IB ESS HL 1.3.2 Three Pillars of Sustainability Question Bank

Arguments for being sustainable [4 max]:
a. aiming to reduce CO2/limit CO2 emissions (and therefore meet Paris Agreement/reducing impact of global warming) (environmental sustainability);
b. shift to renewables reduces contamination/release of greenhouse gases (environmental sustainability);
c. use of renewable energy (locally sourced hydro/geothermal/solar/wind) leads to more self-sufficiency/improved energy security;
d. falling birth rates/ageing population/ negative natural increase rate (NIR) will result in a drop in population, reducing electricity demands and therefore increasing sustainability;
e. plan to return forests to natural state which will boost biodiversity and resilience, improving sustainability;
f. red-crowned cranes are fed during the winter to prevent population decline /red

crowned cranes are protected from hunting (environmental sustainability);
g. promotes nature tourism, so people are more likely to support conservation measures to protect habitat and endangered species (environmental sustainability) / income generated from tourism can help to conserve species/habitats / protected areas can be used to educate the public about the importance of conserving species/habitats/biodiversity;
h. conversion of coniferous forest to natural forest/grasslands protects aquatic recharge areas for the future (environmental and social sustainability);
i. all future energy developments require an EIA, which helps avoid environmental degradation;

Arguments that they are not sustainable [4 max]:
j. potential for further nuclear accidents still present, which could contaminate the natural beauty/impact societies (environmental and social sustainability); k. no solution for radioactive waste disposal so not a long-term solution;
I. possible security threat/potential for terrorist attack which could result in a radioactive leak (not sustainable);
m. still heavy reliance on fossil fuels which are finite/produce greenhouse gases, which is unsustainable / nuclear power is not renewable (finite resource) so is not sustainable;
n. large proportion ( 94 % for Japan) of energy is imported which is unsustainable;
o. no evidence that the plan to return monoculture forests to natural forests has occurred, which is unsustainable / proportion of planted monoculture forests is still increasing, leading to soil degradation/loss of biodiversity;
p. 30\% of forests are monoculture plantations, which have reduced biodiversity/genetic diversity/more susceptible to disease;
q. (international) tourism is increasing/large number of tourists, causing damage to ecosystems/species;
r. (large number of) ski resorts/tourists can negatively impact the environment through tourist loading/demand for resources, so sustainability will not be achieved;
s. national parks are not connected, creating isolation of species, which is not sustainable; t. numbers of red-crowned cranes are too large for the habitat/numbers are only robust due to winter feeding stations, resulting in overcrowding and the potential spread of disease, which is unsustainable;
u. red-crowned cranes have changed their natural behaviour as a result of supplemental feeding, making them reliant on this for the future;
v. wetlands are still being drained for agricultural development resulting in loss of habitat;
w. large agricultural production can increase demand for water/increase use of pesticides which can lead to soil toxification/bioaccumulation which is unsustainable;
x. Hokkaido is largest producer of rice (in Japan) which causes methane emissions;
y. indigenous people are a cultural tourism attraction, which impacts social sustainability/their rights may not be protected; z. reduction in birth rates/aging population reduces the future work force (which maintains the economy and therefore) is not economically sustainable;

Marking guidance:

Award [5 max] for arguments for and arguments against.
Do not accept 'noise/pollution from airports located near to the national parks can cause disturbance to the wildlife.'
Do not accept '10\% of land is protected/Hokkaido has 6 national parks which protects habitats and associated species and therefore is sustainable' as intensive use of these areas has led to damage of habitats/ecosystems.

Conclusion [1 max]:
For example, "while Hokkaido is working towards promoting environmental sustainability through nature tourism and the move to less polluting sources of energy, the growth in international tourist numbers and the draining of wetlands for agriculture means that their future is not sustainable.

A valid conclusion should be credited if it includes a value judgement (on whether sustainability is being achieved), is explicit, balanced (addresses both sides of the argument) and supported by evidence. Do not credit the conclusion if only one side of the argument has been considered within the overall response.

Accept other reasonable responses supported by the information in the resource booklet.