Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions
Thanks to all involved in this debate! To Brian Czech and CASSE, to ESA and others on ecolog-l. A very important discussion! Thanks also to Heather Reynolds, who wrote this, which I agree seems very much at the core of the issue: > 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." I think this fits in with the efforts of Brian and CASSE to clarify that growth applies to any economy taken as a whole. Perhaps if folks used the term "net growth" it might help to allow for growth in some sectors as long as equal shrinkage or decrease in material throughput occurred elsewhere to offset. Thus steady state economy results for any economy as a whole. It seems to me the "problem of sharing" as Heather notes is so deep as to be perhaps subliminal or sub-consciously below the level of normal discourse. To suggest an equal or perhaps greater importance of sharing and cooperation could challenge not only neoclassical economics, but also the mainstream of evolutionary biology. These two now are mutually reinforcing in their value of competition between individuals as the best (perhaps only?) reliable or "objective" means to improvement in quality of life over time, development that aids both the individual and the greater good. I think the ESA statement has some very powerful and profound aspects, even though I agree it seems to stop just short of the full subversion of the dominant cultural paradigm that is likely at the root of our environmental problems. For example, phrases like: "Human wellbeing depends on numerous forms of wealth." "Humanity as a whole will not necessarily be "richer."" are powerful in suggesting a value system that applies to all humanity as the appropriate scale for this debate. To me such language is sign that the environmental and social globalization movements are starting to catch up to the economic form of globalization. I also think this planetary scale for discourse and value judgements fits with the original CASSE ideas that we admit that the era and emphasis on growth should end - net growth, at the planetary scale, as function of population times resource use. For this to happen, if developing nations are to grow in materials use, we in the U.S. will have to do with less. Seems fair to me. Especially as part of a new story or cultural paradigm in which cooperation and mutualism are elevated to higher standards as key organizing principles in both life and economics. Thanks again, Dan -- Dan Fiscus Assistant Professor Biology Department Frostburg State University 308 Compton Science Center Frostburg, MD 21532 USA 301-687-4170 dafis...@frostburg.edu From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Heather Reynolds Sent: Mon 7/27/2009 11:12 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: 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 consid
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions
tinction: >> >> 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...@indian
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions
ng 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. ? Requir
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions
(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 ec
Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions
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 su
[ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions
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.php
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 capaci
