I do have a disagreement with the point about balance between economic development and environmental quality. The track record is quite clear that in terms of environmental indicators, the wealth-creating western societies, by and large, have the best environmental track record, in terms of environmental mitigation, for example, environmental remediation, and a whole host of other environmental indicators related to the preservation of landscapes. So to me there's no balance at all; wealth creation and environmental protection go hand in hand.
The phrase “sustainable development” keeps getting thrown around over and over again. I'd like to remind the committee, going back to the Brundtland Commission in 1986, that her definition--regardless of what may or may not be in our act--was that “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor, to which overriding priority should be given....” She then talked about the idea of limitations that the environment does pose to certain kinds of economic development, which I agree with. There are only so many trees you can cut or so many fish you can catch.
But the central feature of the definition of “sustainable development” is that it is a development concept, and the social, economic, and environmental legs of the sustainable development stool are meant to be equal. The poverty and the lack of development was a major concern of the Brundtland Commission when they came up with the globally accepted definition of “sustainable development”.
Thank you.