Dear Ecologers,
As I noted on this list earlier this year, the Ecological Society of America is indeed working to prepare a statement on economic growth. As with all the Society's position statements, ESA takes very seriously the task of producing documents that are carefully reviewed and appropriately reflect the underlying science and the Ecological Society of America. There will be an opportunity for interested members to offer feedback once a draft statement is available and we will notify this list then. ESA appreciates the interest in this topic. Nadine Lymn ESA Director of Public Affairs Bob's concerns about a professional, scientific society getting involved in economic growth are typical. That's why such concerns have been addressed in numerous publications and other venues. There are sound reasons why the following ecological organizations have adopted positions on economic growth: * The Wildlife Society * American Society of Mammalogists * United States Society for Ecological Economics * British Columbia Field Ornithologists * Society for Conservation Biology (North America Section) * Federation of British Columbia Naturalists - "BC Nature" Regarding the technical issues raised by Bob, I believe they are all recognized, summarized and addressed in the attached article in press at Conservation Biology, "Prospects for reconciling the conflict between economic growth and biodiversity conservation with technological progress." This article is part of a 4-article "Conservation Focus" series on economic growth in the upcoming December issue, and I have permission for the distribution of these page proofs in this venue. [Update: I discovered that ECOLOG does not accept attachments; interested readers may request the proofs via email.] The political issues raised by Bob are greatly influenced by the technical issues. When an adequate proportion of the public and polity understand the technical nature of the conflict between economic growth and environmental protection, national security, and international stability, the politics fall right into line. That is precisely why it is so important for a scientific society such as the ESA to weigh in. By leaving the technical issues entirely to decision makers lacking sound ecological training and experience, the door is wide open not only for innocent misinformation but for the exceedingly dangerous propaganda that "there is no conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment." Also, it looks like Bob and others may not yet have noticed what is already happening with the politics of economic growth. Climate change, Peak Oil, and financial meltdowns are very rapidly changing the rules of the game. People far and wide are observing the limits to growth in the real sector (including Peak Oil), as reflected in the monetary sector (financial meltdowns). They also see the effects of growth - climate change, pollution of all types, biodiversity loss - eroding their children's future. How can I claim to know this? For one thing, I monitor the news on these political developments. The steady state economy, for example, has picked up as a news item, and dramatically so. For another thing, take a look at the organizations endorsing the CASSE position on economic growth: http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html#anchor_90 <http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html#anchor_90> You'll see that it is not only environmental organizations advancing the steady state economy, but child health organizations, businesses, religious groups, local planning groups... even a mutual fund! So I think Bob's concerns - typical as they have been - may already be anachronistic. Perhaps we should be more concerned about the ESA lagging behind and losing an opportunity to be recognized as a progressive leader on the big, policy-relevant issues of ecological sustainability. Brian Czech Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 and Brian Czech, Ph.D., President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy www.steadystate.org <http://www.steadystate.org/> Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor Natural Resources Program Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, Virginia 22043 ________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Robert Miller Sent: Fri 2008-11-21 17:02 To: [email protected] Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Economic growth Hi List, I'm a little concerned with this emphasis on limiting economic growth. It seems to me to be to be, politically, a losing proposition from the start, and I'm not sure the underlying premise is entirely valid. Of course there have to be some ultimate limits on economic growth, but the average person who wants a better life sees economic growth as a positive. Is it possible for all those people to have better lives without net environmental damage? It would seem to me that, at least in a developed country like the US (where much initial damage has been done) the answer could be yes. The resources and capital at the bottom of the economy don't necessarily have to grow for the economy to grow, do they? Instead, the relative values, uses, and efficiency of use of the resources can change. Presently, the economy is fueled to a large extent by consumer purchases of products, most of which use natural resources and are basically disposable. What if manufacturers were to largely switch to 'greener' products that also lasted longer? This would mean purchases through the year would be less, and presumably the economy would shrink. However, it seems that rises in other sectors, such as services, education, and food could make up the shortfall and allow average standard of living to rise, albeit under a somewhat different value system where people buy more durable and efficient goods, are better educated, eat better, and live closer together on average. It seems to me that it would be much more politically effective to take a stand against wastage of natural resources, energy inefficiency, and the like than to decry economic growth. Perhaps the scenario I'm suggesting will lead to less economic disparity among people, and resulting slower or no net growth, but an emphasis on limiting growth per se seems ineffective to me. Best, Bob Miller
