There were certainly ESA Board Members who took the time to respond
and engage with members of Brian's group, Josh Schimel a shining
example among them. Others who I know of that took time to
thoughtfully engage were Mary Power, Rob Jackson and Margaret Lowman.
Deep thanks to these people for giving Brian's group an ear.
What Brian's group of some 70 ESA members wanted, however, was the
chance for representation within the group that ESA put together to
develop the ESA position statement. That group, ESA reported,
consisted of two environmental ecologists and a mathematical
ecologist. It was feared that without representation in the ESA
group, the original goals of Brian's group, for ESA to make a clear
statement from ecological first principles that the world has limits
to growth, would become lost. Brian's group believed that only from
those starting principles could rationale and equitable policies be
derived.
ESA maintained that its protocol did not allow for having anyone to
represent Brian's group at the discussion table. Personally, I felt
that ESA was too protective and cautious in disallowing participation
by a member (Brian Czech) who has already established himself as an
important player in the field and that excluding such input from an
important stakeholder (Brian's initiating group of ESA members)
risked a lengthy and perhaps ultimately failed effort to come to
consensus on what is arguably the most important issue of our time.
Brian's group tried to compensate for this in the only way available -
by making postings to ECOLOG-L and responding to the Public Affairs
Office's call for input as well as contacting Board Members by phone
and email to respectfully weigh in with our criticisms of the draft
ESA document. I won't speak for others here, but can say that this
input included objections to the draft statement's failure to
unambiguously admit limits to economic growth, to its suggestion that
economic growth can be sustainable, to the statement's clear
environmental economist bias (and, more fundamentally, that anyone
with expertise in ecological economics was not included in the
drafting group), to the statement's failure to make distinctions
between growth (involving quantitative increases in physical sizes or
materials fluxes) and development (involving increases in welfare
through largely qualitative means that maintain the human economy
within the regenerative and assimilative capacity of earth's
ecosystems), and to the statement's failure to acknowledge
responsibility on the part of developed countries to lead the way
toward steady-state development.
But such efforts cannot compete with the power afforded by having
representation as a member of the drafting group. You've got to have
the opportunity for meaningful face to face debate and discussion to
have a hope of really persuading someone to your point of view.
Perhaps the outcome would have been the same, but at least there would
have been the opportunity to find out whether any consensus was
possible.
Josh is right, position statements are controversial or o/w what's the
point of developing them. And while the current ESA position statement
is disappointing, I appreciate the back and forth that has occurred
over ECOLOG-L, and hope in fact that there is a lot more. Every
ecologist must thoroughly study this issue and figure out where they
stand on it.
It seems a positive thing that the ESA 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. I hope that an
opportunity is afforded Brian's group to write their view, perhaps
with some opportunity for some back-and-forth responses. This process
could be helpful in (a) further educating ESA about the issues and (b)
getting valuable input on whether/how ESA might better handle position
statements.
Heather Reynolds
Associate Professor
Department of Biology
Jordan Hall 142
Indiana University
1001 E 3rd Street
Bloomington IN 47405
Ph: (812) 855-0792
Fax: (812) 855-6705
[email protected]
On Jul 27, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Nadine Lymn wrote:
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.
