Dear Nadine/ESA,
thank you for your post. I was quite puzzled to read
"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."
There is no mention of the developed world vis a vis truth no.2
Then, I am doubtful that no.1 can be considered a "truth". First world
models of development are in most cases inapplicable to the third
world. For instance, mechanized agriculture makes sense in the
sparsely populated wide open spaces of the new world, while this would
render millions of small farmers landless in the third world. Prior
"development" projects ( whether agribusiness or large scale
hydroelectric power) have usually benefitted a few, while
marginalizing millions.
It is the few who now clamor loudest for SUVs, hybrid cars and other
material trappings of the west. While hybrid cars are better than
SUVs, a mass transit system is far greener on a per capita basis.
Improving living conditions in developing countries requires
protecting land, water and air resources, providing education and
primary healthcare to all, and not just indiscriminately manufacturing
more hybrid cars for the haves.
Lastly, it should not be the role of ESA to offer a compromise; that is the
role of the government. ESA is the premier source for information on
ecosystem impacts.
Best,
Amartya
Quoting Nadine Lymn <nad...@esa.org>:
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.
Department of Biology, University of Miami
www.bio.miami.edu/asaha
