I am deeply disappointed that ESA has persisted in maintaining the
myth of "sustainable growth" in its recent position statement on the
ecological impacts of economic activities. What an embarrassing
oxymoron for ecologists to be caught promoting.
The position statement is at best confusing, sending a decidedly mixed
message. In one breadth it acknowledges that "there are limits to the
amount of consumption and pollution the Earth can sustain" and in the
next it is claiming that "the problem is not economic growth per se"
and that "[we can] move toward sustainable growth." It is unfortunate
that the many good aspects of the position statement, such as its
recognition of healthy ecosystems as the foundation of a sound
economy, the need to internalize environmental externalities, the
recognition of multiple forms of wealth, and the importance of
advancing wellbeing in a more equitable fashion across the globe, are
confounded with language implying that societies can continue growing
their economies ad infinitum. Apparently, ecologists have decided
that humans are unique among life forms in possessing an ability to
grow without limits.
Corporate capitalists and the revolving door corporate lobby that we
call our political system will be pleased. it is just that language on
"sustainable growth" that they will jump on to justify our continuing
drive for ever increasing economic growth, which by the laws of
nature, can lead only to a continued overshoot of carrying capacity
and destruction of the green infrastructure that ESA purports to
protect.
I hope that ESA will continue its discussion of these issues. This
needn't be the last word, of course. As scientists, ecologists live
and breathe the process of reexamining assumptions and adjusting our
models of living systems accordingly.
Heather Reynolds
Associate Professor
Department of Biology
Jordan Hall 142
Indiana University
1001 E 3rd Street
Bloomington IN 47405
Ph: (812) 855-0792
Fax: (812) 855-6705
[email protected]
On Jul 24, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Christine Buckley wrote:
ESA Press Release
July 24, 2009
Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions
Ecological scientists take stock
As the United States and much of the world try to recover from the
current economic crisis, the nation’s largest organization of
ecological scientists sees an opportunity to rebuild the economy for
long-term sustainability. The key, these scientists say, is to take
natural capital—ecosystem services such as clean water provisioning
—into account. Because they lack a formal market, many of these
natural assets are missing from society’s balance sheet and their
contributions are often overlooked in public and private decision-
making.
In a statement released today, the Ecological Society of America
said that healthy ecosystems are the foundation for sound economies,
sustaining human life with services such as food, fuel, and clean
air and water.
“We are sensitive to the economic hardships so many people are
currently facing,” says ESA President Alison Power. “But as the
United States takes a fresh look at how our economy functions, we
see a tremendous opportunity to adopt an approach that incorporates
the value of natural ecosystems.”
ESA lays out four strategies for moving towards sustainable economic
activity:
▪ Create mechanisms to maintain ecosystem services—Creating
markets for services such as carbon sequestration would provide
incentives for environmentally sound investments. However, markets
must often be coupled with other strategies or they can lead to
negative outcomes. For instance, the emissions trading legislation
currently in Congress could provide financial incentive for carbon
sequestration, motivating stakeholders to invest in low-carbon
technologies. But some sequestration practices stand to reduce the
quantity or quality of freshwater resources, resources that are
available freely and therefore not priced. Additional mechanisms
such as quality standards or land-use regulations would help ensure
that the public continues to have adequate access to clean water.
▪ Require full accounting for environmental damage—Change our
existing economic framework so that entities that degrade the
environment are held accountable. For example, the adverse
environmental impacts of fertilizer use are not reflected in
fertilizer prices and users do not bear the costs associated with
the resulting degraded rivers and lakes.
▪ Manage for resilient ecosystems—We should move away from
management strategies that favor one ecosystem service at the
expense of many others and transition to strategies that sustain a
suite of services. This transition will improve the health and
resilience of ecosystems, helping them sustain future generations,
in spite of natural and human-driven disturbances.
▪ Enhance our capacity to predict the environmental costs of
investments—While the economic repercussions of environmental
change are increasingly clear, the linkage often becomes apparent
only after the damage has been done. Models to predict the
consequences of anthropogenic change, and monitoring systems to
detect problematic trends could help address problems before they
become irreversible.
ESA points out that some initiatives already exist that take natural
capital into account. The World Bank’s concept of adjusted net
savings calculates an economy’s rate of savings after factoring in
natural resource consumption, pollution-related damages, and other
environmental impacts. The U.S. Forest Service is exploring ways to
advance markets for ecosystem services recognizing that forest
ecosystems are natural assets with economic and societal value. And
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Ecosystem Services
Research Program is working to provide methods and models needed by
states to understand the “cost and benefits of using ecosystem
services.”
“Sustainable development requires that individual wealth—
including natural capital assets—does not decline,” says the ESA
in its statement. “This requires technological and behavioral
changes to reduce both the demand for material resources and the
volume and toxicity of waste products, while simultaneously
improving human wellbeing.”
According to the Society, sustaining living standards and spreading
the benefits of economic development while preserving the ecological
life-support system on which future welfare depends may be
humanity’s central challenge in the 21st Century.
The Ecological Society of America’s statement is available online at http://www.esa.org/pao/economic_activities.p
hp
