Re: [ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement
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 hlrey...@indiana.edu 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 i
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions
An unfortunate typo in my last post that should be apparent. The typo is corrected in CAPS below: The onus is put on DEVELOPED countries to lead the way towards steady state. 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 10:09 AM, Heather Reynolds wrote: 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 ongoi
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions
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
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 n
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA position statement economic growth
Colleagues - In the message below, the first hyperlink had an errant comma. Here is the correct url: http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionONEG.html 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 Apr 22, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Heather Reynolds wrote: Dear Colleagues, ESA members may have noticed that ESA is soliciting feedback from its members on a draft position statement on economic growth. As ESA notes, the draft was developed by 2 environmental economists and a mathematical ecologist. To date, only a handful of professional societies have issued these sorts of statements (for a list, see http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html) . ESA thus deserves a great deal of credit for taking on such a complex issue. The draft statement strongly reflects an environmental economist point of view. There is another field of economics, called ecological economics. There are fairly strong distinctions between environmental vs. ecological economists, although there are certainly many areas of agreement (e.g. the importance, where possible, of internalizing environmental externalities). Ecological economists are careful to distinguish economic growth from economic development. This Encyclopedia of Earth entry: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Steady_state_economy by recognized expert Brian Czech discusses the distinction between economic growth and economic development. Other well known ecological economists include Robert Constanza and Herman Daly. I hope that ESA will continue to work on this position statement and will actively seek the input of ecological economists. 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
[ECOLOG-L] ESA position statement economic growth
Dear Colleagues, ESA members may have noticed that ESA is soliciting feedback from its members on a draft position statement on economic growth. As ESA notes, the draft was developed by 2 environmental economists and a mathematical ecologist. To date, only a handful of professional societies have issued these sorts of statements (for a list, see http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html) . ESA thus deserves a great deal of credit for taking on such a complex issue. The draft statement strongly reflects an environmental economist point of view. There is another field of economics, called ecological economics. There are fairly strong distinctions between environmental vs. ecological economists, although there are certainly many areas of agreement (e.g. the importance, where possible, of internalizing environmental externalities). Ecological economists are careful to distinguish economic growth from economic development. This Encyclopedia of Earth entry: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Steady_state_economy by recognized expert Brian Czech discusses the distinction between economic growth and economic development. Other well known ecological economists include Robert Constanza and Herman Daly. I hope that ESA will continue to work on this position statement and will actively seek the input of ecological economists. 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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] New Book for Nature Enthusiasts
These are all great points. But balance would argue that care for the environment should stem both from an appreciation of its utility as well as from moral sensibilities. Indeed, there has been a long- standing debate in philosophy on the utilitarianism vs. intrinsic rights as a basis for preserving nature. Granted, I haven't quite said where love fits into this - but would offer that we can love something both because we recognize we need it, as well as just for itself. 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 Jan 6, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: I don't know about parasitologists, but the mycologists I know are more enthused about their subjects than any other group of biologists I've met! "Loving" something in nature has, for many scientists, nothing to do with conventional beauty. (Luckily for most of us, something similar applies to human relationships.) My work is in basic science, without immediate practical application, and I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't love forests and food webs. However, I agree with your larger concern. While I'm all for getting people to experience nature, it makes me cringe to hear people say care for the environment depends on such experiences or love of nature. Do you love your water main, the farms that grow your food, penicillin? This is about life support, people! Jane Shevtsov On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:01 AM, William Silvert wrote: Although this sounds like a lovely book, I am not terribly comfortable with the concept, at least not in connetion with an ecology mailing list. Part of our work as scientists is promoting a rational, rather than romantic, concern for our environment, and while some of us (like Ehrlich) may have gotten involved with ecology because of an emotional attachment to beautiful creatures, many of us are having difficulty defending the role of the ugly and even disgusting organisms that are an essential part of ecosystems (such as detritivores). I am curious to know how many parasitologists and mycologists feel that their life's work was rooted in some "rapturous love affair" with tapeworms or mildew. Who ever fell in love with nematodes and polychaetes? (Although my late friend Peter Schwinghamer had a sign over his door saying "Worms can teach us awe and wonder.") My concern has a practical side to it. There are seal species far more at risk than harp seals, but mottled grey beasts with nasty teeth do not seem to attract the support of anti-sealing campaigners. It is hard to argue that the biodiversity of beautiful flowers in Costa Rica is more vital to our survival than the worms crawling around in the mud of the North Sea, but much of the emphasis on conservation of biodiversity focusses on tropical hot spots rather than the low and dirty. I don't want to discourage anyone from enjoying the beauty of the natural enviornment, but I also want to remind the scientific community that ecology is not about beauty, it is about systems that often do not appeal to our aesthetic sense. I like my work, but manage not to get too emotionally involved! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "Jamie Reaser" To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:44 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] New Book for Nature Enthusiasts Dear Nature Enthusiasts - Hiraeth Press and Ecos Systems Institute are please to announce the publication of:Courting the Wild: Love Affairs with the Land, edited by Dr. Jamie K. Reaser and Ms. Susan Chernak McElroy. Do you remember the first time you fell in love? Within these pages will you find love stories, rapturous love affairs with the land, longings, shameless seductions, betrothals, vows exchanged, marriages of the soul, heartaches, partings, healings, and renewals. The authors are the courters and the courted.Their landscape paramours embrace them and they grow forth from within. "A stirring book.filled with transcendent and highly personal moments of revelation, of awe, reverence, and love for nature.the profound truth and magic of becoming one with life on Earth. This book is for anyone anywhere.from the camper's backpack to bedside tables." - Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, President, The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment "Like many ecologists, I had a love affair with nature (especially with butterflies) long before I became a scientist. The love affairs described here will either tell you what I mean, or remind you of your own affair. Either way, you'll enjoy them." - Dr. Paul Ehrlich, co-author of the Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment Available from: - Hiraeth Press: www.hiraethpress.com - www.amazon.com A l
Re: [ECOLOG-L] New Book for Nature Enthusiasts
Just an observation - nowhere in the review did I see mention of the world 'beauty', or the suggestion that love of nature stems from a love of beauty. As to whether it is wrong, or somehow detrimental, for scientists to be emotionally connected to nature, I suspect that as in most things, the key is balance. 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 Jan 6, 2009, at 8:01 AM, William Silvert wrote: Although this sounds like a lovely book, I am not terribly comfortable with the concept, at least not in connetion with an ecology mailing list. Part of our work as scientists is promoting a rational, rather than romantic, concern for our environment, and while some of us (like Ehrlich) may have gotten involved with ecology because of an emotional attachment to beautiful creatures, many of us are having difficulty defending the role of the ugly and even disgusting organisms that are an essential part of ecosystems (such as detritivores). I am curious to know how many parasitologists and mycologists feel that their life's work was rooted in some "rapturous love affair" with tapeworms or mildew. Who ever fell in love with nematodes and polychaetes? (Although my late friend Peter Schwinghamer had a sign over his door saying "Worms can teach us awe and wonder.") My concern has a practical side to it. There are seal species far more at risk than harp seals, but mottled grey beasts with nasty teeth do not seem to attract the support of anti-sealing campaigners. It is hard to argue that the biodiversity of beautiful flowers in Costa Rica is more vital to our survival than the worms crawling around in the mud of the North Sea, but much of the emphasis on conservation of biodiversity focusses on tropical hot spots rather than the low and dirty. I don't want to discourage anyone from enjoying the beauty of the natural enviornment, but I also want to remind the scientific community that ecology is not about beauty, it is about systems that often do not appeal to our aesthetic sense. I like my work, but manage not to get too emotionally involved! Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "Jamie Reaser" > To: Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:44 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] New Book for Nature Enthusiasts Dear Nature Enthusiasts - Hiraeth Press and Ecos Systems Institute are please to announce the publication of:Courting the Wild: Love Affairs with the Land, edited by Dr. Jamie K. Reaser and Ms. Susan Chernak McElroy. Do you remember the first time you fell in love? Within these pages will you find love stories, rapturous love affairs with the land, longings, shameless seductions, betrothals, vows exchanged, marriages of the soul, heartaches, partings, healings, and renewals. The authors are the courters and the courted.Their landscape paramours embrace them and they grow forth from within. "A stirring book.filled with transcendent and highly personal moments of revelation, of awe, reverence, and love for nature.the profound truth and magic of becoming one with life on Earth. This book is for anyone anywhere.from the camper's backpack to bedside tables." - Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, President, The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment "Like many ecologists, I had a love affair with nature (especially with butterflies) long before I became a scientist. The love affairs described here will either tell you what I mean, or remind you of your own affair. Either way, you'll enjoy them." - Dr. Paul Ehrlich, co-author of the Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment Available from: - Hiraeth Press: www.hiraethpress.com - www.amazon.com A limited number of signed copies are available, contact Dr. Jamie K. Reaser at e...@nelsoncable.com. If you'd like to help promote the book, please e-mail Jamie for a flyer.
[ECOLOG-L] Municipal support for steady-state
The following news item and position statement should be of interest to ESA members and other subscribers to ECOLOG, since it is relevant to the issue of an ESA position statement on economic growth that has been brought forth by Brian Czech and colleagues and supported by many ESA members. PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 8, 2008 Contact: Kelly Boatman, Chair, City of Bloomington Environmental Commission (812) 287-0031 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ADDRESSES GROWTH The City of Bloomington Environmental Commission has adopted a position statement and completed a report to increase awareness of growth and sustainable development. The statement, “Position of the City of Bloomington Environmental Commission on Economic Growth in the United States” is modeled on similar statements issued by the United States Society for Ecological Economics and over 40 other groups inspired by the work of the Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy (CASSE). The statement advocates a steadystate economy in which resource consumption and waste production are maintained within the environment’s capacity to regenerate resources and assimilate waste, emphasizing development as a qualitative, rather than quantitative, process. “This position statement acknowledges that the human economy is contained within, and dependent on, a finite and depletable natural environment,” said Environmental Commission member Heather Reynolds. “Ever-increasing economic growth ultimately leads to resource consumption and waste production at rates greater than can be sustained by nature.” A steadystate economy for the U.S. will depend in no small part on the efforts made by communities across the nation to achieve sustainable local economies. The first step is awareness and acceptance of the concepts, both of which it is hoped that the position statement will foster. The report, “An Examination of the Costs Associated with Residential Growth in Bloomington” is modeled after similar studies in other communities. Such studies have shown that infrastructure costs to support growth often outpace the benefits of that growth to the city. A sustainable approach to development would mean ensuring long-term benefits outweigh costs. The Commission’s report focuses on the City of Bloomington’s capital expenditures and how these expenditures are impacted by residential growth. The report is not intended to define the full costs of growth in Bloomington, but rather to illustrate that there are substantial costs incurred by the City to provide necessary infrastructure to residences. To fully examine costs, further analysis of not only facilities and infrastructure, but also social and environmental impacts is needed. “The Commission’s report illustrates that the City incurs real costs that are associated with residential growth,” said Environmental Commission member Mike Litwin. “The Commission would like to see the costs of growth balanced against the benefits and incorporated into the decision-making process in order to promote sustainable development in Bloomington.” The report and position statement are available on the Environmental Commission website at http://bloomington.in.gov/environmental-commission. Position of the City of Bloomington Environmental Commission on Economic Growth in the United States (Adapted from the Position of the United States Society for Ecological Economics on Economic Growth in the United States and adopted on May 22, 2008 in a 4-2-0 vote following two years of discussion.) Whereas: 1) Economic growth, as understood by most professional economists, policy officials and private citizens, is an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services, and; 2) Economic growth occurs when there is an increase in the multiplied product of population and per capita consumption, and; 3) Economic growth has long been a primary policy goal of U.S. society and government because of the belief that it leads to an enhanced quality of life, and; 4) Economic growth is usually measured by increasing gross domestic product (GDP), although this is an incomplete indicator of quality of life that excludes the equity of income distribution, other social factors such as physical health and level of crime, and ecological health, and; 5) The U.S. economy grows as an integrated whole consisting of agricultural, extractive, manufacturing, and services sectors (and the supporting infrastructure) that requires physical inputs of non- renewable resources, land and water, and that produces wastes, and; 6) Economic growth occurs in a finite and depletable biophysical context, and; 7) Continuing non-renewable resource-intensive economic growth is having unintended damaging consequences for ecosystems and human societies… Therefore, the Bloomington Environmental Commission takes the position that based on
ESA and Economic Growth Statement
As a long standing member of ESA, I am writing to express my strong support for the position statement on economic growth brought to the ESA Governing Board by Brian Czech and his group. As one of the co-signers of the petition for ESA's consideration of this position statement, I was encouraged to learn that the Board found the issue of interest worth pursuing through its Public Affairs Committee. I feel strongly that ESA, in pursuing study of this issue, should meet with Brian Czech, who has a record of fine work in this area, as well as other representatives of his group. Czech et al.'s position statement is one articulation of the ecological economic paradigm that the human economy is necessarily a subset of nature's economy. Judging by ESA's inclusion of ecological economics into its annual meeting sessions and symposia, ESA endorses this field and its principles. I therefore urge ESA's Public Affairs Committee, in considering this issue, to put together a team that includes Czech and others expert in ecological economics. I find Czech et al.'s statement to be right on the mark in identifying population and per capita consumption as together determining ecological impact/footprint. Achieving steady-state requires adjustments in both, with the need for more or less (or a dual) emphasis on population vs. consumption varying with nation. A focus on steady-state economy thus has the potential to avoid the polarization that can come with initiatives that solely focus on population, as well as to direct effort where it's needed most. Through its SBI and MEA activities among other work, ESA has been a leader in promoting awareness of the resource limits and potential tipping points facing the world. I strongly believe that ESA must now assemble the best team of experts it can to formulate its position on the societal paradigm that has brought us to these limits and tipping points, and the changes in thinking needed to transform the future of our society. As Czech is the person who took the lead in bringing an articulate, well prepared position statement to ESA on this issue, I believe it is not only fair, but in its best interests, for ESA to work with Czech's expert group on this issue. Heather Reynolds Associate Professor Department of Biology Indiana University
