Hi Bob - You bring up a good point, that despite their critiques of the growth economy, ecological economists have too infrequently described the policies needed to bring about an alternative to the growth economy. Herman Daly does an excellent job of that at http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941
His article outlines ten policy steps toward a steady-state economy. It’s important to recognize that a steady state economy does not look like a failed growth economy (or an economy in recession) – he compares the two to the difference between a helicopter designed to hover versus an airplane designed to fly forward, which is incapable of hovering. Some of Daly’s proposals may seem to be more feasible than others, and indeed some are undergoing debate in serious political circles (e.g., Obama’s cap and dividend proposal for climate change legislation) while others are recognized by most ecologists as important but political third rails (e.g., population stabilization). Interestingly most ecologists I’ve talked with who get squeamish about criticizing growth have no problem agreeing that a sustainable economy should respect key environmental thresholds – whether for climate change, endangered species survival, or avoidance of eutrophication of aquatic systems. My response is that an economy designed to respect those limits, plus a safety margin for uncertainty, would start to look an awful lot like a steady state economy. Once sustainability is taken care of, it’s not far to the rest of Daly’s policies to address economic justice and efficiency - distribution, employment, international trade, and distribution of rents to land, labor, and capital. Other authors addressing policy tools to move toward a steady state economy include Peter Barnes’ book “Capitalism 3.0”, Bill McKibben’s “Deep Economy”, and Lawn, P. 2004. Reconciling the policy goals of full employment and ecological sustainability. International Journal of Environment, Workplace, and Employment 1 (1): 62-81. No doubt there are other good sources out there. Regards, Ken Bagstad PhD candidate Gund Institute for Ecological Economics University of Vermont Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Economic growth Hi Brian and list, Thank you for these replies and the article. It's very interesting and I agree with much of it. However, it doesn't present any data or models that address any of the points I made earlier. The paper concentrates largely on the failure of technology to mitigate the environmental damage of growth. I think that's well established, as evidenced by the numerous citations in the article (not to suggest that the article wasn't a worthwhile effort though). I agree with that, and I certainly realize that developed countries depend on third world degradation. I simply think that there are much more immediate and effective ways that ESA could influence matters than by taking a stand on 'economic growth' and relying on macroeconomic forces to change things. Not only is that a nonstarter, what would it do? How would economic growth be limited? By manipulating interest rates so people can't afford to buy a house? By lowering government R&D expenditures? Lowering the minimum wage? Banning immigration? It all seems pretty grandiose to me, what are the specific measures that would be taken to limit economic growth? It is not enough just to say we need to stop holding GDP in such high regard. I looked at Brian's website, the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy and I couldn't find any recommendations of specific mechanisms for limiting growth. Their position statement includes the following two statements. 4) Economic growth, as gauged by increasing GDP, is an increasingly dangerous and anachronistic goal, especially in wealthy nations with widespread affluence, and; In principal I agree with this. But there are huge issues with distribution of wealth, even in 'wealthy' countries, that this simple statement ignores. 7) A steady state economy does not preclude economic development, a dynamic, qualitative process in which different technologies may be employed and the relative prominence of economic sectors may evolve, This statement means nothing to me. It certainly is not the definition of a steady state. Apparently it suggests that as long as GDP stays constant, everything else can change. If one sector declines, another can go up. That sounds a lot like what I said before. It seems to me that what's needed is much greater regulation and economic incentives. Maybe ESA could, for example, take a stand on subsidies to wasteful farming practices, or on environmental requirements for trade agreements. Maybe we could argue that ecology is actually more important to the nation, at this point, than new weapons, space exploration and wider highways. The technology to vastly change things, as Paul pointed out, is there to a large extent. Obviously it needs to be done internationally. I'll leave my opinion at that. Anachronistically yours, Bob On 11/22/08, Czech, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob's concerns about a professional, scientific society getting involved in > economic growth are typical. That's why such concerns have been addressed > in numerous publications and other venues. There are sound reasons why the > following ecological organizations have adopted positions on economic > growth: > > > > * The Wildlife Society > * American Society of Mammalogists > * United States Society for Ecological Economics > * British Columbia Field Ornithologists > * Society for Conservation Biology (North America Section) > * Federation of British Columbia Naturalists - "BC Nature" > > Regarding the technical issues raised by Bob, I believe they are all > recognized, summarized and addressed in the attached article in press at > Conservation Biology, "Prospects for reconciling the conflict between > economic growth and biodiversity conservation with technological progress." > This article is part of a 4-article "Conservation Focus" series on economic > growth in the upcoming December issue, and I have permission for the > distribution of these page proofs in this venue. > > > > The political issues raised by Bob are greatly influenced by the technical > issues. When an adequate proportion of the public and polity understand the > technical nature of the conflict between economic growth and environmental > protection, national security, and international stability, the politics > fall right into line. That is precisely why it is so important for a > scientific society such as the ESA to weigh in. By leaving the technical > issues entirely to decision makers lacking sound ecological training and > experience, the door is wide open not only for innocent misinformation but > for the exceedingly dangerous propaganda that "there is no conflict between > growing the economy and protecting the environment." > > > > Also, it looks like Bob and others may not yet have noticed what is already > happening with the politics of economic growth. Climate change, Peak Oil, > and financial meltdowns are very rapidly changing the rules of the game. > People far and wide are observing the limits to growth in the real sector > (including Peak Oil), as reflected in the monetary sector coming back to > Earth (financial meltdowns). They also see the effects of growth - climate > change, pollution of all types, biodiversity loss - eroding their children's > future. > > > > How can I claim to know this? For one thing, I monitor the news on these > political developments. The steady state economy, for example, has picked > up as a news item, and dramatically so. For another thing, take a look at > the organizations endorsing the CASSE position on economic growth: > > > > http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html#anchor_90 > > > > You'll see that it is not only environmental organizations advancing the > steady state economy, but child health organizations, businesses, religious > groups, local planning groups... even a mutual fund! > > > > So I think Bob's concerns - typical as they have been - may already be > anachronistic. Perhaps we should be more concerned about the ESA lagging > behind and losing an opportunity to be recognized as a progressive leader on > the big, policy-relevant issues of ecological sustainability. > > > > Brian Czech > > Natural Resources Program > > Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University > > National Capital Region, Northern Virginia Center > > 7054 Haycock Road, Room 411 > > Falls Church, Virginia 22043 > > > > and > > > > Brian Czech, Ph.D., President > > Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy > > www.steadystate.org <http://www.steadystate.org/> > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Robert > Miller > Sent: Fri 2008-11-21 17:02 > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Economic growth > > > > 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 > > > -- Robert J. Miller Marine Science Institute University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara CA 93106-6150 (805) 893-7295 _________________________________________________________________ Access your email online and on the go with Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_access_112008
