I agree in part, but the CASSE position (and the proposed ESA position) say nothing about a conflict between "jobs and the environment." Rather, the conflict is between increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate and environmental protection (clean air and water, biodiversity conservation, stable climate etc.). In a steady state economy with stabilized population and per capita consumption, employment and the environment are maintained in a sustainable balance, practically by definition. I wrote about this with Herman Daly here:
http://www.steadystate.org/files/SSE.pdf <http://www.steadystate.org/files/SSE.pdf> I think it is fair to ask those who would critique the CASSE position to read it first, and perhaps to note (yet without succumbing to the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam) the increasing number of leading sustainability thinkers such as Gus Speth, Paul Ehrlich, David Suzuki, and many prominent ecologists in the ESA, who have signed the CASSE position after a more careful reading. The position is here: http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html <http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html> As for the notion of reconciling the conflict between economic growth and environmental protection by reinventing the term "economic growth," would we change the meaning of "environmental" or "protection" just to make it seem like we were protecting the environment? At CASSE we prefer to tell it like it is using the standard, accepted, textbook, publicly resonant and policy-relevant terminology. Economic growth is what it is. No matter how "green" we try to make it, economic growth means increasing production and consumption of goods and services in the aggregate, indicated by increasing GDP and entailing increasing population and/or per capita production and consumption. Brian Czech, Visiting 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Fri 2009-07-24 09:02 To: Czech, Brian; [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Sierra Club unit endorses position on economic growth I would suggest that the fundamental conflict is between TRADITIONAL economic growth and environmental protection. If the concept of economic growth was redefined/revised to incorporate rational, sustainable use of resources, there would be less need to try to "resolve" any "conflict". I always cringe when I hear the "jobs vs the environment" argument, because I truly believe we can have just as many jobs producing energy-efficient, sustainable goods and services. Steve Stephen P. Kunz Senior Ecologist Schmid & Company, Inc. 1201 Cedar Grove Road Media, PA 19063-1044 phone: 610-356-1416 fax: 610-356-3629 [email protected] www.schmidco.com <http://www.schmidco.com/> A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. - Aldo Leopold In a message dated 7/23/2009 8:15:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: The Winding Waters Group of the Sierra Club (Indiana) has endorsed the CASSE position on economic growth, concluding with CASSE that there is a "fundamental conflict between economic growth and environmental protection" based on principles of ecology. As the first Sierra Club unit to endorse the CASSE position, the Winding Waters Group has set a promising precedent for widespread Sierra Club engagement on the issue of economic growth. The Winding Waters Group has also joined a highly diverse group of organizations endorsing the CASSE position, including organizations steeped in the ecological sciences such as the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, National Center for Conservation Science and Policy, Conservation Planning Institute, La Fundacion Neotropica, The Land Institute, and others listed at: http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html#anchor_90 <http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html#anchor_90> This is also a promising precedent with the ESA Governing Board poised to adopt a position on economic growth for the 2009 annual meeting. It provides yet more evidence that the old political rhetoric - "there is no conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment" - is losing its dangerous grasp on the polity. Scientific, professional ecological societies can stick to sound science and eschew the fallacious and destructive rhetoric. ESA members who interact with Sierra Club (or other NGO) units are encouraged to spread the news of this precedent and encourage additional units to endorse the CASSE position, which calls for stabilized population and per capita consumption for the sake of environmental protection (as well as economic sustainability, national security, and international stability). The position is found at: http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html <http://www.steadystate.org/CASSEPositionOnEG.html> Brian Czech, Visiting 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 ________________________________
