Editing Sustainable development (section)

== Assessments and reactions ==
{{Main|Sustainability#Assessments and reactions}}
{{Further|Weak and strong sustainability|Degrowth|Eco-economic decoupling}}

The concept of sustainable development has been and still is, subject to criticism, including the question of what is to be sustained in sustainable development. It has been argued that there is no such thing as sustainable use of a [[non-renewable resource]], since any positive rate of exploitation will eventually lead to the exhaustion of earth's finite stock;<ref name="kt01">{{cite book |last=Turner |first=R. Kerry |title=Sustainable Environmental Management. |date=1988 |publisher=Belhaven Press |editor-last=Turner |editor-first=R. Kerry |location=London |chapter=Sustainability, Resource Conservation and Pollution Control: An Overview}}</ref>{{rp|13}} this perspective renders the [[Industrial Revolution]] as a whole unsustainable.<ref name="ngr01">{{cite book |last=Georgescu-Roegen |first=Nicholas |author-link=Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen |url=https://archive.org/details/entropylawe00nich |title=The Entropy Law and the Economic Process |date=1971 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0674257801 |location=Cambridge |format=Full book accessible at Scribd}}</ref>{{rp|20f}}<ref name="jr01">{{cite book |last=Rifkin |first=Jeremy |author-link=Jeremy Rifkin |url=http://www.foet.org/FOET-data/uploads/2017/03/Jeremy-Rifkin-Entropy-table-of-contents.pdf |title=Entropy: A New World View. |date=1980 |publisher=The Viking Press |isbn=978-0670297177 |location=New York |format=PDF contains only the title and contents pages of the book}}</ref>{{rp|61–67}}<ref name="hd01" />{{rp|22f}}

The sustainable development debate is based on the assumption that societies need to manage three types of capital (economic, social, and natural), which may be non-substitutable and whose consumption might be irreversible.<ref name="Dyllick, T. 2002">{{cite journal |last1=Dyllick |first1=T. |last2=Hockerts |first2=K. |year=2002 |title=Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability |journal=Business Strategy and the Environment |volume=11 |issue=2 |pages=130–141 |doi=10.1002/bse.323|bibcode=2002BSEnv..11..130D }}</ref> [[Natural capital]] can not necessarily be substituted by economic capital.<ref name="hd01" /> While it is possible that we can find ways to replace some natural resources, it is much less likely that they will ever be able to replace [[ecosystem service]]s, such as the protection provided by the ozone layer, or the climate stabilizing function of the Amazonian forest.

The concept of sustainable development has been criticized from different angles. While some see it as paradoxical (or an [[oxymoron]]) and regard development as inherently unsustainable, others are disappointed in the lack of progress that has been achieved so far.<ref name=":13" /><ref name=":15" /> Part of the problem is that "development" itself is not consistently defined.<ref name=":10" />{{RP|16}}<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last=Park |first=Albert Sanghoon |date=2023 |title=Understanding resilience in sustainable development: Rallying call or siren song? |journal=Sustainable Development |volume=32 |pages=260–274 |doi=10.1002/sd.2645 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

The vagueness of the Brundtland definition of sustainable development has been criticized as follows:<ref name=":10" />{{RP|17}} The definition has "opened up the possibility of downplaying sustainability. Hence, governments spread the message that we can have it all at the same time, i.e. economic growth, prospering societies and a healthy environment. No new ethic is required. This so-called weak version of sustainability is popular among governments, and businesses, but profoundly wrong and not even [[Weak and strong sustainability|weak]], as there is no alternative to preserving the earth's ecological integrity."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bosselmann |first=Klaus |title=The principle of sustainability: transforming law and governance |publisher=Routledge |date=2017 |isbn=978-1-4724-8128-3 |edition=2nd |location=London |oclc=951915998}}</ref>{{RP|2}}

Scholars have stated that ''sustainable development'' is open-ended, much critiqued as ambiguous, incoherent, and therefore easily appropriated.''<ref name=":3" />''