I am thinking of the possible impact of a document like this. It should end with more concrete proposals for ways out of the predicament. Therefore, I would limit the discussion of the various known positions and arguments with regard to sustainable development to the essentials.While I share the arguments for the need of the developing countries to catch up, I do not believe that the present environmental trends will allow us to ‘balance’ economic growth and environmental protection. Without a radically different approach to what constitutes development we are rather like an alcoholic who thinks he can balance his need/preference for liquor and the deterioration of his liver. I think there are enough signs that the global ecological balance has been seriously upset already. Nature doesn’t do compromises and takes no notice of human/politicians’ needs, preferences and aspirations.Concrete suggestions for economic development delinked from further environmental destruction would require that the document should also be concrete about the environmental issues which offer scope for successful action.In this connection the first point I’d like to make is that localized production and consumption of food deserves more than a footnote. Export agriculture in developing countries not only often has negative social consequences (starting with 17th  century plantations in the East Indies) or for biodiversity and climate (clear-cutting of forest in Brazil for ranching), it also means exporting scarce natural resources such as water. A concrete example of the latter from my own experience: I worked in a kibbutz  for a year in the 1960s. Israel’s agriculture is heavily export-oriented. At that time the river Jordan, which feeds the Sea of Galilee, was a serious river. The Sea of Galilee is now in the process of disappearing. And Israel imports water (by tanker ship) from Turkey. And let us not forget: much of the exported food is thrown away or contributes to lifestyle diseases.Obviously, a radical rethinking of economics is needed. One of our great problems is that most of us have never linked the economic cycle to ecological cycles (at least not since we depended on local agriculture). Otherwise, more progress would have been made in, for example, realistically pricing natural resources and services. Academia could do much more in this respect.  The point about the ‘decreasing returns’ of an additional amount of income above a certain level is a good one. But we still equate a good life, and especially power, with luxuries. However, a shift to wellness services (for example) will hardly reduce the demand for goods – just look at the adverts (four/five star resorts, global travel). The question is: which leisure, cultural, etc., services will increase our quality of life while reducing (indirect) material needs? Obviously, there is a lot that politicians, big business and last but not least the advertising industry could do to wean us off our present addictions. They might start by giving a good example.With regard to the last: the various actors in society must become more serious about their responsibilities. NGO’s have been moving against the stream for about four decades now in promoting sustainable development. Other actors in society should show such Zivilcourage as well.     Paul HespSID Vienna Chapter