Sustainable development and the Montreal Protocol

At the end of the "Unequal Development" chapter of Economic Anthropology, Hann and Hart critique the modern day development framework of "sustainable development" as a thinly-veiled extension of the colonial mentality that protects rich countries. They then back this with an example of how rich countries are working to limit the amount of greenhouse gasses produced by developing countries because "the poor cannot become like the rich since there is not enough of everything to go around" (p119).

I'd like to counter their critique and say that sustainable development as a framework is not necessarily bad but rather becomes detrimental when the burden for sustainability is placed on developing countries instead of the ones who can afford more costly changes. For example, Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (adopted by UN member countries in 1987) includes provisions to help developing countries fund the necessary changes to their economies and proposed an altered timeline for compliance. That way, developing countries could focus on strengthening their economies and then comply with the environmental guidelines at a later date. Rich countries, on the other hand, were pressured to comply earlier.

And it worked: the Montreal Protocol is touted as one of the great environment success stories. Sustainable development does not (or maybe should not?) necessarily entail that the sustainability component happens simultaneously with the development. Environmental damage has been wrought by those countries that for the most part are in power today, and developing countries should be given the same chance that they were.