It would be hard to argue with Guangjie, and it should be noted that the proposed ESA policy statement on economic growth does, at least implicitly, address the inequity issue. For example, it includes this sentence: "In nations for which it is apparent that economic growth has proceeded beyond the optimum, in which case the expanding production process may more accurately be designated 'uneconomic growth,' various policy tools should be carefully and gradually applied toward the goal of a more optimally sized economy." (To avoid having anything taken out of context, I will post the full proposed statement in a separate email to follow.)
It is also relevant to consider the geographic scope of the Ecological Society of America. As an organization that sprang from a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1915, it has had somewhat of a focus on American issues, especially when it comes to public policy. True, it has members worldwide, and many American members conduct research in other parts of the world. Likewise, the ESA has taken on policy issues of global significance. The difference is, I think, that when it comes to specific public policies, it has stuck to American policy issues (e.g., the Endangered Species Act). When it comes to global issues (e.g. genetically modified organisms), specific policies have not been explicitly addressed unless they were American policies. There may be exceptions but I think this has generally been the approach and it seems eminently sensible. I think it is just as sensible to have these types of debates about the international equity of climate change on ECOLOG. When it comes to a potential ESA policy statement on economic growth, though, most likely the ESA would not be calling for macroeconomic policy reforms anywhere other than the U.S. For that matter, the ESA wouldnt even have to call for specific macroeconomic policies in the U.S. It would be a major step in the right direction simply to refute the political rhetoric that "there is no conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment" which you can bet theyre hearing in Bali! Cheers, Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 Falls Church, VA 22043 -- Guangjie Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: There is a reason that China, the most populated country around the globe, adopts this strategy: if you have achieved a high standard of living without signing the Kyoto, why should we sign it? I don't want to find an excuse for China and other developing countries, but the western countries should take the lead, particularly the US. You say the west growth model is a problem and many people would agree with that. But why the western countries havn't changed their way of development and living, instead asking the developing countries to change their way of economic growth? This is impractical, and only global cooperation can in the long term alleviate the effect of climate change. best Guangjie Chen, Postdoc Fellow Department of Biology McGill University Stewart Biology Building 1205 Docteur Penfield, Room: W6/5 Montreal, Quebec H3A 1B1 Canada Tel: +1(514) 398-4117 Fax: +1(514)-398-5069 On 7-Dec-07, at 12:55 PM, Dan Tufford wrote: > And another way to look at it is that China is just trying to duck any > responsibility in this regard. > > But on a broader level I am surprised to read that you seem to be > giving > China the latitude to achieve a western standard of living before > dealing > with consumption. (And if China, then why not all developing > countries?) > Every projection I have seen suggests that is much too late. Earth > does not > have the resources etc. etc. > > Growth that does not follow the western model seems to be the key. > Yes, I > know that is a very difficult issue and no, I do not have the > answer. It > just seems that you, and all of us, should be looking for that > answer rather > than excusing China in this process. > > Regards, > Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. > University of South Carolina > Department of Biological Sciences > 209A Sumwalt (office) > 701 Sumter St, Room 401 (mail) > Columbia, SC 29208 > Ph. 803-777-3292, Fx: 803-777-3292 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > web: http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rob Dietz > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 12:02 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Climate Change and Economic Growth > > Check out these quotes from Su Wei, a member of the Chinese > delegation at > the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Bali: > > "I just wonder whether it's fair to ask developing countries like > China to > take on binding targets or mandatory targets. I think there is > much room > for the United States to think whether it's possible to change (its) > lifestyle and consumption patterns in order to contribute to the > protection of the global climate." > > "China is in the process of industrialization and there is a need for > economic growth to meet the basic needs of the people and fight > against > poverty." > > "China is acting. We will do what we should and what we can do. > All we > care for is the well-being and the future of mankind." > > Su seems to be advocating that the U.S. and other wealthy nations stop > obsessing over economic growth (i.e., move toward a steady state > economy), > and that poorer nations follow a short-term policy of growth before > stabilizing economic conditions. > > This line of thinking is right in step with the position on economic > growth being proposed in ESA. We won't see much action on abating > climate > change if we don't address economic growth around the globe. > > Thanks, > Rob Dietz, Executive Director > Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy > www.steadystate.org
