I think there was a lot more room for a less bad tasting, perhaps even
palatable, compromise had the process been more inclusive.
There is a difference, for example, between an explicit 'no-growth'
position and a position that advocates the impossible, 'sustainable
growth.' 'Even 'steady-state' has a different ring than 'no-growth'.
Unfortunately, ESA has thus far consistently refrained from bringing
anyone from the steady-state growth group that originally proposed the
position statement to the table, so there was little hope of
thoroughly debating the issues and coming to any kind of consensus
position.
The important thing in my mind was for ESA to avoid being used as one
more excuse for continuing the status quo. It seems as if people are
unaware of just how precarious our situation is with regard to
exceeding resource/green infrastructure limits. And the developing
world is, and will continue to, bear the brunt.
ESA has an opportunity to send a wake up call. Ecologists should
operate from ecological first principles. I'm not saying that means we
don't have consider political realities, but refusing to compromise on
our ecological first principles would open up the door to alternative
political positions. One of ESA's biggest fears is that acknowledging
that economic growth is unsustainable amounts to the same thing as
rejecting a better quality of life for developing countries. But this
is narrow thinking. Let's consider for example, an alternative to the
'trickle-down' theory that continued global economic growth is
necessary to raise the quality of life for the poor. Eminent
ecological economist Herman Daly observes (and I paraphrase here) that
building the modern economy around the idea of growth is at least
partly a ploy to avoid facing up to the problem of sharing. He notes:
"If you don't continue to grow and you still have poverty, then you
have to redistribute." The issue of equity is indeed central. And
unfortunately huge, exploitative economies like that of the U.S. have
been largely unwilling to face up to this issue. They've had plenty
of help from neo-classical economists, who have indoctrinated the
world into seductive illusion of continual economic growth as the way
we can all have our cake, and eat it too.
The Center for the Advancement of a Steady-State Economy (CASSE) is
always careful in its position statements to allow the need for
developing countries to improve their quality of life, even if that
means growing their economies for a time. The onus is put on
developing countries to lead the way towards steady state. See, for
example, points 8 and 9 of CASSE's statement:
8) Upon establishing a steady state economy, it would be advisable
for wealthy nations to assist other nations in moving from the goal of
economic growth to the goal of a steady state economy, beginning with
those nations currently enjoying high levels of per capita
consumption, and;
9) For many nations with widespread poverty, increasing per capita
consumption (or, alternatively, more equitable distributions of
wealth) remains an appropriate goal.
There are other important issues that should have been addressed, such
as the distinction between growth vs. development. I'll hold off on
getting into this right now, but here is another CASSE point that
gives a flavor of this distinction:
7) A steady state economy does not preclude economic development, a
dynamic, qualitative process in which different technologies may be
employed and the relative prominence of economic sectors may evolve,
and;
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
hlrey...@indiana.edu
On Jul 27, 2009, at 8:22 AM, TUFFORD, DANIEL wrote:
I did not participate in the ESA discussions about this so do not
know what was actually said or done, but I can understand this
position in the context of political relevance. In an earlier e-mail
Brian mentioned sound science, which is certainly a high priority.
But "policy" in the functioning economic and political arena implies
political salience. A no-growth position (which I personally
support) will immediately marginalize the organization that proposes
it. The position is fine in the context of an ongoing discussion of
philosophical approaches but is a boat-anchor in the real world of
feasible policy development.
This level of compromise leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well, but
I do not know of a practical alternative.
Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D.
University of South Carolina
Department of Biological Sciences
715 Sumter St. (mail)
209A Sumwalt (office)
Columbia, SC 29208
803-777-3292 (phone)
803-777-3292 (fax)
tuff...@sc.edu
http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford
________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of
Heather Reynolds
Sent: Fri 7/24/2009 10:53 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems
Should Figure in Economic Decisions
I am deeply disappointed that ESA has persisted in maintaining the
myth of "sustainable growth" in its recent position statement on the
ecological impacts of economic activities. What an embarrassing
oxymoron for ecologists to be caught promoting.
The position statement is at best confusing, sending a decidedly mixed
message. In one breadth it acknowledges that "there are limits to the
amount of consumption and pollution the Earth can sustain" and in the
next it is claiming that "the problem is not economic growth per se"
and that "[we can] move toward sustainable growth." It is unfortunate
that the many good aspects of the position statement, such as its
recognition of healthy ecosystems as the foundation of a sound
economy, the need to internalize environmental externalities, the
recognition of multiple forms of wealth, and the importance of
advancing wellbeing in a more equitable fashion across the globe, are
confounded with language implying that societies can continue growing
their economies ad infinitum. Apparently, ecologists have decided
that humans are unique among life forms in possessing an ability to
grow without limits.
Corporate capitalists and the revolving door corporate lobby that we
call our political system will be pleased. it is just that language on
"sustainable growth" that they will jump on to justify our continuing
drive for ever increasing economic growth, which by the laws of
nature, can lead only to a continued overshoot of carrying capacity
and destruction of the green infrastructure that ESA purports to
protect.
I hope that ESA will continue its discussion of these issues. This
needn't be the last word, of course. As scientists, ecologists live
and breathe the process of reexamining assumptions and adjusting our
models of living systems accordingly.
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
hlrey...@indiana.edu
On Jul 24, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Christine Buckley wrote:
ESA Press Release
July 24, 2009
Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions
Ecological scientists take stock
As the United States and much of the world try to recover from the
current economic crisis, the nation's largest organization of
ecological scientists sees an opportunity to rebuild the economy for
long-term sustainability. The key, these scientists say, is to take
natural capital-ecosystem services such as clean water provisioning
-into account. Because they lack a formal market, many of these
natural assets are missing from society's balance sheet and their
contributions are often overlooked in public and private decision-
making.
In a statement released today, the Ecological Society of America
said that healthy ecosystems are the foundation for sound economies,
sustaining human life with services such as food, fuel, and clean
air and water.
"We are sensitive to the economic hardships so many people are
currently facing," says ESA President Alison Power. "But as the
United States takes a fresh look at how our economy functions, we
see a tremendous opportunity to adopt an approach that incorporates
the value of natural ecosystems."
ESA lays out four strategies for moving towards sustainable economic
activity:
? Create mechanisms to maintain ecosystem services-Creating
markets for services such as carbon sequestration would provide
incentives for environmentally sound investments. However, markets
must often be coupled with other strategies or they can lead to
negative outcomes. For instance, the emissions trading legislation
currently in Congress could provide financial incentive for carbon
sequestration, motivating stakeholders to invest in low-carbon
technologies. But some sequestration practices stand to reduce the
quantity or quality of freshwater resources, resources that are
available freely and therefore not priced. Additional mechanisms
such as quality standards or land-use regulations would help ensure
that the public continues to have adequate access to clean water.
? Require full accounting for environmental damage-Change our
existing economic framework so that entities that degrade the
environment are held accountable. For example, the adverse
environmental impacts of fertilizer use are not reflected in
fertilizer prices and users do not bear the costs associated with
the resulting degraded rivers and lakes.
? Manage for resilient ecosystems-We should move away from
management strategies that favor one ecosystem service at the
expense of many others and transition to strategies that sustain a
suite of services. This transition will improve the health and
resilience of ecosystems, helping them sustain future generations,
in spite of natural and human-driven disturbances.
? Enhance our capacity to predict the environmental costs of
investments-While the economic repercussions of environmental
change are increasingly clear, the linkage often becomes apparent
only after the damage has been done. Models to predict the
consequences of anthropogenic change, and monitoring systems to
detect problematic trends could help address problems before they
become irreversible.
ESA points out that some initiatives already exist that take natural
capital into account. The World Bank's concept of adjusted net
savings calculates an economy's rate of savings after factoring in
natural resource consumption, pollution-related damages, and other
environmental impacts. The U.S. Forest Service is exploring ways to
advance markets for ecosystem services recognizing that forest
ecosystems are natural assets with economic and societal value. And
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Ecosystem Services
Research Program is working to provide methods and models needed by
states to understand the "cost and benefits of using ecosystem
services."
"Sustainable development requires that individual wealth-
including natural capital assets-does not decline," says the ESA
in its statement. "This requires technological and behavioral
changes to reduce both the demand for material resources and the
volume and toxicity of waste products, while simultaneously
improving human wellbeing."
According to the Society, sustaining living standards and spreading
the benefits of economic development while preserving the ecological
life-support system on which future welfare depends may be
humanity's central challenge in the 21st Century.
The Ecological Society of America's statement is available online
at http://www.esa.org/pao/economic_activities.p
hp
