Bridge Sustainability Science And Politics -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Bridge Sustainability Science And Politics? Answer: Introducation Sustainability, for long, has been considered to be the concept that enables the biological systems to endure and to remain productive and diverse (Taylor, 2012). However, over the ages, the definition of sustainability has undergone many reformations. In the 21st century, sustainability has been referred to the necessity for the development of sustainable models required for the survival of both the planet and the human race. However, it is inevitable to say that politics has an influence over everything that science hopes to execute. The change and revolution that sustainability hopes to bring is pushed against the vested interests of many that are more than eager to corrupt the best efforts directed at global sustainability (Dryzek, 2013). Hence, sustainability cannot just remain within the confines of science. In fact, to achieve it, sustainability has to be a political form. It is for this reason that sustainability today, is more about politics rather than science. Over the ages, it has been realized that our Earth has dived into the Anthropocene Era which is the geological age that considers humans to be a significant and dominating force working in the environment (Taylor, 2012). Records show that in the ancient geological era or the Holocene Era, the Earth has never experienced such extreme changes as the present. This can be understood from the various changes that are evident in the environment of the present era, such as drastic climate changes and extreme temperatures. Political interference and environmental science go hand in hand mostly because there is much to be considered at stake for politics when the imminent future of an inhabitable planet is considered. To state the obvious, environmental science does not exist outside the framework of a social and political structure, they are co-produced (Dryzek, 2013). In fact, there is no discussion on sustainability that does not enter the dimensions of large-scale politics. To speak out the truth, the tripping block against sustainability is not the science related to sustainability but the politics involved in the science of sustainability. For instance, the foundations of anti-climate change programs are not based on science but on political resonance. In fact, for most people who are politically involved and scientifically hollow, it is all about the government and not about climate change or about science. Denial is not involved within the prospects of science but within the political dynamics. Many organizations develop strategies towards environment sustainability but fail to implement them effectively for gaining economic and competitive advantage (Raco, 2014). In fact, there has not been any evidence for a socially responsible corporation that has successfully reached their environment sustainability goals. For instance, the UK Energy White Paper claims that within the year of 2020, the gas fields of the North Sea would be so depleted that it wo uld fail to meet the growing energy needs of UK (Kraft, 2017). Such a claim can be backed up by the official records that demonstrate the need for imported gas from Russia. However, Russia is more likely to take this situation as an advantage of economic uplift. Sustainability governance wraps up within the existing order of military hegemony, economic power, and local elitism (Raco, 2014). However, there could be likely increase in the greater cooperation among governing organizations over sustainability and security. This is evident from the gradually growing bridge between the degradation of the environment and poverty, chronic disease and the persisting underdevelopment. There is the chance that environmental and sustainability crisis could trigger more radical organizations to form reforming partnerships involving international governance associating environment with development and health (Klauer et al., 2013). Though there is the high chance of opposition from rival national organizations, it must be realized that such prominent shifts in the international opinion for the mitigation of sustainability crisis is capable of taking over the adverse political grounds. There is ample evidence that relate sustainability to politics. However, the role of science in sustainable development cannot be ignored. Science has developed important and advanced technologies for sustainable development which involves exploring renewable energy sources and developing technologies that can help in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climatic changes (Miller, 2013). Moreover, science has contributed towards the development of recent control technologies and microsystems that are enabled to design environment friendly processes of production. Developed scientific technologies have optimized the usage of energy and materials. Emergence of telematics have increased the traffic efficiency. Biotechnology has also made certain advances regarding the mitigation of problems related to food and in the development of environment friendly agricultural and industrial production. Science has also worked towards the development strategies that involve enha ncement of soil, air, water and land quality and in the development of nitrogen-efficient technologies. In spite of significant contribution of science towards sustainability, it must be remembered that the optimized utilization of natural, social and economic sources can be achieved with the collaboration of scientists and political leaders in addressing the challenges involved in the inter-relationships between the natural, social, economic and ecological factors (Klauer et al., 2013). This is the point where is required a policy of legal and political cosmopolitanism. This requires communities to act together in addressing the global problems on a global scale for the common good of all (Van, 2014). It must be realized that a sustainable society can be achieved only when communities understand the global impact of their existence instead of the formal presence of a nation-state. To this end, is required the formation of legal policies and opportunities to deal with global crisis in sustainability (Maak, 2009). This can be achieved by the realization that every person belongs to a co mmon humanity and are interrelated and therefore must work equally towards obtaining global justice in the society and in the environment. The above discussion concludes that though science is inevitably related to the concept of sustainability, the domain of sustainability is dominated by the political dynamics. This is because, even though science has made its significant contribution in advancing technology and discovering remedies for the existing sustainability crisis, it depends on the political framework to utilize them. Hence, it is a much needed concern to develop new polices in the corporate, industrial, economic and political field that can bridge the gap between environmental politics and science. References Dryzek, J. S. (2013).The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses. Oxford University Press. Klauer, B., Manstetten, R., Petersen, T., Schiller, J. (2013). The art of long-term thinking: A bridge between sustainability science and politics.Ecological Economics,93, 79-84. Kraft, M. E. (2017).Environmental policy and politics. Taylor Francis. Maak, T. (2009). The cosmopolitical corporation.Journal of Business Ethics,84(3), 361. Miller, T. R. (2013). Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspectives and research trajectories.Sustainability science,8(2), 279-293. Raco, M. (2014).The post-politics of sustainability planning: Privatisation and the demise of democratic government(pp. 25-47). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Taylor, R. W. (Ed.). (2012).Taking sides: Clashing views in sustainability. McGraw-Hill. Van Hooft, S. (2014).Cosmopolitanism: A philosophy for global ethics. Routledge.