I did not participate in the ESA discussions about this so do not know what was actually said or done, but I can understand this position in the context of political relevance. In an earlier e-mail Brian mentioned sound science, which is certainly a high priority. But "policy" in the functioning economic and political arena implies political salience. A no-growth position (which I personally support) will immediately marginalize the organization that proposes it. The position is fine in the context of an ongoing discussion of philosophical approaches but is a boat-anchor in the real world of feasible policy development. This level of compromise leaves a bad taste in my mouth as well, but I do not know of a practical alternative. Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. University of South Carolina Department of Biological Sciences 715 Sumter St. (mail) 209A Sumwalt (office) Columbia, SC 29208 803-777-3292 (phone) 803-777-3292 (fax) [email protected] http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford
________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news on behalf of Heather Reynolds Sent: Fri 7/24/2009 10:53 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position Statement: Value of Ecosystems Should Figure in Economic Decisions 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
