>Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 20:58:15 -0500 (EST) >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Rachel #625: Sustainable Development, Part 2 >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Job Opening > >Environmental Research Foundation, publisher of Rachel's >Environment & Health Weekly, is looking for a bilingual outreach >specialist to work with both English- and Spanish-speaking >environmental justice activists and their organizations. If you >know anyone who might be interested, please ask them to send >E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or send a fax to (410) 263-8944. >We will send them a full job description and information on how >to apply. No phone calls, please. --Peter Montague > > >=======================Electronic Edition======================== >. . >. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #625 . >. ---November 19, 1998--- . >. HEADLINES: . >. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, PART 2 . >. ========== . >. Environmental Research Foundation . >. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . >. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >. ========== . >. Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send . >. E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the single word HELP . >. in the message; back issues also available via ftp from . >. ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com . >. and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/ . >. Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, E-mail the words . >. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >================================================================= > >SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, PART 2 > >In his excellent short book, BEYOND GROWTH,[1] economist Herman >Daly says that every economy faces 3 problems: allocation, >distribution, and scale.[2] What do these terms mean? > >Allocation refers to the apportioning of resources among >different products --in other words, deciding whether we should >produce more corn, more cars, more bicycles, more jelly beans, or >more hospitals. Because resources are limited, we can't have >everything, so we must allocate our resources in some way to >provide the goods that people want and can afford to pay for. >The way we do this is "the market" which sets relative prices for >goods.[3] Prices act as signals that cause people to put more >(or fewer) resources into creating particular products that other >people are willing and able to buy. > >The second problem faced by every economy is distribution >--apportioning goods (and the resources they embody) among >different people, not among different products. Nearly everyone >agrees that goods should be distributed in a way that is fair >(though we may disagree on the precise meaning of "fair"). If >you don't believe this statement is true, think of an extreme >case. If one person received 99% of all the benefits provided by >the U.S. economy, and all other citizens had to divvy up the >remaining 1%, almost everyone would agree that this was an >"unfair" or unsatisfactory distribution of benefits. The vast >majority of people would say, "There is something wrong with this >picture." This extreme example is intended to show that nearly >everyone agrees that there are "fair" and "unfair" distributions >of goods. What is a "fair" distribution --and how we should >achieve it --are the main questions that give rise to "politics." > >Unfortunately the market cannot solve the problem of fair >distribution. Left alone, a market economy tends to create >inequalities that grow larger as time passes. Both the economic >successes and failures of individuals tend to be cumulative --the >successful tend to succeed again and again while the unsuccessful >tend to remain unsuccessful. Marriages tend to result in further >concentration of wealth. Furthermore, as Daly says, dishonesty >and exploitation are not necessary to explain inequality but they >certainly contribute to it.[4] None of these statements is >absolute --you can point to many individual exceptions to each of >them --but the tendencies that they describe are well-recognized. > >No, the market cannot solve the problem of unfair distribution. >This problem must be solved by people deciding what is fair, then >making public policies intended to achieve a fair distribution. >After those decisions have been made, then the market can >allocate resources efficiently[3] within the >politically-established framework of fairness. > >The third economic problem is the problem of scale --how large >can an economy become before it begins to harm the ecosystem that >undergirds and sustains it? Here again, the market does not >--cannot --provide any answer. The market offers no mechanism >for deciding what is a desirable scale or for achieving that >scale. You can have an efficient allocation of resources[3] and >a just distribution of benefits, yet still have an economy that >grows too large and consequently damages the ecosystem. (Each of >the three problems --allocation, distribution, and scale --is >separate and each must be solved separately.) > >The ecosystem provides us with two major services --it provides >resources that we can use (such as air, trees, copper deposits) >and it provides a place to discard our wastes. Within limits, >the ecosystem can regenerate certain resources (air and trees, >for example), and it can absorb a certain amount of wastes, >recycling them via the services of the detritus food chain. (See >REHW #624.) Unfortunately, it is quite possible for the economy >to grow so large that it exceeds the capacity of the ecosystem to >regenerate itself and/or to absorb our wastes. At that point, >the economy has grown unsustainably large and further growth will >diminish the carrying capacity of the planet --the capacity to >support life, including human life. > >As we saw last week (REHW #624), there is abundant evidence that >the human economy, worldwide, has already grown so large that it >has exceeded some of the ecosystem's capacity to regenerate >itself, and has already grown so large that it has exceeded part >of the ecosystem's capacity to absorb our wastes. These problems >first appear on a local scale (the U.S. has nearly exhausted its >reserves of tin, nickel, chromium, petroleum, and many other >mineral resources,[5] and many U.S. cities are presently unable >to provide their inhabitants with healthful air because of waste >gases from automobiles). Eventually economic growth reaches a >point at which local problems become global. For example, in >recent years we discovered that we had inadvertently damaged the >Earth's stratospheric ozone layer with our CFC wastes, and that >most of the world's marine fisheries have been severely degraded >by overfishing. We are now making similar unhappy discoveries at >a steady (or perhaps accelerating) pace. > >Economists, and business and political leaders, acknowledge only >two of the three economic problems outlined above --the problems >of allocation and distribution. The problem of scale --caused by >growing quantities of materials and energy flowing through the >economy (see REHW #624) --the problem of scale has still not been >acknowledged by most economists, business people, or politicians. >To them, continued growth can only be good. The vast majority >of them deny that the scale of the economy must be kept >comfortably within the regenerative and absorptive limits of >the ecosystem (if they have thought about it at all). > >There is a deep and abiding reason for their denial. For the >past 400 years, growth has been the central organizing principle >of all European societies, and especially of American society. >Economic growth has substituted for politics, deflecting >attention away from the contentious problem of fair distribution: >even a small slice of the pie will grow larger each year if the >total pie keeps growing larger. Thus growth has allowed us to >avoid confronting difficult ethical questions about the fair >distribution of income and wealth.[6] So long as the pie kept >growing we could accommodate the rising demands of slaves, >farmers, immigrants, industrial workers, women, and so forth. > >As William Ophuls has said, "We have justified large differences >in income and wealth on the grounds that they promote growth and >that all would receive future advantage from current inequality >as the benefits of development 'trickled down' to the poor. (On >a more personal level," Ophuls says, "economic growth also >ratifies the ethics of individual self-seeking: you can get on >without concern for the fate of others, for they are presumably >getting on too, even if not so well as you.) But if growth in >production is no longer of overriding importance the rationale >for differential rewards gets thinner, and with a cessation of >growth it virtually disappears.... Since people's demands for >economic betterment are not likely to disappear, once the pie >stops growing fast enough to accommodate their demands, they will >begin making demands for redistribution," Ophuls says.[6] > >The end of growth will change American (and European) politics >fundamentally, forcing us to confront basic ethical questions of >economic fairness. For this reason, the environmental dangers of >growth are ignored by those who think they have the most to lose >--our business and political leaders (and their academic support >staff, the mainstream economists). > >Now stay with me as we probe a little deeper into growth. This >may seem obscure, but it is important. > >Growth --the central organizing principle of our society (we >could also call it the main ideology of our society) has been >grounded in an ethical principle developed by the English >philosopher Jeremy Bentham and elaborated by John Stuart Mill in >the 1830s. Bentham argued that the goal of public action was >"the greatest good for the greatest number" --a goal that most >people would probably embrace today without thinking about it >very carefully. > >Now that the end of growth is in sight (because we have begun to >hit nature's limits), we can no longer pretend that we can >achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.[7] >Confronting the limits of the planetary ecosystem, we are forced >to ask, how much good can we achieve for how many people for how >long? As Daly says, we can have "the greatest good for a >sufficient number" or we can have "sufficient good for the >greatest number" but the "greatest good for the greatest number" >we cannot have.[8] Daly favors seeking "sufficient good for the >greatest number" --meaning the greatest number of humans that can >be supported year after year into the indefinite future. If your >goal is to maximize human welfare, this is the formula that does >it. If we live sustainably, without exceeding the planet's >capacity for regeneration and the absorption of waste, billions >or trillions of humans will ultimately be able to enjoy the good >life on planet Earth, world without end. The alternative (which >is the path we are presently on) is to load up the planet with 12 >to 20 billion people in the next century until the ecosystem >collapses, thus diminishing the carrying capacity of the planet >and greatly reducing the total number of humans who can ever >enjoy a good life on Earth. If you want to maximize human >enjoyment of the good life, the choice is clear. > >An essential step toward sustainable development --offering the >greatest number of people a sufficiency of resources for the good >life --will be policies explicitly aimed at reducing huge >economic inequalities. Growth will no longer substitute for >ethical public policies. > >One of the main features of the modern world that creates and >sustains inequality is the high human birth rate. An abundance >of people provides a pool of cheap labor to do the world's work. >A high birth rate creates steady pressure driving wages down. In >ancient Rome the word "proletariat" meant "those with many >children" and the main role of the proletariat in Roman society >was to procreate to serve the patricians. Failure to help people >control their own numbers --then as now --is a implicit cheap >labor policy. A high birth rate tends to maintain inequality, >and a reduced birth rate has the opposite effect, tending to >equalize incomes and wealth. > >Small wonder, then, that so many of the world's people are denied >the knowledge and the means for voluntarily eliminating unwanted >fertility. In too many societies (including our own) the >knowledge and means for voluntarily controlling fertility are as >inequitably distributed as income and wealth. The wealthy have >little difficulty controlling their numbers; the technologies are >readily available to them. The poor find it not so easy. There >is a reason for this. > >More next week. > --Peter Montague > (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) >=============== >[1] Herman Daly, BEYOND GROWTH (Boston: Beacon Press, 1996). >ISBN 0-8070-4708-2. Hereafter cited as Daly. > >[2] Daly, pg. 159 > >[3] Relative prices measure marginal opportunity costs; see Daly >pg. 222. Efficient allocation is an allocation that corresponds >to effective demand, i.e., the relative preferences of citizens >as weighted by their relative incomes. An inefficient allocation >is one that uses resources to produce items that people will not >or cannot buy, and it fails to produce items that people want, >can afford to buy, and would buy if they could find them. See >Daly pgs. 159-160. > >[4] Daly, pg. 207. > >[5] U.S. Bureau of Mines, MINERAL FACTS AND PROBLEMS [Bureau of >Mines Bulletin 675] (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing >Office, 1985). > >[6] William Ophuls, ECOLOGY AND THE POLITICS OF SCARCITY (San >Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1977), chapter 6. > >[7] As a matter of logic and mathematics, we never could achieve >the greatest good for the greatest number because it is >impossible to maximize two variables in a function. > >[8] Daly, pg. 220. > >Descriptor terms: growth; sustainable development; economics; >herman daly; beyond growth; population; human poipulation; >prices; markets; allocation of resources; distribution of >resources; scale of the economy; > >################################################################ > NOTICE >Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic >version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge >even though it costs our organization considerable time and money >to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service >free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution >(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send >your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research >Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do >not send credit card information via E-mail. For further >information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. >by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at >(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944. > --Peter Montague, Editor >################################################################ >
