Kelly, I think you're right that more intelligent, efficient use of resources (including improved technology) could produce economic growth with no increase in consumption, but this has its limits. The logic is really pretty simple; can the economy keep growing forever? No. At some point, you've made all the gains that improved efficiency and technological advancement can give you, and more growth cannot be achieved without more resources.
It doesn't look like our improvements in efficiency are keeping up with our demands for resources, so growth at the current rate necessarily requires increased resource consumption. In fact, we're already experiencing humanitarian disasters and wars over dwindling resources. The Gulf War and the latest invasion of Iraq were both about who controls the oil supply, and the Rwandan genocide was essentially over agricultural land. Attempts to drill for oil in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge and to tap Yellowstone for geothermal energy indicate that anything we think we've preserved for posterity might be sold off and consumed, if the price is high enough. It's not that economic growth is inherently bad. Continued growth is bad when you're already running out of resources to fuel it. Jim C. On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 7:46 AM, Kelly Stettner <[email protected] > wrote: > Wayne: I love your enthusiasm and support for the "sparks" that ignite > conversation and imagination! > > Joe: Thank you for your "humble opinion," you invite me to clarify and ask > more questions. You note two points about economic growth: > > 1. "Economic growth", as commonly used, means that every year the human > species creates more "economic activity" than the year before (fueled by > growth in both population and per-capita consumption). > > 2. "Economic activity" inevitably involves consumption of resources, so > that means every year we convert more land to human use, generate more > electricity, cut more trees, mine more minerals and fuels, manufacture more > goods, produce more pollution, catch more fish, etc. So clearly there has > to be a limit at some point. > > Joe, Since I'm not an economist, I must ask questions in order to > understand. I see what you're saying in both of the above points; unlimited > "taking" is short-sighted and self-defeating. However, can the growth and > activity you describe not be coupled with activities that replenish what we > consume? We cut trees and mine the earth ~ but we can also replant and > learn ways to harness the energy we need from a variety of resources. I > know that much of our technology seemed like science fiction just ten or > twenty years ago. iPhones, blackberries, laptops ~ even digital watches > were fantasy before they became reality. Is there reason to believe we > can't figure out how to replenish the resources we use, use them more > efficiently, engage in utilizing other resources we hadn't tried before > (Sea-floor vents? Algae? Kudzu or Japanese knotweed? Something on Mars on > the moon?), and find ways to lessen our impact on the planet? Green roofs, > companion gardening, rain barrels, etc are all low-tech, old ideas that > could be just the beginning ~ and could also fuel the economic growth of our > society. Businesses are cropping up all over the place to explore these > ideas. > > I also see economic growth in terms of those nations with big problems: I'm > thinking about improving pollution and sanitation and waste issues in places > like Africa and India and China. Environmental degradation isn't just a > Western problem; I think it's even more critical of an issue in > less-developed areas of the world. Change in those places will take more > than a few years, it'll take a change in government before any real > environmental issues are recognized and addressed. The issues of > population, sanitation, poverty and pollution in those areas of the world > are far more complex than I can understand at this point in my life, but I > feel strongly that the developed nations need to recognize that Third World > pollution & waste are a huge "elephant in the room." > > A few more cents' worth, > Kelly Stettner > Director > Black River Action Team > www. BlackRiverActionTeam. org > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:26:38 -0700 > From: Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: ESA position on sustainable growth > > Forum: > > I find myself in agreement with almost all "sides" of this discussion; it > is > healthy, stimulating, alive--as it should be. > > I am greatly encouraged that this Forum, fine as it is, is undergoing > likewise a process of refinement, and I welcome the array of voices that > provide great illuminating sparks. > > Gratefully, > WT > > "'Tis friction's brisk rub that provides the vital spark!" --Unknown > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:21:12 -0700 > From: joseph gathman <[email protected]> > Subject: What's wrong with growth, (was: ESA position on sustainable > growth) > > Kelly Stettner wrote: > > Why does growth have to be viewed as "bad"? > > Kelly - since you asked, here's why the original proposers targeted > economic growth as the problem (as I have understood it): > > 1. "Economic growth", as commonly used, means that every year the human > species creates more "economic activity" than the year before (fueled by > growth in both population and per-capita consumption). > > 2. "Economic activity" inevitably involves consumption of resources, so > that means every year we convert more land to human use, generate more > electricity, cut more trees, mine more minerals and fuels, manufacture more > goods, produce more pollution, catch more fish, etc. So clearly there has > to be a limit at some point. > > Economists and politicians claim that some economic growth doesn't involve > consumption. This may be true, but the examples they give are debatable, > and they still can't show how the entire economy can grow without growth in > resource consumption. So far all we have is big claims and hopeful words. > The neoclassical-economic world even gave us Julian Simon and others who > denied the existence of ANY limits to natural resources. This is not a > crowd in which I can have any confidence. > > Just my humble opinion, > Joe > > > > -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
