I agree with the Brians that a position/policy statement from ESA
would be better than the letter, all due respects to Carpenter. By
purposely involving the community of ESA ecologists from the outset, I
think such a statement would result in a more moderate, realistic, and
representative statement than what could be offered by any one of us
individually. Then more extreme views (e.g. population policy, in my
opinion) would perhaps be filtered out. Furthermore the draft of the
position/policy statement appears to be grounded in the fundamentals
of economics, which makes it more robust than the more editorial style
Carpenter letter. Given the current 'finanicial crisis' and the
growing awareness of the costs of unrestrained/unregulated economic
growth (e.g. climate change, tainted milk in China, etc.), I can
hardly imagine a better time to release such a statement. Addressing
over-consumption, which is at the heart of the current problems in the
economic markets as well as the state of the environment, in
ecological and economic terms should be a critical component.
Including statements regarding consumption and conservation are
especially important given most politicians focus largely on changing
energy production, but not energy use. If not a position/policy
statement, then perhaps at least an article in Frontiers or some
similar publication would be timely and helpful?
Kevin Mueller ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Penn State University
Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology
On Nov 14, 2008, at 12:00 AM, ECOLOG-L automatic digest system wrote:
From: "Chalfant, Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: November 13, 2008 12:06:35 PM EST
Subject: Re: Co-sign LETTER TO OBAMA FROM ONE OF EARTH'S LEADING
ECOLOGISTS (Stephen R. Carpenter)
I think this position/policy statement from ESA is a much better
approach to bringing these types of concerns about neoclassical
economic growth into greater prominence with regards to our national/
global political/societal dialogue because it does not include
mention of a "population policy" explicitly. As I said (typed)
previously, I think it's politically self-defeating to suggest (even
vaguely, but certainly outright) population control. The word
"population" only occurs once in the policy statement at the very
outset, and does not suggest limiting people's reproductive freedoms/
rights/privileges/abilities, which - I think - gives it a much
better chance to have a widespread political impact.
I do think it's important for politicians (and everyone) to realize
that population growth also plays a role in our cumulative
ecological impact and that our planet cannot sustain an infinite
human population - to that end, and in that it addresses a lot of
the same issues discussed in the position statement below, I think
S. Carpenter's letter has its merit, but its suggestion/implication
of population control as a national policy is a really difficult
thing to swallow - even though his supporting suggestions about how
to go about that don't really imply population control similar to
China's "one child" mandate, I think that will come into a lot of
people's minds when they read the words "population policy."
-----Original Message-----
From: Czech, Brian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 11:26 AM
To: Chalfant, Brian; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ECOLOG-L] Co-sign LETTER TO OBAMA FROM ONE OF EARTH'S
LEADING ECOLOGISTS (Stephen R. Carpenter)
The letter to Obama is a great idea, and hopefully will have some
effect, short-term at least. Meanwhile, a professional society
position statement carries more weight and is relatively timeless in
effect, so this ECOLOG discussion is probably a good context for
revisiting the proposed ESA position on economic growth.
Policy Statement on Economic Growth
Proposed for Adoption by the Ecological Society of America on July
12, 2007
List of Proposers Updated March 20, 2008
Proposed by ESA Members Warren Aney, Paul Angermeier, Robert
Baldwin, Randy Bangert, Alice Bard, Terry Bowyer, Mark Boyce, Cara
Lin Bridgman, Jim Brown, Joel Brown, Peter Brussard, David Bryant,
John Cairns, Joseph Cech, Jameson Chace, Dana Coelho, Christopher
Craft, Brian Czech, Dominick DellaSala, David Ehrenfeld, Elmer
Finck, Dan Fiscus, Curt Flather, Edward Gates, Joseph Gathman, Brian
Halstead, Rod Heitschmidt, Jeff Houlahan, Nancy Johnson, Evan Kane,
Rick Knight, Nicola Koper, Erika Latty, Josh Lawler, Chris Lepczyk,
Karin Limburg, Richard Lindroth, Michael Lowe, Michael Marsh, Carl
McDaniel, Eliot McIntire, Guy McPherson, David Mech, Chris
Papouchis, Andrew Park, Mary Price, Kenneth Raedeke, Heather
Reynolds, Todd Rinaldi, Winston Smith, Nicholas Stowe, Teresa
Tibbets, Stephen Trombulak, Gerald Van Amburg, Skip Van Bloem,
Ashwani Vasishth, Robert Wagner, Mohan Wali, David Walls, Nick
Waser, Jake Weltzin, John Yunger, Richard York, and Patricia Zaradic.
Background
Economic growth is an increase in the production and consumption of
goods and services. It requires increasing population and/or per
capita production and consumption. It is indicated by measures of
production, income, and expenditure, most notably gross domestic
product (GDP).
Economic growth is a function of land, labor, and capital. Capital
may be real or financial. Real capital includes natural capital,
manufactured capital, and human capital. Natural capital may take
the form of raw materials (e.g., oil, timber, fish) or services
(e.g., solar radiation, water filtration, climate regulation).
Manufactured capital includes the infrastructure, plant, and
machinery that are used in the production of consumer goods or
additional manufactured capital, or in the performance of services.
Human capital refers to various aspects of the human condition that
allow for higher productivity; for example, education, information,
and health.
The economic production process entails the conversion of natural
capital into manufactured capital (including service facilities) and
consumer goods and services by the application of labor,
manufactured capital, and human capital. Some services may be
performed with little manufactured capital, but natural capital in
the form of energy and/or agricultural commodities are nevertheless
required for such performance. Essentially, the human economy has a
sectoral structure that reflects the trophic structure of the
ecosystem.
The ecosystem comprises an economy of nature that is founded upon
the producers, or plants, which produce their own food in the
process of photosynthesis. Among the animals, primary consumers eat
plants, secondary consumers eat primary consumers, etc. In some
ecosystems more than five distinct trophic levels may be
identified. Omnivores consume in more than one trophic level, and
many species are omnivorous to some extent. Some species, such as
pollinators, detritivores, and scavengers, are aptly characterized
as service providers in the economy of nature.
The human economy is also founded upon producers, most notably the
agricultural and extractive sectors. Surplus production in these
sectors is what allows for the division of labor. Laborers and
other individuals consume products from the agricultural sectors for
sustenance, and manufacturing sectors transform energy and raw
materials from the extractive sectors into consumer goods and
manufactured capital. Service sectors, such as janitorial,
transportation, and financial services, are an integral component of
the full economy, as with the service providers in the economy of
nature.
Macroeconomic Policy and the Environment
Of primary concern to the Ecological Society of America is the
relationship of economic growth to the functional integrity and
sustainability of the ecosystem, which in turn has implications for
the sustainability of the economy itself. The Ecological Society of
America is also concerned with the lack of public policy dialog on
the implications of macroeconomic policy to ecological integrity and
economic sustainability. Furthermore, in the limited dialog that
does occur, there appears to be confusion about limits to economic
growth and the tradeoffs between economic growth and environmental
protection. The Ecological Society of America believes ecologists
have a unique conceptual toolkit, as a result of their training and
research, for helping to build understanding and awareness about the
ecological effects of economic growth and for identifying policy
tools conducive to ecological integrity and economic
sustainability. To wit, the Ecological Society of America takes the
position that:
* There is a limit to economic growth, based upon the laws of
thermodynamics and principles of ecology. The availability of
matter and energy are limited in accordance with the first law of
thermodynamics. The efficiency with which matter and energy may be
converted into goods and services is limited in accordance with the
second law of thermodynamics. Just as energy and biomass is lost in
the economy of nature from one trophic level to the next, energy and
materials are lost in the human economy from one sector to the
next. For example, it takes more than 100 kilotons of vegetation to
produce 100 kilotons of rabbits, and it takes many more kilotons to
produce (via rabbits and other prey) 100 kilotons of foxes. This
ecological principle is grounded in the second law of thermodynamics
and is referred to as "ecological efficiency." Likewise, it takes
more than 100 kilotons of iron ore to produce 100 kilotons of steel,
and more yet to produce 100 kilotons of auto chassis. The
efficiency with which consumer goods and services are produced from
natural capital is called "productive efficiency."
* Assessing the limits to growth at local, regional, and national
levels is complicated by the prospects for importing labor and
capital. The ultimate limit to economic growth on Earth manifests
at the global level because all labor and capital is accounted for
at the global level.
* The human economy grows as an integrated whole. Although
particular processes and sectors may wax and wane as a function of
technological progress, the basic collection of agricultural,
extractive, manufacturing, and service sectors tend to grow and
recede in unison. Furthermore, there is a limit to the proportion
of services that comprise the human economy because of the land,
capital, and consumption requirements of the service providers.
Additionally, most services are used by or with other economic
sectors such that growth in those service sectors requires growth in
the other economic sectors.
* Economic growth ultimately requires more agricultural and
extractive surplus, resulting in the liquidation of natural
capital. Increased productive efficiency may allow some economic
growth to occur with less environmental impact per unit production,
but efficiency is limited to less than 100% pursuant to the second
law of thermodynamics.
* Regarding the size of an economy, the basic alternative trends
are growth, recession, and steady state. Because an economy may
neither grow without limit nor recede into negative production, only
a steady state economy is sustainable in the long run.
* There is a fundamental tradeoff between economic growth and
environmental protection, where environmental protection refers to
the maintenance of ecosystem characteristics conducive to human
welfare. These characteristics include but are not limited to:
purity of air and water, soil productivity; naturally occurring
biological diversity; capacity to buffer communities from natural
disasters such as hurricanes, and composition of atmospheric gases
associated with climates that humans and other species have adapted
to and evolved with. This tradeoff is practically irrelevant for
economies with abundant natural capital and ecological integrity,
but becomes more policy-relevant as the economy grows, natural
capital is liquidated, and ecological integrity is compromised.
* Because of the tradeoff between economic growth and
environmental protection, which is necessary for human welfare
including economic sustainability, continued economic growth is
certain to exceed a socially optimum level. The fact that such a
level may be difficult to ascertain precisely, or may fluctuate as a
matter of natural cycles or events, does not render the concept of
optimum size less relevant to public policy. Given an adequate
understanding of the tradeoff between economic growth and
environmental protection, most citizens and policy makers will be
capable of recognizing if an economy is far beyond the socially
optimum size. Moving toward the optimum size or an acceptable range
of an economy's size should be a policy goal of the polity.
* The economies of some localities, regions, and nations may have
already surpassed optimum size. Ecological evidence for this exists
in the form of water shortages, soil erosion and degradation, high
levels of biodiversity loss, and lack of wild areas and "green
space," among other things. Broader evidence, including but not
limited to ecological parameters, is found by using various
indicators of human welfare, such as the Index of Sustainable
Economic Welfare and the Genuine Progress Indicator, which in some
nations have been declining while GDP has been increasing. It
behooves nations and other political units to adopt alternative
indices of welfare and monitor them along with GDP, attempting to
parse out the net effects of economic growth, whether beneficial or
detrimental.
* 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. Many of these
tools already exist, including fiscal, monetary, and trade
policies. Although these policy tools have most often been used to
stimulate growth or increase the growth rate, they may instead be
used to lower the growth rate or stabilize the economy. Additional
policy tools for achieving a stabilized (mildly fluctuating) steady
state economy may be used to supplement the existing policy tools,
including cap-and-trade systems in the energy and extractive
sectors, graduated consumption taxes, and banking reforms that
entail less debt (and therefore less pressure for economic growth)
than the current fractional reserve system.
For more information about this policy statement, please contact
Brian Czech at [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or 703-901-7190.
Brian Czech, Visiting Assistant Professor
Natural Resources Program
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center
7054 Haycock Road, Room 411
Falls Church, Virginia 22043
________________________________
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of
Chalfant, Brian
Sent: Thu 2008-11-13 09:17
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Co-sign LETTER TO OBAMA FROM ONE OF EARTH'S
LEADING ECOLOGISTS (Stephen R. Carpenter)
Just a thought on this letter: is there really a need for the
United States of America to have a "population policy?" Why not a
"consumption policy?" As noted in the population paragraph, the
majorly skewed part of the (population * per capita consumption)
term in the U.S.A. is the per capita consumption part. I don't have
numbers to back this up, but have heard anecdotally that population
growth in most "developed"/materially rich countries is decreasing
and/or has leveled off already. I have also heard that the U.S.A.,
compared to other "developed" nations does have a higher growth
rate, but I would venture that much of this can be attributed to
immigration (?) especially in recent years/decades. I would love to
see some links/facts from someone who knows more about this than I do.
Globally, sure there are parts of the world where exploding
populations and availability resources to meet the needs of those
population concentrations are of great concern, but I - personally -
don't think that an administrative "population policy" from Obama
(or any of our "leaders") is the most appropriate way to address
population growth in other nations that are situated outside our
national jurisdiction (if anything is outside of that). To me -
when you say "population policy," that will translate to "can't have
babies" in a lot of people's minds, which is a political bomb. That
is not to say I think it isn't a concern at all for the U.S.A., we
definitely need to educate women (as well as the men who fertilize
those women) in general and also specifically as to reproductive
matters, while working with other nations to address population
growth globally, but I think couching that kind of policy in (or
introducing that paragraph as) a national population-control sort o!
f argument is self-defeating, in political terms. I - personally -
think we'd be better off focusing our limited (moreso by the day)
resources on the per capita part of our impact term. Also, I think
any federally-mandated/presidential policy type of effort will have
limited efficacy in any arena without local action, so go hand out
condoms, but don't buy as many! ;)
Discussion?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Chase D. Mendenhall
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Co-sign LETTER TO OBAMA FROM ONE OF EARTH'S
LEADING ECOLOGISTS (Stephen R. Carpenter)
SIGN This Letter:
http://www.gopetition.com/online/23266.html
This letter was sent and thought to be received by President-Elect
Barack Obama from leading ecologist Stephen R. Carpenter. This
petition is simply to support the gravity of Dr. Carpenter's advice
to save our life support systems.
Please sign and forward on to demonstrate your support for these
basic, but necessary national priorities for Brack Obama's presidency.
The objective of this petitions is to organize citizens who support
Stephen R. Carpenter's position of saving human life support
systems, emphasize the urgency of the situation to the Obama
administration and draw attention to the seemingly unnoticed 1,300
leading scientists' consensus report.
Used with permission of Stephen R. Carpenter.
http://www.gopetition.com/online/23266.html
November 2008--
Dear President-Elect Obama,
Congratulations on your election, which has created a sense of
optimism in America that has never occurred before in my lifetime.
Yet earth's life support systems have deteriorated more in our
lifetimes than in any other era of human history. With earth's
population increasing, and consumption per person growing much
faster than population, humans are heating the climate, polluting
air and water, degrading landscapes and turning coastal oceans to
dead zones. America's food supply depends on a few fragile crops,
grown using practices that degrade soil, air and water to yield
foods of low nutritional value that harm our health. The U.S. is not
investing in the education and innovation needed to create
agriculture and energy technologies that can get us through the 21st
century. Details are found in a consensus report of more than 1300
leading scientists from more than 90 nations including the U.S. (http://www.MAweb.org
<http://www.maweb.org/>). These findings support the following
priorities for your presidency.
Decrease America's dependency on coal and oil and increase the
supply of energy from non-polluting technologies: We must decrease
emission of greenhouse gases, and the era of cheap oil is over. We
must accelerate development of clean energy technologies using wind,
sun and tides. These investments must be based on scientific
information to avoid bogus remedies, such as grain biofuels, that
sound good but do not in fact solve the problem. We must increase
conservation through better buildings, efficient transportation, and
renewal of industry. We must improve agriculture and forestry
practices to reduce energy consumption and increase carbon storage
in soil.
Stop subsidizing agriculture that destroys land, water and health.
Create incentives for agriculture that maintains land and water
resources and yields healthy food: Agriculture must shift to
practices that use less energy for tillage and transport of food,
produce healthy food for local consumption, train more people in
diverse farming practices, build soil instead of degrading and
eroding it, and maintain clean water and air. These reforms can be
accomplished by reforming federal subsidies.
Have a population policy: In global impact, the U.S. is the world's
most overpopulated nation, mainly because of our high per-capita
consumption. Our population is growing rapidly. Global population
growth is a key driver of degraded land, water, air and climate.
Education of women is a powerful lever to restrain population
growth. If all the world's women are educated to high-school level,
human impact on our life-support system will be more than 30% lower
by 2050. As a father of daughters, it is especially appropriate for
you to support education for all of the world's women.
Invest in the education and innovation needed to create a society
that could thrive in the 21st century and beyond: Even though our
universities and research centers are the envy of the world, science
education of the general population of the U.S. is weak and must be
made stronger. Education must be reformed to encourage creativity.
There are enormous opportunities for innovations in agriculture,
energy, and infrastructure that will lead to a moderate climate,
rich landscapes, and clean air and water into the future. These
technological opportunities are being seized by other nations while
the U.S. lags behind. We must restore American leadership in
creating technology that maintains our life support system while
providing the energy, food and shelter that people need.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Carpenter
Stephen Alfred Forbes Professor of Zoology
Center for Limnology
University of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53706 USA
SIGN THIS LETTER: http://www.gopetition.com/online/23266.html
