Ive extracted the following from a draft manuscript about the role of ecologists in macroeconomic policy dialogue. Its relevant to Ken Bagstad's observations on the "dilemma" facing conservationists vis-à- vis economic growth, which were prompted by Stan Moore. I think one horn of this dilemma is clearly longer than the other:
Another potential source of ambivalence [of ecologists, about economic growth] is the importance of funding for conservation programs, in and out of government. Natural resource professionals are often faced with insufficient budgets. All else equal, if the economy stopped growing, so would many conservation programs. More importantly, given the structure of the human economy, increased monetary funding in the aggregate (i.e., across all programs, including conservation) ultimately entails the liquidation of natural capital. If funds for purchasing, restoring, or managing wildlife habitat entail activities that liquidate natural capital, which prior to liquidation had comprised wildlife habitat, a net loss of habitat should be expected. This implies that a net gain in wildlife habitat via additional funding is likely to occur only if the additional funding comes from a reallocation from other sources (including government and non- government programs) rather than increased funding for all programs in the aggregate. Brian Czech, President Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy WWW.STEADYSTATE.ORG Sign the position on economic growth at: http://steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html -- Ken Bagstad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This is a really interesting document and question Stan raises. Conservation faces an unfortunate dilemma funding is often easier to get during good economic times, yet a hypercharged economy does quite a bit of damage to the systems were trying to study/protect/restore. If you doubt the damage that economic growth causes, consider the housing boom that according to most experts has kept the U.S. economy afloat for the last 5 years or so following the tech bubble burst then think about how much damage to ecosystems, populations, and species across the country this has caused! The economic growth in China that Kotlikoff suggests to bail out the U.S. obviously comes with its own high price, for Chinese citizens, their environment, and the world (especially through climate change). Clearly a bankrupt Federal government is not likely to be a good thing for the environment or the economy, unless it forces radical changes in how and what the government taxes and spends. And Id imagine that most ecologists, accustomed to thinking on evolutionary vs. business time scales, are probably more concerned than the average American about the countrys fiscal as well as environmental health. So its interesting to read Kotlikoffs proposed solutions. One solution that is not mentioned is ecological tax reform replacing much of our taxes on income with taxes on pollution and natural resource depletion giving business clear incentives to reduce environmentally harmful behavior. Taxing consumption as the article suggests is also an interesting idea, especially if environmentally harmful products were taxed at a higher rate. These ideas have been proposed by ecological economists for years, but are at least occasionally mentioned by some neoclassical economists as well. The obvious problem is finding the political will to reform the U.S. tax system, much less in a beneficial way. As a side note, it was interesting to read how the 2002 economic report on this issue was suppressed and Treasury Secretary ONeill fired following its completion. An unexpected, and unfortunate piece of common ground between climate change scientists, endangered species biologists, and economists who take the long view of things. My 2c Ken Bagstad Graduate Research Assistant, University of Vermont PhD Program, Natural Resources/Ecological Economics Aiken Center, 81 Carrigan Drive Burlington, VT 05405 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:31:10 +0000 From: stan moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Questioni: what would a bankrupt U.S. government mean for wildlife conservation The prickly question of U.S. financial condition is tackled in the brand new Reserve Bank of St. Louis Review, and can be accessed via the following URL: http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/06/07/Kotlikoff.pdf Then a pertinent question becomes: how high will wildlife conservation be as a national fiscal priority if and when the system as we have known it collapses? Stan Moore San Geronimo, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
