A few comments on a possible ESA policy statement on economic growth and related discussions...
First, I want to say that I support the initiative led by Brian Czech to develop a policy statement and the comments by Ed Gates on how best to conduct that process. I had let my ESA membership lapse about a year ago due to my sense (perhaps mistaken) that ESA did not take sustainability seriously, was not really doing any hard self-critique and was not prepared to make substantive changes in either sustainability of ESA operations and meetings or scientific theory and practices relevant for understanding and achieving environmental sustainability. I rejoined ESA recently based largely due to the optimism for change in ESA that I see coming from the push for a policy statement on economic growth (and other good signs too). In the interim I also joined the Society for Human Ecology, which is an excellent group. In reply to Raphael below, I second the idea to "mentally decouple" relative to economic growth and to promote better metrics for use in public discussions of economic and social trends. I get really tired of NPR news, for example, continuing to report stats and daily implicitly equate growth metrics like GDP with health or positive conditions or trends relative to overall human well-being in the U.S. But I would differ a bit to suggest that "economic growth" itself cannot likely be decoupled from environmental damage, as described in the draft policy statement circulated by Brian Czech, and for which I am a proponent. Two options for decoupling include 1) switching mental focus, terminology and metrics to "development" and 2) talking about subsets of the economy which could and should grow while others shrink (e.g., renewable energy should grow, fossil fuel energy will shrink) with the net effect being steady state economy overall (no net growth). One last contribution at this point is a quote from the book, "A Prosperous Way Down: Principles and Policies", by Howard and Elizabeth Odum (2001) and a comment on its importance: "Soon the United States and other developed nations will begin their descent, learning how to live with less emergy [a measure of energy] and a smaller economy. There is no modern experience in coming down to go by, but we do have some principles about cycles and the historical record of past civilizations We get some ideas observing ecosystems when they contract. Our energy review left little doubt that turndown will occur. Instead of denial, it is time for people at all levels of society to plan for a better world in which we use less. There should be task forces throughout society working on descent." (pg. 195) The Odum's suggest here: 1. That ecosystem science can help anticipate and inform the transition from growth to steady state for human societies by observation, analogy, application of methods, etc. 2. That "a better world in which we use less" is possible. These points are powerful and inspiring for me, and I think they, as well as the ecological and ESA credentials of the Odums, suggest a policy statement on economic growth could be an excellent opportunity for ESA to step up with real, visionary and practical leadership in these challenging times. And I think we can have confidence grounded in both our ecological science and gut instincts or intuitions that changing course away from growth toward descent will lead to better quality of life for the majority of people over the long term. Dan Fiscus PS - the whole book (Odum and Odum 2001) is excellent and I'd recommend it. Raphael Mazor wrote: > My one contribution to this debate is that I would like ESA to encourage > economists to use metrics of economic growth that aren't DIRECTLY in > conflict with environmental sustainability. > > For example, the news this week was full of stories of economists in a > tizzy because of the huge drop in the construction of new homes. But if > economists define economic growth as housing starts, they define growth > as suburban sprawl. > > Another example would be to measure economic growth as increases in > carbon output, or trade volume. > > Other economic metrics do not conflate environmental degradation with > economic growth (for example, unemployment statistics, or median income). > > Better metrics will allow us to mentally de-couple economic growth from > environmental destruction. > > -- Dan Fiscus Assistant Professor Biology Department Frostburg State University 308 Compton Science Center Frostburg, MD 21532 USA 301-687-4170 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
