What if it were a joint statement from the Ecological Society of America and the Society for Conservation Biology? Would that not give even greater significance? SCB is international, which would be a good reminder that what we do in the USA has effects around the world.
Check out David Orr's "One Hundred Days of Climate Action," ConBio August 2007. (Also at http://www.davidworr.com/files/CB-56_100_DAYS.pdf). Shelly > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:09:48 -0500 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Co-sign LETTER TO OBAMA FROM ONE OF EARTH'S LEADING > ECOLOGISTS (Stephen R. Carpenter) > To: [email protected] > > 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 > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Get 5 GB of storage with Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_5gb_112008
