With respect, I disagree,
National boundaries make a profound difference to the management of
ecosystems and resources. The wars in the horn of Africa, which have
their roots in nationalistic and religious stresses, have undoubtedly
contributed to the ecological probems faced by these societies.
Further, your state boundaries int he USA make a big difference to
environmental policies - California Emissons Standards, for example,
have not been replicated on the other side of some state lines. You
now have Obama, who has promised to take concrete action on climate
change (which will presumably lead to a lowering of USA's national
impact on GHG emissions), while we (sigh) have Harper, a
paleoconservative who acknowledged climate change with great
reluctance, and who has stonewalled any effective action on GHGs. So
boundaries do make a difference to a population's impact.
With respect to our footprints, pretty much every industrial nation is
overpolulated, especially Canada, where I live, since we are only able
to survive by importing food and other resources from an extended
hinterland.
Cheers,
A
Quoting Jane Shevtsov <[email protected]>:
Let's be careful here. Countries with stable or declining populations
can and do have growing economies. (Think Japan and the EU.)
Also, overpopulation is an ecological concept and it applies to
spatial units that have some ecological or physical reality -- planet
Earth, the Los Angeles basin, a hillside, a watershed. Most countries,
on the other hand, are arbitrarily bounded and I don't think they can
be said to be overpopulated any more than a sound can be said to be
orange.
Jane Shevtsov
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:18 PM, Ganter, Philip <[email protected]> wrote:
To All,
The recent posts on a steady-state economy and economic growth have
lost focus on the ecological underpinnings of any macroeconomic
model. Even if one uses a model that postulates an infinite
universe of material resource (accomplished deus ex machina by
substitution and the genie of technology), one must still account
for population size. Steady-state economy is obviously not
possible without steady-state population size unless we are are
willing to condemn future generations to ever-sinking living
standards. Andy Park wonders why we have to grow. Population,
population, population. This is so without considering such evils
as worldwide income disparity (and consequent ecological footprint
disparity), which is a significant driver on growth. If you narrow
your focus on the US, which is reasonable given that the ESA is
based in America, and that the US has a monstrous per-capita
footprint and a growing population, one still has to account for
growth (even if migratio!
n is a driver on the growth rate) when promoting a shift to a
steady-state economy. The issues surrounding limiting human
population size touch deeply into our attitudes, our perception of
freedom, and our religious beliefs but that does not justify
ignoring the problem. The history of attempts to affect population
growth rate is full of successes, failures, and cautionary examples
of bureaucratic tyranny. We might find it easier to promote a
steady-state economy if we also recommended policies consistent with
our values that promoted a steady-state population size.
Phil Ganter
Biology Department
Tennessee State University
On 12/14/08 12:40 AM, "Wayne Tyson" <[email protected]> wrote:
Ecolog:
Quite! But I suppose that any decline in support for romantically
appealing "alternatives" that can thus easily convince the
taxpayers to support more and more subsidies for "green" fleecing
is encouraging. That means that a whopping 34% see through the
schemes for what they are.
Nonetheless, even if anthropogenic global warming also turns out to
be hyperflummoxing technically, it still may be just the surrogate
needed to put the brakes on energy waste. Certainly, if one looks
at replacing the waste fraction (Advertizing signs, inefficient
transport, concentrated generation) one will get numbers in
infeasible territory. The message that has got to get out is that,
regardless of the reasons used, energy use has got to decline, and
if it does, everybody will be better off (except for the gamblers
that don't care what happens to their children and grandchildren).
Cutting just the waste fraction out need cause no pain for anybody
in the world--on the contrary, it has more potential than all the
"alternative" profit-centers on the block, and they won't even cost
the energy producers a dime, because they will still be able to
gouge their customers ever more, out of proportion to the reduction
in use. If we need more energy reduction, just going to bed at
night need not be a huge sacrifice--and the list goes on, all
without the flocks of yellow-bellied grantsuckers eating the seed
corn, if any is left over after its conversion to alcohol
fuelishness.
This shot across the bow in the "economic" (laughable, eh?) sphere
(irony intended) will seem like a pebble compared to the coming
skyrocketing of energy PRICES, not to mention the VALUE lost in
human habitat (even if you forget all the other species and
habitats that will go first, concurrently, and afterwards)
degradation and cultural chaos. The gamblers may be some of the
last to feel the full weight of the resolving of the real factors
that influence life quality at a greatly reduced level of
ATTAINABILITY--forget mere SUSTAINABILITY! But even the Emperiors
will have to do without their gold toilets, not to mention having
to beef up their defenses at every level.
WT
Apolgies for getting off into opinion territory . . .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Giesen" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Climate Change Experts lose faith in
Renewable Energies
Odd headline - I read it as "they don't think they will work" while the
actual reductions in support are from 4 - 8%, and, for two of the
technologies, way above 50% support (66 and 61%). It is "just a tad less
faith" instead.
Tom Giesen
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Geoff Patton <[email protected]> wrote:
(originally seen in post by Sam White of Cedar Rock Farm/CSA)
Climate Change Experts lose faith in Renewable Energies:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change-
renewable-energy<http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change-renewable-energy><http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/dec/09/poznan-climate-change-renewable-energy>(
http://tinyurl.com/56hoah).
Cordially yours,
Geoff Patton, Ph.D.
Wheaton, MD 20902
--
Tom Giesen
629 NW 29th St.
Corvallis, OR 97330
(541) 554-4162
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Scientist Editorial that (re) initiated this Discussion thread
had the following to say about growth:
"This is the logic of free-market capitalism: the economy must grow
continuously or face an unpalatable collapse."
This facet of our economy has always been a bit of a mystery to me.
You are either forever growing; otherwise you face collapse. In the
current system (which we may characterize as socialist / capitalist
after the bail out of money losing and still doomed companies), it
seems "steady state" cannot work.
It seems to me that this aspect of the economy is the Achilles heel of
any attempt to mitigate carbon emissions, manage fisheries
effectively, or achieve any number of other desirable ecological
outcomes. Tony Blair said it best when he stated that "there is a
mismatch in timing between the environmental and electoral impact".
In simple terms, a politician (even Obama) will always choose to grow
now and pay later. The penalty for not doing so is collapse.
But these sad facts beg some serious questions that I have been trying
to answer in vain. Maybe you , dear Ecologgers, can offer some answers:
1. Why does the globalized economy have to grow or collapse; that is,
what are the mechanics that dictate it.
2. What would happen if the global economy grew at, say, 0.5 percent
for 1, 5, 10, or 20 years?
3. is there a way to get to a steady state economy from where we are?
That is can we decouple social and political stability from growth?
I have some thoughts on this that involve the economic multiplier
effect, which is a positive feedback that reinforces the effects of
adding or subtracting money form the economy. But surely it has to be
more complex than that?
Interestingly, I have been exploring the economic literature (I know,
I know, it's horrific, but someone has to do it!). Turns out that
economists may know a good deal less about economic growht than one
might have imagined. Not so surprisingly, the literature appears to
concentrate on understanding the drivers of growth or how to achieve
more of it. I have searched in vain for literature describing in
detail the consequences of failing to grow.....
Ciaou,
Andy Park
------ End of Forwarded Message
--
-------------
Jane Shevtsov
Ecology Ph.D. student, University of Georgia
co-founder, <a href="http://www.worldbeyondborders.org";>World Beyond
Borders</a>
Check out my blog, <a
href="http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com";>Perceiving Wholes</a>
"Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes." --Kim
Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
