Dear All: In a recent correspondence with an individual concerned about ESA's position statement, ESA Board Member Josh Schimel points out that the Governing Board took very seriously its task of representing 10,000 ecologists and carefully deliberated in issuing the ESA statement. With his permission, I post Josh's correspondence below.
Nadine Lymn ESA Director of Public Affairs ================================ The ears were not deaf. On the contrary, they were wide open. We heard and agreed with many of the fundamental points Brian, you and others had been making. But those weren't the only messages coming in and we had to balance those different perspectives. The discussion at the Governing Board meeting was extended, thoughtful, and analytical. There are a number of extraordinarily insightful and concerned people on the board. We all agreed that an ESA statement needed to highlight the conflict between two fundamental truths: 1. Humans in the developing world have a moral right to try to improve their well being. 2. There is a finite capacity of the planet to support humans and increasing resource consumption and waste production will degrade the planetary carrying capacity. Thus, we felt that the statement had to argue that we needed to balance those conflicting truths. As ecologists, we can and should focus on the second--managing the carrying capacity, but we can't tell poor people that they may not improve their living conditions. There are ethical boundaries just as there are ecological boundaries. We didn't feel that we could cross one while arguing that we must not cross the other. So, the key front section starts by highlighting that conflict, and personally I think it does it well: ------- The Sustainability of Economic Growth At present, economic growth is a double-edged sword: Although it enhances the standards of living in the short-term, it can degrade the ecological infrastructure needed to sustain long-term welfare. This dichotomy may be humanity's central challenge in the 21st century-sustaining living standards and spreading the benefits of economic development to the large fraction of humanity still mired in poverty, while preserving the ecological life-support system on which future welfare depends. --------- The whole document is a major redraft from the initial one, which many were unhappy with because a) it focused too much on the right to develop, b) didn't emphasize the carrying capacity issues adequately, and c) read too economic-speak rather than ecological-speak. I.e. we were concerned about the same core issues you and others were highlighting, partly in response to your input. The current document focuses on the risks to ecological systems (and thus the long-term well being of humanity) and the need to manage them rationally. Those are appropriate messages for ecologists to make. However, and this may be where the apparent disagreements arise: does "economic growth" necessarily require increased resource consumption and environmental degradation? The economists, at least, argue that some types of economic activity actually reduce environmental impact. I think they may be right. The development of hybrid cars, solar cells, etc. all involve economic growth and development, and yet they reduce human impacts on the world (at least where they replace existing technology). Other kinds of "growth" may enhance our well being without degrading the global support system as well. In terms of your specific concern with the term "sustainable growth," I would point out that the term we used was "ecologically sustainable growth," which to my mind modifies the concept and helps emphasize that such growth may not be based on increased resource consumption, but may be achievable to some degree with technological change. We are taking a term that is accepted in public discourse and trying to "turn the supertanker," rather than stopping it in its tracks. So yes, we didn't in the end endorse a document saying that we must abandon the very concept of "sustainable growth." But that isn't because we didn't hear, understand, or even agree with many of your arguments. The Board is considering writing a piece for the Ecol Bulletin to explain more about how this piece came about and how ESA handles position statements. They are always controversial because there is no point issuing a statement on a non-controversial topic.
