agricultural 
sustainability.   
15. A new environmentally friendly technology called 
‘catalytic dehydrogenation of diethanolamine’ has been 
developed in herbicide producing industries that avoids 
the use of toxic chemicals cyanide and formaldehyde.   
16. Biological control of pests and diseases in agriculture 
has become more effective after scientific improvement of 
the herbal pesticides like ‘azadirachtin’ and ‘pyrethrin’, 
and development of ‘transgenic crops’. Use of 
earthworms vermicompost also repels and suppresses 
‘pests’ and ‘diseases’ by over 80% in crops due to the 
presence of ‘chitin’ and cellulose degraders microbes. 
The fermented solution of vermi-compost called 
‘vermicompost tea’ and the liquid filtered through the 
body of earthworms called ‘vermiwash’ is an effective 
biopesticides.   
17. Development of biodegradable ‘agro-plastic’. It 
carries great significance for the environment and society. 
It is the cheapest and most convenient material ever 
known to mankind.   
18. The ‘membrane filtration technology’ by ‘reverse 
osmosis’ is most significant new development of water 
and wastewater treatment without the use of chemicals. It 
can produce ‘high-quality disinfected water’. It can 
remove several chemicals (VOCs, MTBE, NDMA, several 
endocrine disrupters) and endospores and cysts of 
pathogenic bacteria and protozoa not removed by 
conventional methods.   
19. The ‘dematerialization technology’ is a significant new 
development. It leads to reduction in the use of materials 
(in weight) and energy (in MW) over in all industrial goods 
and products while fulfilling the same services. It has 
reduced the use of environmental resources (metals and 
glasses) and synthetic plastics by more than 20 to 25% in 
the manufacture of containers, cans and bottles and 
consequently the energy used and greenhouse gas 
emitted in their manufacture, and also the quantity of 
wastes generated after their use and discard. Steel 
beverage cans have been downsized by 40% since 1970. 
It saves materials and reduce mining activities which has 
severe impact on environment.   
20. Development of eco-efficient non-mineral materials 
which can replace natural resources of earth in 
development and reduce mining. Ceramics, carbon and 
glass fibres and alloys of aluminium and lithium are new  

 

  
 
 

 
materials with superior technical properties; ultra strong 
and light weight. Automobile and aircraft industries are 
using carbon fibres instead of steel to reduce weight and 
improve fuel efficiency. Use of steel is reduced by 25%.  
21. Eco-designing of products to reduce material use and 
improve efficiency. Ferrocement technology’ was 
developed in India. It use much less cement and steel, 
has higher degree of toughness, durability, ductibility, 
tensile strength and crack resistance in less than 25 mm 
of thickness, which is found in 100 mm thick wall of 
conventional RCC Technology.   
22. Development of sustainable environmental 
biotechnologies for municipal and industrial waste 
treatment, waste reduction, reuse and recycling 
(converting waste into resource), diverting huge volumes 
of solid wastes from going to the landfills every year and   
saving land, cost of transport and landfill construction, 

and emission of greenhouse gas methane (CH4) from 
landfills. The most significant development is the global 
revival of ‘vermiculture biotechnology’ with scientific use 
of some versatile waste eater and chemically tolerant 
earthworms species like Eisenia fetida, Perionyx   
excavatus and Eudrillus euginae whom the great 
visionary scientist Sir Charles Darwin called as  
‘unheralded soldiers of mankind and friends of farmers’. 
They are ‘protective’, ‘productive’, ‘disinfecting’, ‘detox-
ifying’ and ‘neutralizing’ (Sinha and Greenway, 2004). 
 

 
The sustainable vermiculture biotechnology 

 
Globally six (6) environmental biotechnologies have been 
identified for sustainable development by scientific use of 
earthworms: 

 
(1) The vermi-composting technology for efficient 
management of most municipal and industrial organic 
wastes including sewage sludge by biodegradation and 
stabilization and converting them into vermicompost 
(nutritive organic fertilizer). Earthworm participation 
enhances natural biodegradation and decomposition of 
organic waste from 60 to 80% given the optimum 
conditions of temperature (20 to 30°C) and moisture (60 
to 70%). It takes nearly half the time to convert waste into 
compost and the process becomes faster with time as the 
army of degrader worms grows.   
(2) The vermi-filtration technology for treatment of 
municipal and industrial wastewater, purification,   
detoxification and disinfection for their reuse. Earthworms 

body work as a ‘bio-filter’. They can remove the BOD5 by 
over 90%, COD by 80 to 90%, TDS by 90 to 92%, the 
TSS by 90 to 95% and the total coliforms by over 99% 
from wastewater. There is no sludge formation which 
plagues all the conventional treatment plants. Worms 
also remove the dangerous ‘endocrine disrupting 
chemicals’ from sewage which cannot be done in the  



040       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
conventional systems. All the end-products (detoxified 
and disinfected nutritive water, vermicomposted sludge 
and huge earthworm biomass) are useful in agriculture.  
(3) The vermi-remediation technology for land 
remediation by removing chemical contaminants from 
soils and reducing soil salinity while also improving the 
total physical, chemical and biological properties of soil 
and its nutritive value. Earthworms have been found to 
bio-accumulate heavy metals, pesticides and lipophilic 
organic micro-pollutants like the polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons (PAH) from the soil. Significantly, 
vermiremediation leads to total improvement in the quality 
of soil and land where the worms inhabit and make them 
highly productive. They swallow large amount of soil 
every day, grind them in their gizzard and digest them in 
their intestine with aid of enzymes. Only 5 to 10% of the 
digested and ingested material is absorbed into the body 
and the rest is excreted out in soil in the form of fine 
mucus coated granular aggregates called ‘vermicastings’ 
which are rich in NKP (nitrates, phosphates and potash), 
micronutrients and beneficial soil microbes including the 
‘nitrogen fixers’, ‘phosphate solubilizers’ and ‘mycorrhizal 
fungus’. Hence the polluted land is not only ‘cleaned-up’ 
but also ‘improved in quality and fertility’. The soil 
becomes lighter and porous biochemically active and the 
productivity is increased to several times. During the 
vermi-remediation process of soil, the population of 
earthworms increases significantly benefiting the soil in 
several ways. A ‘wasteland’ is transformed into 
‘wonderland’.   
(4) The vermi-agro-production technology for restoring 
and improving soil fertility and significantly boosting crop 
productivity. Vermicompost is a highly nutritive ‘miracle 
growth promoter’. Growths and yield of crop plants are 
enhanced by 30 to 40% higher over chemical fertilizers 
by worms and its vermicast. Studies at CSIRO Australia 
found that the earthworms and vermicompost can 
increase growth of wheat crops by 39%, grain yield by 
35%, lift protein value of the grain by 12% and fight crop 
diseases. Vermicompost also increases ‘biological 
resistance’ in plants and protect them against pest and 
diseases either by repelling or by suppressing them. 
Organically grown fruits and vegetables on vermicompost 
have also been found to be highly nutritious, rich in 
‘antioxidants’ and can be highly beneficial for human 
health even for protecting against ‘cancers’ and 
‘cardiovascular’ diseases.   
(5) ‘The vermi-health protection technology’ by the use of 
‘bioactive compounds’ from earthworms to develop 
‘potential modern medicines’ to combat some chronic and 
deadly diseases like ‘cancers’, cure ‘heart diseases’ and 
protect human health. The earthworm’s ‘anti-oxidant’, 
‘anti-microbial’, ‘anti-cancerous’, ‘immune-boosting’ and 
‘clot dissolving’ medicine chest is so powerful as that of 
any plant and even many pharmaceuticals.   
(6) ‘The vermi - industrial production technology’ for use 
of earthworms to produce some valuable industrial raw  

 
 
 
 
materials. All species earthworms are potential source of 
‘biological raw materials’ for production of useful 
‘biodegradable’ industrial products in rubber, lubricant, 
soaps, detergent and cosmetics industries and also as 
valuable source of ‘proteins’ for production of ‘nutritive 
feeds’ for promoting allied ‘food industries’ like fishery, 
dairy, poultry and piggery for meat and milk production. 
 
We have successfully experimented on vermi-
composting, vermi-filtration, vermi-remediation and vermi-
agro-production technologies at Griffith University, 
Australia with excellent results. They are proving to be 
most cost-effective and cheap environmental biotech-
nologies for ‘environmental management and sustainable 
development’. Huge earthworm biomass which is finding 
new uses in industries and agriculture comes as 
byproduct in all above technologies. They all have 
significant contribution towards ‘sustainable agriculture’. 
Vermifiltration of wastewater was our innovative studies 
done in 2005 and the technology has now been 
commercialized in India by Transchem Agritech in 
Gujarat. They are treating 400 kl of sewage everyday and 
the treated water is being supplied to farmers for use in 
agriculture saving huge amount of potable water. Nearly 
80% water is used in global agriculture. Several Vermi-
filtration plants are also operating in Chile, Mexico and 
Venezuela for treatment of municipal and industrial 
wastewater (This was based on the works done by Prof. 
Toha and Dr. Soto of University of 
Chile).(masoto@cec.uchile.cl). 
 
.  
Telecommunication and information technology 
contributes to sustainability 
 
Telecommuting is a new concept of working from home 
using PCs and electronic links. It reduces the need to 
drive to work preventing emissions and congestion in 
cities, the need to heat or cool and light big offices which 
again saves energy and cuts emissions. More than half of 
the managers of AT & T Telecom Company in the U.S. 
telecommute one day a week, reducing 80,000 tons of 
carbon dioxide annually due to reduced travel and 
transport (UNEP Report, 2002). Several official 
works/business including banking and money transfers 
can now be done over telephone or through the internet 
saving travel distance, time and resources. Similarly live 
‘videoconferencing’ instead of face-to-face talk in official 
meetings is another emerging environmentally friendly 
idea. It reduces the need of transport, often long travel 
distances and times (even visit to overseas) and 
significantly cuts pollution and carbon emissions while 
saving resources. However, the boom is communication 
and information technology has also brought in large 
amount of electronic products whose generation (version) 
is fast changing, resulting into their rapid use and discard 
as electronic wastes. 



Sinha  et al.               041 
 
 

 
Development of more green technologies for 
sustainable development 
 
Environmental technologies have to find solutions for 
both ‘preventive’ as well as ‘curative’ actions for the 
environmental degradation. It has to protect the vital life 
support systems of the planet Earth – the air, water, soil 
and the ecosystems, and also manage all the wastes 
generated by the civilization. It must promise to deliver 
clean air, safe food, safe water, clean energy, sustainable 
dwelling and a sustainable transport system for the 
civilization. More appropriate and sustainable green 
technologies need to be developed in future for 
environmental protection and conservation, restoration 
and repair in the following priority areas of human 
development to achieve complete sustainability for the 
human society: 
 
1. Commercialization of clean hydrogen fuel for 
automobiles, and solar, wind, geothermal and oceanic 
energy for utility power generation.   
2. Making the conventional energy (fossil fuels and 
hydropower) sources more clean and green and thus 
more sustainable.   
3. More efficient energy use and conservation in homes, 
institutions and industries.   
4. Cost-effective technology for water and wastewater 
(both municipal and industrial) treatment.   
5. More efficient water use and conservation in homes, 
industries and agriculture.   
6. Cleaner production in all mining, manufacturing and 
consumer industries to reduce and even prevent the use 
of toxic chemicals in production process and eliminate 
their emissions in wastes.   
7. More recycling technologies for all municipal and 
industrial wastes, for their safe disposal and conversion 
into valuable resources.   
8. Methods for ‘safe disposal’ of existing non-
biodegradable plastic wastes, and development and 
commercialization of ‘biodegradable plastics’.   
9. More dematerialization technology to increase the 
efficiency of natural resource (metals and glasses) use 
and plastic use and reduce their waste.   
10. Environmental biotechnology and bioremediation 
technologies. They are emerging as most cost-effective 
technologies for environmental management- solid waste 
and wastewater treatment, conversion of organic wastes 
into resource (biofertilizers and biopolymers), stabilization 
of mined wasteland, decontamination of chemically 
contaminated sites, safe disposal of hazardous wastes, 
and soil conservation and erosion prevention etc.  
 
 
THE SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE 
DEVELOPMENT 
 
The social components of the environmental 
management and sustainable development is as 
important as the economic and technological (Lovins et 

 

  
 
 
 
al., 1999).  

Technology has provided efficient low-emission 
vehicles, but what if people continue to drive 
unjudiciously and unethically; technology has provided 
energy efficient bulbs, air-conditioners and appliances, 
but what if people do not buy them as they are more 
costly or carelessly leave them switched on even during 
day time and when not needed; technology has provided 
water efficient taps and showers, but what if people 
carelessly take longer shower than actually needed, fails 
to close the tap in-between brushing or shaving, or leave 
the leaking taps unattended; technology has provided 
solution to complete waste treatment, waste reduction, 
reuse and recycling, but what if the industries choose to 
dump the untreated wastes because treatment or 
recycling may be more costly than disposal? Similarly 
what if the society does not cooperate in separating the 
recyclable wastes from the non-recyclables at source?  

Technological process and products that promote 
sustainability are often costly than the contemporary 
articles that serve the same purpose and provide the 
same service. Energy efficient fluorescent lights are much 
more costly than the ordinary filament bulbs; the fuel 
efficient and reduced emission hybrid cars are more 
costly than several other models with same facilities.  

General human nature is to buy cheaper products even 
if it is harmful to the environment and as long as it meets 
the social and cultural objectives nicely. Hence not only 
the green technologies have to be cost-effective, their 
products have to be cheaper too, so that everyone can 
afford easily and reasonably. 

 
Guarantee for human rights 
 
Economic development and environmental protection 
require social development – efforts to promote and 
protect internationally guaranteed civil, political, 
economic, social and cultural human rights. Neither 
economic development nor environmental protection can 
be fully assured in the absence of respect for 
fundamental rights and freedoms.  

Certain human rights- such as access to health and 
environmental information about the diverse consumer 
products being used in day to day living (especially about 
the chemicals used in their production process), 
information about the environmentally safe quality of land, 
air and water being used by the society, raising voice 
against any form of environmental degradation (e.g. tree 
logging, air, water and noise pollution) in the locality, 
public participation in governance and redress for any 
environmental harm- may be very important in achieving 
sustainable development. 
 
 
Sustainability education for the modern technological 
society 
 
Environmental education for sustainability is fundamental 



042       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
to the success of sustainable development programs 
(Fien, 2001). Societal response to environmental issues 
is often slow as compared to the responses to economic 
issues such as price rise or health issues such as spread 
of disease. The society has to be educated to ‘demand’ 
and also ‘accept’ a particular technology and the 
technological product which is ‘environmentally friendly’, 
or ‘reject’ all those products which are ‘environmentally 
unfriendly’, and then only the industries will be 
encouraged or even compelled to produce 
environmentally friendly products. Society has to be 
educated about the judicious and sustainable use of the 5 
Ps (paper, petrol, potable water, power (electricity) and 
plastics) in their daily- life. These are the most commonly 
and most frequently used resources by the society 
everyday and their production and use has considerable 
environmental impact. Society has also to be made 
aware about the hidden dangers of environmentally 
unfriendly products and the adverse impact of their use 
on human health. They must know their ‘environmental 
rights and responsibilities’, what is good or bad about 
environment, which sustain their life on Earth. 
 

 
Educating for environmental responsibilities of 
society: Sustainable consumption by rich society can 
lead to universal sustainable development 
 
At the root of the entire environmental problem is the 
unethical increase in the ‘culture of consumerism’ in the 
developed nations, while the unethical increase in the 
‘number of consumers’ (population) in the developing 
nations. There is also a growing tendency for increasing 
consumerism in the handful of elitist societies in the 
developing nations. The environmental impact of both of 
this cultures, are exceeding the ‘ecological limits’ and the 
‘carrying capacity’ (regeneration of renewable resources 
and assimilation of all wastes) of the Earth ecosystems 
with severe consequences for the future.  

Global consumption expenditure, private and public, 
has increased at an unprecedented rate worldwide but 
more in the rich developed nations, since the 1970s 
reaching some US $ 24 trillion in 1998 (UNEP-DTIE, 
2002). This unprecedented growth in consumption (rather 
over-consumption) in affluent societies of developed 
nations (and handful of elitist people in the developing 
nations) has had positive impact as it promoted the 
growth of consumer industries, but highly negative impact 
on the environment as more consumption meant more 
extraction of environmental resources leading to more 
deforestation, soil degradation, waste and pollution, 
biodiversity erosion and social inequality. The adverse 
impacts were felt more in the developing nations where a 
vast majority cannot afford and suffers from ‘under-
consumption’ and inequality. They provided some of their 
precious developmental resources (geological and 
biological for dollar earnings) and were also made the 

 
 
 
 
‘dumping grounds’ of the by-products (often hazardous 
wastes) of over consumption in developed nations.  

Governments in developing nations nurse serious 
misgivings that the developed nations having followed the 
culture of ‘over-consumerism’ for several decades, and 
now wants to deprive the developing nations from their 
legitimate right to develop and consume in the name of 
environmental protection and sustainable development. 
In 1998, UNEP’s Division of Technology, Industry and 
Economics (DTIE) launched a ‘Sustainable Consumption 
Program’ and tried to dispel the misgivings about 
reducing consumption worldwide. It emphasized 
“Sustainable consumption is not about consuming less 
but it is about consuming differently, consuming 
efficiently, consuming judiciously, and having an 
improved quality of life for all, (not for handful of few) both 
in the developed and the developing countries. It also 
means sharing between the rich and the poor” (UNEP-
CDG, 2000). 
 

 
Awareness for green consumerism in society: A sign 
of hope for sustainability 
 
Companies in developed nations are also beginning to 
take notice of the growing numbers of ‘green consumers’ 
in society as awareness about environmental health grew 
worldwide (Eklington and Hailes, 1989). Global consumer 
opinion seems heavily weighted towards a growing 
interest in what lies behind today’s product and services 
that they buy. Apart from price and quality, they want to 
know how, where and who has produced the product. 
They want to know what chemicals are there in the 
product, which can have even a suspected impact on 
health. This increasing awareness about environment 
and health in human society is a sign of hope for a 
sustainable future. Government and industry must build 
on that. 
 

 
Social equity, reduction of population and eradication 
of poverty: A necessary condition for sustainability 
 
Sustainability refers not only to the natural environment 
but also to the social environment because social and 
environmental issues are necessarily inter-wined. Some 
societies have benefited most by new technological 
development and unsustainable use of resources while 
others have suffered. There is a nexus between ‘Poverty 
and Pollution’, between ‘Population and Poverty’ and 
between ‘Population and Pollution’.  

Nearly 930 millions of people (consumers) are being 
added every year to the earth demanding more of all 
resources, more forest to produce food and fuel, and 
more land to live. If this consuming population is affluent 
it would further aggravate the problem of unsustainability. 
Hence we must have a sustainable level of population 



Sinha  et al.               043 
 
 

 
that the earth ecosystem can reasonably support. 
Technology used to harness the resources from the 
biosphere plays a critical role in resource use and 
sustainable development. More appropriate and efficient 
a technology, more efficiently the resource will be used, 
lesser will be the waste and pollution generation and 
greater will be the sustainability.  

The goals of sustainable development cannot be 
achieved unless we have a new world order with equity at 
all levels; social, economic, political and cultural. Till the 
evils of ‘poverty and hunger’, ‘inequities and ‘deficiencies’ 
exist in any part of world, there can be no sustainability in 
development. Social and economic equity is a necessary 
condition for sustainable human development. If the rich 
get richer and the poor becomes more in number, that 
development will not be sustainable over time. If 
development discriminates against the women and 
children, that development will also not be sustainable.  

There is mounting evidence that environmental 
degradation and economic decline (aggravating poverty) 
feed on each other, and the fate of the poor and the fate 
of the planet (Earth) have become tightly entwined “The 
poor are both the victims and the agents of environmental 
damage. They are forced to consume the environmental 
resources (even from the very fragile ecosystems) in 
order to survive, and the impoverishment of the 
environment leads to worsening poverty and 
unsustainablity”. Economic deprivation and environmental 
degradation have thus come to reinforce each other in a 
vicious cycle that perpetuates poverty and destitution in 
many developing countries and thwarts all efforts towards 
sustainable development (UNDP, 2003, 2004). 
 

 
Good health: A necessary condition for human 
sustainability 
 
There can be no sustainable development without 
ensuring basic health services for all in the society. The 
World Health Organization (WHO) reports that 25% of all 
preventable illness are directly caused by environmental 
factors. Modern health hazards, caused by development 
that lacks environmental safeguards, such as urban air 
and water pollution, exposure to ago-industrial chemicals 
and toxic wastes is becoming common. Communicable 
diseases, especially HIV/AIDS, cholera and other water 
borne diseases, tuberculosis and malaria, pose serious 
obstacle on the road to sustainable development.  

It is estimated that in this modern technological world 3 
million people die every year of water borne diseases or 
from use of unsafe water. More than 1 billion people 
globally breathe unhealthy air, and 3 million people die 
each year from air pollution; two thirds of them poor 
people, mostly women and children. Two million people 
die every year as a result of slow exposure to indoor 
pollution caused by burning of wood and dung cake. 
Around 90% of malaria cases in the world are attributable 

 

  
 
 

 
to environmental factors; piling waste and poor sanitary 
conditions (WHO, 1997). 
 
 
THE ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE 
DEVELOPMENT 
 
The classical economics has failed to guide true human 
development. Current GNP (gross national product) of 
nations is a false indicator of true economic prosperity. It 
does not distinguish between resource uses that sustain 
development and those that undermine it. It is like a 
‘malfunctioning strand’ of our ‘cultural DNA code’ – 
carrying erroneous information and signaling to the body-
politic a form of economic growth analogous to that of 
cancers cells that consume the host body. All basic 
biological and physical systems of earth (the true capital 
resources e.g. soil, water and biodiversity) that sustains 
life are under severe stress and in fact ‘exhausting’, as 
ecological destruction continues unabated, yet the key 
economic indicators shows that the world is prospering 
(Ekins, 1992).  

Conventional economists and the ignorant politicians 
are not bothering to deduct the cost of environmental 
destruction (e.g. waste and pollution creation and their 
health impact, loss of forest and species, degradation of 
land and soil etc.) and the cost of environmental repair 
and restoration (e.g. afforestation, waste management 
and pollution control, soil regeneration and wasteland 
management, waste water recycling etc.) from the GNP 
or the rate of economic growth. All economic 
development programs are implemented through political 
decisions. The developers and decision makers have to 
understand that all economic development programs 
involves the systematic transformation of the world of 
‘living things’ (the biosphere – or the natural world which 
is a product of centuries of evolutionary process) into a 
world of ‘human artifacts’ (the technosphere or the 
surrogate world). This means all human development 
process is necessarily ‘anti-evolutionary’, and therefore, 
‘anti-nature’ and it amounts to gross interference into the 
nature to achieve the goals of economic development. It 
is imperative that we have to change the strategies of 
development in order to minimize our interference into the 
nature. The new economic theory is ‘Environmental 
Economics’ which advocates for judicious balance 
between ‘economy and ecology’ and amalgamation of 
‘economic development’ programs with ‘ecological 
conservation’ strategies to usher in the era of sustainable 
development. The new economic philosophy of 
development also stresses mankind to switch over from 
the ‘fossil fuel based economy’ to ‘renewable and clean 
energy based economy’.  

Economic planners have to understand that every 
natural resource, commodity, goods and services that we 
use from the environment has an ‘environmental cost’ 
(the hidden cost of environmental damage and repair 



044       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
while the raw material is procured from the earthly 
resources) other than its ‘economic cost’ (the cost of 
processing, manufacturing and trading) and only after 
adding the two costs, we arrive at the true cost of the 
product. There may be ‘social cost’ as well in the form of 
impaired human health and quality of life.  

Environmental damage can occur at both ends of the 
cycle - the ‘production cycle’ as well as at the 
‘consumption cycle’. In the production cycle 
environmental damage is caused by way of deforestation, 
earth cutting, soil erosion and pollution etc. to obtain the 
raw materials by mining the Earth and process it in the 
industries, while in the consumption cycle, the damage is 
caused because of waste generation once the product is 
consumed and discarded after use. Fossil fuels, nuclear 
fuels, several metals, papers and plastics and even 
procurement of human food and drinking water from the 
nature cause environmental damage at both ends of the 
cycle.  

We only pay for the economic cost of the water (cost of 
harnessing and supply) when we use it in our homes. We 
do not pay for the treatment of the wastewater when we 
have used it and converted into sewage. We only pay for 
the cost of food grown in farms and its processing and 
transport. We never pay for the damage done to the 
environment due to production and use of chemical 
fertilizers and pesticides. We pay for the electricity we 
consume, but not for the environmental damage that 
occur by operation of coal power or nuclear power plants 
and by the construction of huge dams for hydro-power.  

Classical economics only accounts for the electricity 
generation and irrigation potential of any hydro-power 
project but never takes into account the losses which 
incur by way of land submergence and destruction of 
trees, forest and biodiversity by constructing huge dams. 
They are not bothered to add the value of the life 
sustaining oxygen produced, carbon dioxide (greenhouse 
gas) absorbed, and biodiversity protected by the trees 
and forest, if they were alive? Environmental economics 
would account for all these. In classical economics a tree 
has a value only when it is dead and become a ‘timber’, 
while in environmental economics a live tree has more 
value as it do more services to mankind by providing 
food, fodder, fuel and the vital oxygen. It is important that 
the cost of ‘environmental damage’ and the cost of 
‘environmental repair’ must be included in the economic 
calculations for GNP of every nation (Tietenberg, 1988).  

In a pilot study in Mexico, the planners tried to measure 
the cost of environmental damage and resource depletion 
due to development. When an adjustment was made for 
the depletion of oil, forests, and groundwater, Mexico’s 
net national product was almost 7% lower. A further 
adjustment for the costs of avoiding environmental 
degradation, particularly air and water pollution and soil 
erosion, brought the national product down to another 
7%. In the agriculture and animal husbandry sector 
adjustment for the cost of soil erosion sharply reduced 

 
 
 
 
the net value added (Goodland and Serafy,1991). 
 

 
The concept of circular economy: Recycling and 
reuse of waste and resources 
 
The new economic philosophy is to cut the use of basic 
(virgin) materials from the environment dramatically, by 
boosting ‘recycling and re-use’ the waste including water, 
energy and materials from one 
facility/industries/organizations becoming an input in 
another facility. In circular economy, all economic 
activities pursue low resource exploitation, maximum 
efficiency in using materials and energy, and low waste 
generation. China, the largest growing economy in world 
has adopted the concept of ‘circular economy’. It has set 
the following targets for 2010 using 2003 as baseline 
(UNEP-DTIE, 2002): 
 
1. Resource productivity per ton of energy, iron and other 
resources increased by 25%;   
2. Energy consumption per unit of GDP decreased by 
18%;   
3. Average water use efficiency for agricultural irrigation 
improved by up to 50%;   
4. Reuse rate of industrial solid waste (ISW) raised above 
60%;   
5. Recycle and reuse rate for major renewable resources 
increased by 65%   
6. Final industrial solid waste (ISW) disposal limited to 
about 4,500 million tones.  

 
If all nations both developed and the developing, follows 
the philosophy of ‘circular economy’ with some set targets 
for 2010 or 2015 it will great leap forward for the global 
sustainable development. 
 

 
Environmental auditing and accounting of 
developmental activities 
 
There has to be EAA and environmental cost-benefit 
analysis (ECBA) of all those developmental activities and 
their associated technologies which sustains growth and 
development- such as management of domestic and 
industrial wastes; tree planting and afforestation activities; 
soil conservation, remediation and wasteland 
development. EAA and ECBA are needed for those 
developmental activities and technologies, too, which 
otherwise undermine growth and sustainable 
development- such as deforestation for timber mining and 
agriculture; encroachment of farmlands and old growth 
forest for urban development; extraction and processing 
of ores and minerals from the earth crust in mining and 
metallurgical industries; production and use of fossil fuels 
and nuclear fuels; construction of huge dams for 
hydropower generation; and production and use of agro- 



Sinha  et al.               045 
 
 

 
chemicals for agriculture etc., so as to make these 
developmental activities environmentally more 
sustainable 
 

 
Making the profit making companies more 
accountable for sustainable development 
 
Opinion polls made on the eve of Johannesburg Summit 
(2002) clearly show that people worldwide want the 
companies in both private and public sectors to bear the 
responsibility of environmental degradation and act with 
greater responsibility towards its repair and restoration. 
The behavior of big companies and corporate sectors, 
and the need to make them more responsible and 
accountable, has captured public attention and interest in 
all discussions relating to environmental protection and 
sustainable development. Maximizing ‘short-term profit’ 
even at the cost of environment and society had been the 
key principle of operation of almost all companies in world 
whether in the developed or in the developing countries. 
Burning examples are the ‘Petrochemical and 
Agrochemical Industries’ of world. One has deliberately 
thwarted the development of ‘Hydrogen Fuel Technology’ 
and the other has been conspiring against the 
development of ‘sustainable alternatives’ to the ‘deadly 
agrochemicals’ for their own vested interest. UNEP report 
says 3 Republican Senators were seen secretly attending 
a meeting of Oil Producing Nations in Saudi Arabia. 
Recently the Prince of Saudi Arabia has realized it and 
has requested U.S. to give them the technology for 
development of ‘Hydrogen Fuel’ in the interest of 
humanity. In the U.S. farmers practicing ‘vermiculture’ in 
agriculture had to face problems with the USEPA. We 
have also faced problems in India, while educating 
farmers about use of vermicompost in farming. Agents of 
agrochemical industries operate in every country 
misleading the farmers about adverse effects of 
earthworms on farm soil.  

The recent trend of ‘deregulation and liberalization’ in 
all countries (even in nations with communist philosophy) 
have increasingly allowed companies to do much as they 
like: 
 
1. Their activities generate more than half the 
greenhouse gases emitted by industrial sectors.   
2. They dominate in both mining and trade of natural 
resources and commodities, thus affecting forests, soils, 
water and marine ecosystems.   
3. They control about four fifths of the land cultivated 
worldwide for export of crops.   
4. They dominate global and national industry and 
transport, and these developmental activities are major 
sources of waste and pollution, including toxic and 
hazardous wastes, unsafe consumer products and 
occupational health hazards.   
6. They are   major   transmitters   of   environmentally 

 

  
 
 

 
unsound technologies and production systems and 
hazardous materials like chemical pesticides (in the name 
of pest and disease control and crop protection) and 
hazardous wastes (in the name of recyclables) to the 
developing countries in the South.  
7. They deliberately promote ‘unsustainable consumption 
patterns’ in both North and South nations through 
electronic and print media. 
 
Perhaps the biggest error of the Rio Earth Summit (1992) 
was its decision not to create a mechanism to regulate 
the economic activities of ‘big companies and 
corporations’. Although, the NGOs like Greenpeace and 
the Third World Network who dominated at the Rio 
Summit had identified the primary role of the 
transnational corporations (TNCs) in damaging the 
environment. The economic record of the last decades 
show that the cause sustainable development loses when 
governments give up their task of regulating companies. 
TNCs should also be made liable for economic 
compensation for the harmful effects of their operation on 
the environment, safety of workers and ill effects on the 
health of workers and the residents in the area.  

In the U.S., Louisiana’s Lower Mississippi River 
Industrial Corridor has been dubbed by the 
environmentalists and the local residents as ‘Cancer 
Alley’. It has over 125 companies manufacturing a range 
of products including fertilizers, paints, plastics and 
gasoline. These polluting industries were given a ‘tax 
break’ of U.S. $ 111 million and the Louisiana 
government wiped out $ 3.1 billion off the books in 
property taxes. It was an economic incentive given to the 
industries to create more jobs even at the cost of human 
health and the environment. Ecology was sacrificed at the 
altar of economy. It was an incentive to pollute more. 
Sustainability for all’ was compromised with ‘prosperity for 
few’ (WB, 2004). 
 

 
THE POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE 
DEVELOPMENT 
 
All economic development plans and projects are 
executed and implemented through some political 
decision at local, regional or federal level and political 
decisions are often made to meet the societal goals. In 
democracy ‘eco-vote’ plays critical role in planning for 
development. Sometimes a political decision is taken to 
fulfill the election promises to a particular section of the 
society even at the cost of environment. When it comes 
to setting priorities- whether society is to be benefited or 
the environment, or both, obviously societal needs come 
first. The fact remains that if environment suffer, society 
can never remain apart and is bound to suffer. Political 
maturity requires a perfect planning for striking a judicious 
balance between the two.  

At the Rio Earth Summit, Brazil, 1992, the  whole  world 



046       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
was seen to be divided into two eco-political blocks of 
North and South on the issues of ‘carbon emission’ and 
over the ‘rights and access to the genetic resources of 
the tropical forests’. The ‘arrogance and ignorance’ of the 
politicians of some developed nations refused to meet the 
obligations of Rio Convention and which still continues 
today. The arrogant statement of the then U.S. President 
George Bush in 1992, that- “conventions like these are 
not going to compel the U.S. citizens to give up their 
current life-style” expose the political immaturity of a head 
of state in planning for sustainable development. 
Greening of politics is an urgent requirement today and it 
must be incorporated in the national and international 
agenda of every nation for appropriate planning and 
decision making on vital issues of development and 
environment.  

Wrong political decisions made for rapid resource 
exploitation and economic development in some Asian 
and African nations e.g. for construction of huge dams for 
hydro-power, clearing of ‘tropical forest’ for fodder 
plantation and export earnings, installation of nuclear 
power plants and dumping of nuclear and toxic wastes 
has adversely affected the ecology of the country, 
irreversibly damaged the ecosystems and biodiversity, 
displaced and uprooted large sections of human societies 
from their homes as ‘ecological refugees’ for narrow 
socio-political and socio-economic gains. Damages done 
to the human environment due to the political conflicts 
and tensions, terrorist activities, wars and battles 
resulting from international politics unleashed by arrogant 
political decisions is also of great concern.  

Environmental policy decisions would require 
imposition of some new ‘environmental taxes’ like 
pollution tax, waste tax, tree tax and logging tax etc. and 
reduction in the regular income taxes. It will require to 
enhance the prices of environmental goods and services 
(such as water and energy sources) in order to force the 
society for their judicious use and consumption. 
Economic incentives have to be given to recycling 
industries and those saving water and energy in industrial 
operations by way of reduction in taxation and reduced 
cost of inputs (raw materials, water and electricity).  

Some pragmatic policy decision has to be taken by the 
government of all nations with regard to water and energy 
pricing in society and production of consumer goods by 
the industries. The short-term objectives of reducing the 
water and power prices may give fillip to high water and 
energy consumption with severe environmental 
consequences, waste and pollution. Developed nations 
are paying high environmental cost (by way of 
greenhouse gas emission) for the cheap auto fuel, which 
is in fact at the cost of the whole society. ‘Polluter-Pay-
Principle’ has to be enforced in the matters of water and 
energy pricing and in the matters of waste generation. 
There has to be a ‘Waste and Pollution Tax’ added up 
with the consumer products, water and the auto fuel at 
source. Even the government of nations may have to 

 
 
 
 
take a hard decision over cutting in the production of 
‘private cars’ and ‘subsidize’ the cost of public transport 
instead of the petrol. Government should force the 
industries to produce and manufacture ‘durable’ goods 
and not ‘disposable ’ones.  

All planning and policies for development of appropriate 
environmental technologies for sustainable development 
have to be economically viable and socially acceptable. It 
is also the responsibility of the academia to educate the 
politicians and decision makers about the benefits of 
sustainable development technologies. They have to be 
educated about the ‘hidden cost’ of a particular 
developmental activity and product such as the ‘fossil 
fuels’ and ‘plastic bags’ which is apparently cheap at its 
face value, but are proving very costly in terms of human 
sustainability. The convenient but ‘non-biodegradable’ 
plastic bags used in the groceries, cause health hazard 
during manufacture and also recycling. They have to be 
‘banned’ all over the world. 
 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
It is impossible to separate economic development issues 
from environmental issues. Almost all forms of 
development for human welfare erode the environmental 
resources upon which they must be based, and 
environmental degradation would necessarily undermine 
economic development. It is a vicious circle. In the end, 
the solution to the problem is sustainable development, a 
process of change in which the exploitation of 
environmental resources, the direction of economic 
investments, the orientation of technological innovations 
and institutional changes are made consistent with the 
present and well as future needs.  
Sustainability in human society with good quality of life for 
all can be achieved in two ways: 
 
1. By persuading the people to ‘behave ethically’ towards 
environment, ‘reduce consumption’, and have a ‘simpler 
life-style’;   
2. By embracing the philosophy of ‘sustainable 
development’ with appropriate technologies that allow 
people to enjoy the same good quality of life with high 
standard of living, but at a significantly lower 
‘environmental cost’ (Schumacher, 1973).  

 
Given the difficulty of changing people, the second option 
appears to be more pragmatic. However, technology 
should never be seen as a ‘silver bullet’ solving all the 
world’s environmental ills. Environmental education for 
sustainability can definitely change people in course of 
time and correct human behavior.  

Technology has provided environmentally sound 
alternatives for sustainable development in many cases 
but there is a sad lack of necessary ‘political will’ to 
implement it because there is fear of resistance from the 



Sinha  et al.               047 
 
 

 
mighty industrial lobby and their political friends who want 
to continue with the obsolete and destructive 
technologies for their own political and economic gains. Is 
it not ironic that man stepped on moon in 1969, but has 
not been able to commercialize the use of solar, wind and 
hydrogen power as a viable alternative to destructive oil, 
and manufacture automobiles run on hydrogen fuels? It is 
perhaps not favorable to the oil rich nations of world and 
their ‘purchased politicians’ in the decision making bodies 
of west. The ‘addiction’ to the ‘cheap oil’ stopped the 
technologically capable western world to go for 
sustainable alternative.  

In the words of Gerald Durrel (1984), ‘At the present 
rate of progress and unless something is done quickly, 
disaster stares us in the face. Erosion, desertification and 
pollution have become our lot. It is a weird form of 
suicide, for we are bleeding our planet to death. We are 
led by’ sabrerattling politicians’ who are ignorant of 
biology, beset by sectarian groups noted for their narrow-
mindness and intolerance, surrounded by powerful 
commercial interests whose only interest in nature is 
often to rape it’ (Myers, 1994).  

There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the world is 
going on the wrong path of development. It is leading to 
economic, ecological, social and political deterioration 
and the worst ‘moral degradation’ in the name of 
development. It has given birth to violent societies, 
violence against both man and nature. There are more 
accidents, crime, delinquency, drugs, alcoholism and 
deadly diseases than ever before. Mankind will perish if 
the protection of the environment does not become an 
integral part of all technological development, planning 
and management. We must seek lessons from history. 
The flourishing civilizations of the past perished not at the 
hands of any cruel enemy, but due to human’s own 
activity, clearing of forest, overuse of soil and lack of 
awareness for development compatible with the 
environment (Meadows et al., 1992).  

Making economic development programs less 
dependent upon the ‘fossil fuels’ and more dependent on 
renewable energy sources, less energy and material 
intensive and more equitable in its social and economic 
impact on global level is the need of the hour. A 
‘sustainable hydrogen fuel economy’ in place of ‘fossil 
fuel economy’ must be established if an environmentally 
and economically sustainable world is to be left to our 
children and grandchildren.  

A sustainable future for the human society will be 
determined: 
 
1. Not by the megawatt of energy which will be produced, 
but by the fact that how they will be produced and from 
what source?   
2. Not by the quantity of food that will be produced, but by 
the quality of the food, and that how they will be 
produced?   
3. By  how  soon  we  get  rid  of  those  developmental  

 

  
 
 

 
materials and technologies whose production, application 
and utilization entails heavy environmental damage from 
beginning to end of the cycle;  
4. By how soon we are able to ‘reduce’ and ‘recycle’ all 
those ‘human wastes’ successfully and develop safe and 
benign alternatives to those thousands of ‘toxic 
chemicals’ used in various developmental activities;   
5. By how soon we are able to commercialize the 
‘hydrogen fuel technology’ for our automobiles and all 
other renewable sources of energy for power generation;   
6. By how soon we switch over completely to ‘Organic 
Farming’ to produce ‘chemical-free and health protective 
organic foods’ for civilization;   
7. By how soon we are able to arrest the dangerously 
growing menace of soil and biodiversity erosion, 
desertification and land degradation;   
8. By how soon we are able to arrest the exploding 
‘human population’ (consumers on Earth) and the ‘culture 
of consumerism’ and learn to live a ‘sustainable life-style’ 
by embracing the philosophy of 5 P’s (judicious use of 
paper, petrol, power, potable water and plastics) and 5 r’s 
(refuse, reduce, reuse, recycle and responsibility about 
waste) in daily life (Seymour and Girardet, 1987; Milbrath, 
1989).  
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Adams W (2001). Green Development; 2

nd
 Edition, Routledge Pub., 

London, U.K.  
Axinn GH (1996). Philosophy of Sustainable Development; In Rajiv K. 

Sinha (ed.) Environmental Crisis and Human’s at Risk; INA Shree 
Publications, Jaipur, India. pp. 137-142.  

Eklington J, Julia H (1989). The Green Consumer Guide – From 
Shampoo to Champagne: High Street Shopping for Better 
Environment; Victor Gollancz Ltd. London.  

Ekins P (1992). The Gaia Atlas of Green Economics; Doubleday / 
Anchor Pubublication.  

Fien J (2001): Education for Sustainability; TELA Series, Australian 
Conservation Foundation; Centre for Innovation and Research in 
Environmental Education, Griffith Eco-Centre, Griffith University, 
Nathan Campus, Brisbane.  

Goodland D, Serafy D (1991). Environmentally Sustainable Economic 
Development: Building on Brundtland, UNESCO, Geneva.  

IUCN WWF, UNEP (1991): Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for 
Sustainable Living; Earthscan, U.K.  

Lovins A, Brown L, Flavin C, Postal S (1999). Picturing a Sustainable 
Society; In L. Starke (ed.) ‘State of the World (1999)’, World Watch 
Institute, Washington.  

Label G, Gregory, Hal K (1987) Will We Survive ? Sustainable 
Development: A Guide to Our Common Future; The Report of World 
Commission on Environment and Development (WECD).  

Myers N (ed.) (1994). The GAIA Atlas of Planet Management; GAIA 
Books, Ltd., London. p. 272.  

Meadows DH, Meadows DL, Randers J (1992). Beyond the Limits: 
Confronting Global Collapse: Envisioning a Sustainable Future;  
Chelsea Green Publication; Post Mills., VT.  

Milbrath LW (1989). Envisioning a Sustainable Society; State 
University of New York Press.  

Sinha RK (1994). Development Without Destruction; Environmentalist 
Publishers, Jaipur, India.  

Sinha RK, Greenway M (2004). Green Technologies for Environmental 
Management and Sustainable Development: Giving Better Quality of 
Life at Lower Environmental Cost: Pointer Publishers, India. p. 432. 
ISBN 81-7132-375-8. 



048       Afr. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
Better Quality of Life at Lower Environmental Cost: Pointer 
Publishers, India. p. 432.  

Sinha RK (2006). Development, Environment, Human Health and 
Sustainability: Vol. I :The Price of Unsustainable Development:  
(p.324) ISBN 81-7132-480-0; Vol. II :The Wisdom of Sustainable 
Development: (p.342) ISBN 81-7132-481-9. Pointer Publishers, 
Jaipur, India  

Steffen W, Sanderson A,Tyson PD,Jäger J, Matson PA, Moore III B, 
Oldfield F, Richardson K, Schellnhuber HJ, Turner II BL, Wasson RJ, 
(2004). Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under 
Pressure; IGBP Global Change Series; Berlin-NY, Springer-Verlag.  

Seymour J, Girardet H (1987). Blueprint for Green Planet; Dorling 
Kindersley, London.  

Schumacher EF (1973). Small is Beautiful. Harper and Row; UK. 
Schmidheiny S, Chase R DeSimone L (1997): Signals of Change:  

Business Progress Towards Sustainable Development; The World 
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD);  

Tietenberg T (1988). Environment and natural Resource Economics; 
Glenview, III; Scott, Forseman & Company.  

UNDP (2003). Human Development Report 2003: Millennium 
Development Goals; United Nation Development Program; Oxford 
University Press. 

 
 
 

 
UNDP (2004). Human Development Report 2004; United Nation 

Development Program; NY.  
UNEP-CDG (2000). Sustainable Consumption and Production: Creating 

Opportunities in a Changing World; Report of the 4
th

 International 
Business Forum, Berlin, 1999.  

UNEP-DTIE (2002). Sustainable Consumption and Cleaner Production: 
Global Status 2002; United Nation Environment Program & Division 
of Technology, Industry and Economics, Paris, Cedex, France.  

UNEP-GEO (2004-05): Global Environment Outlook (GEO) Year Book 
2004-05; UNEP Publication, Nairobi, Kenya.  

WCED (1987): Our Common Future; World Commission on 
Environment and Development; Oxford University Press.  

WB (2004). World Development Indicators; World Bank Report, 
Washington, D.C.  

WHO (1997). Health and Environment in Sustainable Development; 
Five Years After the Rio Earth Summit; World Health Organization 
Publication, Geneva. p. 242. 
 


