The fear over environmental sustainability arises because the global population of about ten billion people must decently feed and shelter without damaging the environment, (Goodland, 2002, p. 1). The possibility of sustaining this size of the population while keeping the environment intact is lean because the social and economic needs of this population size exceed the carrying capacity of the environment, (Marquart-Pyatt, 2010). More importantly, the economic sector (the corporate) is the chief culprit in derailing environmental sustainability.
I believe environmental sustainability directly affects economic sustainability because economic growth derives its inputs from the environment, (Goodland, 2002, p. 2). This relationship has an implication on the natural resources that sustain economic growth. Economic growth is infinite but the ecosystem that supports the economic growth is finite. This means that the economy continues to grow in terms of the rate of production and consumption of products while the environmental capacity from which raw materials are derived remains constant or reduces with increased extraction. However, part of this limited environmental capacity, the renewable resource, has the ability to replenish, (Goodland, 2002, p. 2). Renewable resource partly provides the mechanism of adopting environmental sustainability. The other portion, non-renewable resource, lack the ability to replenish.
Implementing an environmental sustainability policy is challenging because only part of the whole environment is able to replenish whereas the depletion process affects both.
In respect to this, I would propose three rules for environmental sustainability. The first is the rule for the output, which stipulates that the quantity of waste emitted from a social or economic activity must be within the assimilative capacity of the local environment without compromising its subsequent absorptive capacity for similar wastes or other services, (Hughes, 2010).