Hi List, I'm a little concerned with this emphasis on limiting economic growth. It seems to me to be to be, politically, a losing proposition from the start, and I'm not sure the underlying premise is entirely valid. Of course there have to be some ultimate limits on economic growth, but the average person who wants a better life sees economic growth as a positive. Is it possible for all those people to have better lives without net environmental damage? It would seem to me that, at least in a developed country like the US (where much initial damage has been done) the answer could be yes. The resources and capital at the bottom of the economy don't necessarily have to grow for the economy to grow, do they? Instead, the relative values, uses, and efficiency of use of the resources can change. Presently, the economy is fueled to a large extent by consumer purchases of products, most of which use natural resources and are basically disposable. What if manufacturers were to largely switch to 'greener' products that also lasted longer? This would mean purchases through the year would be less, and presumably the economy would shrink. However, it seems that rises in other sectors, such as services, education, and food could make up the shortfall and allow average standard of living to rise, albeit under a somewhat different value system where people buy more durable and efficient goods, are better educated, eat better, and live closer together on average.
It seems to me that it would be much more politically effective to take a stand against wastage of natural resources, energy inefficiency, and the like than to decry economic growth. Perhaps the scenario I'm suggesting will lead to less economic disparity among people, and resulting slower or no net growth, but an emphasis on limiting growth per se seems ineffective to me. Best, Bob Miller On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Neil K Dawe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a reminder that, while climate change may be a proximate cause of > biodiversity loss, it is not the ultimate cause. > > A number of recent studies have pointed out the fundamental conflict > between economic growth and biodiversity loss and a recent study by > Canadell et al. (2007. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:18866¨C18870; > http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.full), discussed the connection > between economic growth and increasing CO2 emissions: > > Recent growth of the world economy combined with an increase in its carbon >> intensity have led to rapid growth in fossil fuel CO_2 emissions since 2000: >> comparing the 1990s with 2000¨C2006, the emissions growth rate increased >> from 1.3% to 3.3% /y/ ^-1 . The third process is indicated by increasing >> evidence (/P/ = 0.89) for a long-term (50-year) increase in the airborne >> fraction (AF) of CO_2 emissions, implying a decline in the efficiency of >> CO_2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions. Since >> 2000, the contributions of these three factors to the increase in the >> atmospheric CO_2 growth rate have been ¡Ö65 ¡À 16% from increasing global >> economic activity, 17 ¡À 6% from the increasing carbon intensity of the >> global economy, and 18 ¡À 15% from the increase in AF. >> > > The increasing intensity suggests that technological efficiencies appear to > be losing their effectiveness (i.e., technology is not likely to solve the > problem), while a decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land can also be > at least partially attributed to the economic growth driver (e.g., > deforestation). > > Climate change is essentially a symptom of the problem, the ultimate cause > of which is economic growth. Czech ( > http://www.wildlife.org/publications/wsb2801/2sc_czech.pdf) points out > that, because of the enormous breadth of the human niche, the human economy > grows at the competitive exclusion of wildlife in the aggregate. As long as > the economy continues to grow, more and more biodiversity will be lost > through competitive exclusion. > > He uses an ecological analogy derived from Liebig's law of the minimum, and > suggests economic growth is the limiting factor for biodiversity > conservation. Recall that a limiting factor is a factor whose presence or > absence controls a process such as the success of an organism. It's a factor > that, if not addressed, will affect the success of the organism no matter > what other benefits are provided. > > With respect to biodiversity conservation, unless the limiting > factor--economic growth--is addressed, it doesn't matter what else we do in > terms of conservation effort, the likelihood of our success is essentially > naught. > > If we are truly concerned about biodiversity loss, now is the time for > ecologists to speak out about the ultimate cause of this loss: economic > growth. > > It's also important that we not assume that economic growth is more off > limits or inaccessible as a policy issue. A wide variety of public policy > tools are adjusted to stimulate growth. Those can be gradually re-set for > lower growth rates, moving toward a steady state economy. Then, additional > public policies will come into play as well, including cap-and-trade > frameworks that will overlap with lowering greenhouse gas emissions. And of > course education on the perils of economic growth should help to reform the > consumer ethic, affect growth rates from the demand side as well. > > Neil K. Dawe > > Mary Orland wrote the following on 20/11/2008 10:34 PM: > > Dear Fellow Ecologists, >> >> Over the course of the 21st century, global climate change will likely >> become the single largest cause of biodiversity loss in the world. >> Determining how to manage ecosystems undergoing rapid climate change in >> order to preserve biodiversity and ecosystem function is a scientific >> challenge to ecologists of unparalleled complexity and importance. >> Careful >> synthesis of diverse ecological sub-disciplines will be required to meet >> this challenge. In the coming decades, essentially all ecologists will be >> climate change ecologists. >> >> As a result of AB 32, policy makers in California have recently drafted a >> strategy to help ecosystems adapt to climate change. The plan will >> provide >> the fundamental architecture for California's ecological climate change >> adaptation efforts in the coming decades, and will likely become a >> template >> for other western states as they begin their climate change adaptation >> efforts in coming years. The biodiversity strategy is currently in a >> draft >> form written by state agency personnel with comments from nonprofit >> stakeholders, and is open to public comment on December 5, 2008. >> Unfortunately, little input from the greater ecological scientific >> community >> was solicited in the drafting of this strategy, despite the scientific >> complexity of the topic. The biodiversity climate change adaptation >> strategy >> currently being drafted in California may prove to be one of the most >> influential policies for protecting biodiversity in the coming century. >> It >> will not likely be effective, however, without guidance from expert >> ecologists and incorporation of the best available science. It is >> crucially >> important that the voice of the scientific community be heard at the >> December 5th public comments meeting. >> As an ecologist you are invited to review the strategy yourself and form >> your own comments to share with the agencies. A readily apparent problem >> with the current version of the strategy is the misuse of the term >> ecological resilience, and consequently ill-defined objectives. At this >> time the primary document you need to review is called Strategies (Water, >> Biodiversity/Habitat, Forestry) from the September 11th stakeholders >> meeting >> page; the agencies are supposed to post a revised version of this document >> that incorporates the stakeholders comments before the public hearing on >> December 5th, but had not yet done so at the time this message was written >> two weeks before the meeting. They have promised to post it early in the >> week of November 24th, just before the Thanksgiving holiday. The agencies >> also left the stakeholder participant list for the biodiversity strategy >> blank on their website so we do not know which scientists have already >> given >> input. Following the steps below will help maximize the effectiveness of >> your participation in this process. >> >> 1) Read the strategy yourself -- the first web address is for the >> currently >> available version from the September 11th meeting, the second is where the >> revised strategy is supposed to be posted early in the week of November >> 24th. >> http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/meetings/index.html#091108 >> http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/biodiversity/index.html >> 2) Develop your own comments -- these may be in-depth comments based upon >> your expertise, or the simple statement that you think the scientific >> community needs to be more explicitly involved. >> 3) Attend the public meeting either in person or by telephone and share >> you >> comments -- Dec. 5th, 1-4 pm, Resources Agency Auditorium, 1416 9th >> Street, >> Sacramento, CA >> Conference Call: (916) 657-4113, >> http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/biodiversity/index.html >> 4) Email your comments to the following contact people at the state of >> California on or before December 5th -- Richard Rayburn, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], >> Amber Pairis, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 5) CC the email of your comments to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - a >> consolidated record of the comments from ecologists might prove very >> informative. >> 6) To go http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/and enter you email >> address in the side bar to be added to the state of California's climate >> change adaptations list server so you will be kept informed of future >> policy >> developments. >> 7) Consider posting your comments on ECOLOG to stimulate discussion among >> the ecological community >> >> Please forward this message to any of your colleagues, students, or >> professors who may be interested. The goal is to get as many ecologists >> as >> possible attending the public meeting on December 5th and saying more >> input >> from scientists needs to be incorporated into California's climate change >> adaptation strategy. Even if you cannot attend the meeting, please do >> email >> your comments to the agencies. This may be the most important thing you >> do >> to protect biodiversity all day! >> >> Thank you, >> Mary C. Orland, Ph.D. >> >> >> > -- Robert J. Miller Marine Science Institute University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA 93106-6150 (805) 893-7295
