Take a stand on
economic growth
Donate
CENTER
for the
ADVANCEMENT
of the
STEADY STATE ECONOMY
Home
Sign Petition
About Us
FAQs
Action
Resources
News & Events
Blog
Humor

The Conservation Band Aid

I am amazed at the dedication and efforts of wildlife refuge managers, and I think the majority of Americans agree with this sentiment.  What is less impressive in my mind, though, is the productivity of our conservation lands and the lack of awareness about this topic.

I spent several years working in the National Wildlife Refuge System.  The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages National Wildlife Refuges to provide habitat for migratory birds, endangered species, fish, and other wildlife.  To a casual observer, the job appears to be done.  When you visit a National Wildlife Refuge, you tend to find a place teeming with wildlife.  Take, for instance, Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge in central New Mexico.  In the right season, a day at Bosque del Apache provides face time with vast flocks of snow geese and sandhill cranes.

It’s a great experience for visitors, but in a way, they’re deceived.  The land appears to be providing resources for these flocks of birds, but it’s only through careful management and dedication of the refuge staff that the land can provide enough resources.  The natural functioning of the river system is long gone, taken by dams and diversions for irrigation.  Floods, the major driver of the ecological systems that provide for the birds, no longer occur at the historical scale and frequency.  Refuge managers, biologists, and staff work the land to provide enough resources.  In some cases, they try to mimic conditions that would have historically occurred.  For example, they use pumps and diversion channels to flood fields and create temporary wetlands.  In other (perhaps less enlightened) cases, they grow crops to provide bird food.  Without these interventions, the flocks would be much smaller, and might not even spend the winter at Bosque del Apache.

Refuge lands represent a band aid approach to conservation.  Due to a lack of interconnected, highly functional conservation areas around the nation, we have chosen to apply band aids on the landscape (intensively managed refuges) to stem the loss of blood (habitat conversion, species extinctions, and declining ecosystem services).  As any good doctor knows, prevention is much more effective than treatment of symptoms.

Conservation lands, by their very definition, mean that they are kept out of economic production.  They are not to be cleared, mined, farmed, grazed, covered with suburban homes, or otherwise exploited for profit.  America pioneered the idea of conservation lands back in the days of Teddy Roosevelt with the establishment of magical places like Yellowstone National Park and Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge.  The problem is that conservation lands have been unable to keep pace with economic growth.  The endless pursuit of economic growth has left a poor network of conservation lands, one which focuses on rocky, icy, and arid places.  These places contain beauty, habitats, and species worth protecting, but they are not representative of the habitats of the nation, and most of them require intensive management to be as productive as they were when ecosystem productivity was higher.

Given the current state of band-aid conservation, what can we do?  The main step is to start the gradual process of transition from unsustainable growth to a steady state economy.  The “redevelopment” of wilderness and interconnected conservation lands is a critical piece of this transition.  We can put large chunks of land off limits to economic growth and focus national efforts on ecosystem health.  People can be redirected from jobs that tend to harm ecosystems to ones that restore them.  We can have a naturally functioning set of ecosystems that will continue to provide services and wonder for generations to come.

By RobDietz | February 22, 2008 – 11:09 am| Environment, Steady State Economy and Ecological Economics, ecology | Tagged , , , , | Comments (0)

Relocalization — the Cohousing Experience

Relocalization is a key way to move an economy toward sustainability.  According to the Relocalization Network, relocalization is a strategy to build societies based on the local production of food, energy and goods, and the local development of currency, governance and culture.  The main goals of relocalization are to increase community energy security, to strengthen local economies, and to improve environmental conditions and social equity.

In essence, relocalization means going about social and economic life at a human or community scale.  Rather than purchasing and eating food which has been grown on distant farms, cooked in centralized factories, and shipped thousands of miles, relocalization calls for eating fresh foods from local farms sold in a community market.  One way to jumpstart relocalization is to develop housing structures that foster community.

Cohousing is one such structure.  Cohousing is a kind of intentional neighborhood, one in which the residents live in private homes, but manage the neighborhood and common amenities together.  Although I am not a cohousing expert, I am certainly informed.  I live with my family in a cohousing neighborhood.  We own a modest sized townhouse, one of 34 residences in the neighborhood.  The units are arrayed along a walking path where community members often see one another.  We share some meals.  We share work projects.  We share tools.  More tellingly, we share good times and values, and have a rich community structure that fosters support and connectivity.  Cohousing amounts to a modern take on village life.  There’s quite a bit more privacy (e.g., private home ownership and private employment) than what existed in villages of old, but many of the collective amenities are maintained. 

On first blush, living in a tight-knit community (which includes resolving conflicts, making decisions, and managing shared resources) wouldn’t seem to have much to do with building a sustainable economy, but it sets the stage for relocalization.  A citizenry that thinks and lives at the community scale is the main ingredient necessary to cook up a more local economy.  Certainly other ingredients like local currency and energy systems would be helpful, but there is little chance of building the necessary local systems if people are not engaged at the local level.

I will add future posts on cohousing as I gain more experience.  Additional information on cohousing is available at www.cohousing.org.

By RobDietz | February 5, 2008 – 12:08 pm| Energy and Throughput, Environment, Steady State Economy and Ecological Economics, ecology, sustainability | Tagged , , | Comments (3)

Economic Hardships or Economic Opportunities?

One of the questions I ponder when thinking about a steady state economy revolves around the idea of economic recession.  In the past, recessions and depressions (prolonged recessions) have meant hard times for a lot of folks.  When statisticians measure the size of an economy over time, they can see one of three possibilities:  (1) growth, (2) contraction, or (3) stability.  Typical neoclassical economists have long keyed on the first possibility.  Their main goal along with governments and corporations has been a perpetually growing economy, which avoids the hard times associated with recessions.  This idea has historically held merit – growth was beneficial up to a certain point.  To put it technically, that point is where the marginal benefits of the growth equal the marginal costs.  The trouble is that the costs of growth are now higher than the benefits for the U.S. and the globe, and continued growth is likely to cause even tougher times in the long run than those experienced in a recession.

To achieve an economy with a sustainable scale – one that does not exceed the Earth’s carrying capacity and one that does not use up the resources of future generations, society needs to change the goal from growth to an economy of relatively stable size.  Establishing a steady state economy will require an end to the growth mindset.  Given the current state of ecological overshoot (as documented by the Global Footprint Network), it will even require a fair amount of contraction before settling on an optimal scale.

So what are we to do?  If we continue growing the economy, we face serious and potentially extreme consequences.  If we stop growing or even contract the economy, we face the hardships experienced in previous recessions.  But are such hardships inescapable?  I recently spoke to a friend who worked at Hewlett-Packard (HP) for a period of many years.  Over that period, the company experienced phenomenal growth and employed an increasingly large staff.  At one point, however, revenues and profits took a nosedive, and HP couldn’t afford to pay everyone.  The standard operating procedure for businesses in this situation is to lay off employees.  HP’s innovative solution was to cut every employee’s work time to 30 hours per week, with a corresponding across-the-board pay cut.  HP thought that three quarters time and three quarters pay was a more efficient and equitable solution than firing a quarter of the staff.

There were likely workers who had difficulties dealing with the pay cut, but my friend’s experience was that most people (him included) were glad to have the extra time to pursue interests outside of work.  He noted something else rather astounding – even with the decreased hours, he didn’t see a drop in productivity.  Pretty soon HP’s profits rebounded, and the company reinstated the 40-hour work week at former salary levels.  My friend reluctantly went back to the “normal” work schedule.  What if, instead, employees worked less, spent less money, and spent more time on family, friends, and hobbies?

Herman Daly often points out that economic development is different from economic growth.  Economic development is qualitative and can be increased if the economy enables people to lead more enriched lives.  Society can find creative ways to aim for such development and avoid the tough times associated with the end of uneconomic growth.

By RobDietz | January 23, 2008 – 10:59 pm| Policies and Politics, Steady State Economy and Ecological Economics | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments (0)

ECON 101 Disconnect

I studied economics as an undergraduate.  I even followed the “honors” curriculum and wrote a thesis.  I have to admit that I was mainly interested in environmental science (my other major), and majored in economics to be more employable upon graduation.  Nonetheless, I got a solid schooling in the prevailing theories of economics from a highly regarded department at a highly regarded university.

At the time I was taking all those courses, from Econ 101 to advanced econometrics, I felt like something was out of place.  I liked the analytical methods used.  Economists are adept at drawing simple line graphs to represent complex ideas and analyze various behaviors exhibited by individuals and societies.  I also liked the clean logic of some of the underlying principles, like the law of diminishing returns.  But there was something about my economics training that left me with a sense of uncertainty.

While I was in school, I was never able to put my finger on the source of that uncertainty.  Like many students, I felt like the field of economics was overly concerned with mathematics and statistics.  It seemed like a fruitless attempt to demonstrate scientific rigor where it wasn’t warranted.  But that wasn’t enough to explain my disenchantment with my studies.  It was only years later, when I read Ecological Economics by Herman Daly and Joshua Farley that I figured it out.

The most basic difference between today’s standard university economics (neoclassical economics) and ecological economics is the world view.  The neoclassical economists believe that the ecosystems of the planet are a subsystem of the economy – the economy is the containing whole.  Ecological economists believe the opposite.  Namely, the economy is a subsystem of the Earth’s ecosystems – the Earth is the containing whole.  I don’t recall any explicit utterance of the neoclassical world view in my studies, but the assumptions used by my professors, text books, and readings align with that world view.  This was the source of my discontent.

I believe that the economy is something we have built on our finite planet.  The logic seems pretty straightforward to me.  The ideas about economic growth and efficiency that derive from this starting point are quite different from those pushed in economics lecture halls today.  If I were a student of economics today, I would be sure to ask my professor about this underlying world view.  What is the system and what is the subsystem?  What is the logic behind the neoclassical view?  It’s time for the models in economics to bear a resemblance to the reality they purport to describe.

By RobDietz | January 15, 2008 – 10:11 am| Policies and Politics, Steady State Economy and Ecological Economics | Tagged , , | Comments (4)

Be a Citizen. Don’t Be a Consumer.

In the movie “Say Anything” (apologies to those who haven’t seen this film, one of the funniest from the lost decade of the 1980s), there is a telling exchange between Lloyd Dobler and his closest friends, D.C. and Corey.  Lloyd is talking to his friends about trying to win back his former girlfriend and how he’s called her for the last time.  It goes like this:

D.C.:  Lloyd, why do you have to be like this?
Lloyd:  ‘Cause I’m a guy. I have pride.
Corey:  You’re not a guy.
Lloyd:  I am.
Corey:  No. The world is full of guys. Be a man. Don’t be a guy.

I feel like a similar dialog applies to the population of the United States at this point in history.  If Corey were offering advice to us, she might say, “No. The world is full of consumers.  Be a citizen.  Don’t be a consumer.”

Somewhere along the line, what and how much we purchase became more important than how we behave in civic life.  It can be attributed to any number of causes.  For example, marketers have been working for years to make us equate our self identity with our purchases.  They have effectively influenced us to believe that we are what we buy.  We have come to accept that we are defined by our clothing, car, handbag, square footage, etc.

The very word itself, “consumer,” has a pejorative connotation.  It is reminiscent of a bacterium that does nothing but eat away at its host.  There’s a reason that tuberculosis used to be called consumption.

As our lives as consumers have ramped up, our lives as citizens have fallen away.  Citizenship has devolved into consuming, paying taxes, obeying laws, and voting (at least occasionally).  It’s time to throw off the label of “consumers” and get back to being a society of citizens.

Here are 5 positive ways to take Corey’s advice and be a citizen – spending time on any or all of them might also reduce the urge to consume.  Also note that these are just ideas.  They are not meant to be preachy and they certainly don’t apply to everyone.
1. Stay informed.  It can be difficult with today’s media to stay informed about critical issues (and no, the quirks of Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears don’t count), but what could be more important than a stable economy that functions within the limits given by the Earth?  Sustainability in society requires knowledge of practices that are and are not sustainable.
2. Get involved in community life.  Each of us has our own communities and our own possibilities for participating in them.  As be build and maintain communities (whether they are neighborhoods, church groups, musical ensembles, volunteer organizations, book clubs, etc.), we tend to care about the quality and sustainability of those communities.
3. Take responsibility for your actions.  It’s not hard to find any number of quotes about how responsibility needs to accompany freedom of choice.  We can all find ways to lighten our ecological footprints and support sustainability in our communities.
4. Spend time on things that matter.  It’s so easy to get caught up in the rat race, along with the material trappings that our wages can buy.  Whether playing with family members, volunteering in your community, or simply taking a break, society and individuals alike will benefit from a slowdown.
5. Get involved in political discussions.  These discussions can range from simple conversations with friends to negotiations with members of Congress.  If we don’t talk about sensible economic policies, who will?

By RobDietz | January 4, 2008 – 10:56 pm| Environment, Policies and Politics, Steady State Economy and Ecological Economics | Tagged , , , , | Comments (4)

Steady State Economy: The Answer for Ending the Malaise

Do you ever read what I call the “malaise” literature? I call it that because reading it leads to a state of general malaise. James Kunstler’s The Long Emergency and Jared Diamond’s Collapse are two best-selling examples of this literature. These are stylishly written books based on strong scientific findings. My point is not to criticize efforts like these – they serve a purpose. They sound the alarm, along with plenty of websites, blogs, magazine articles, documentaries, and television programs that could be lumped into “malaise” media. Typically when you hear an alarm, you know what to do (or at least you hope to receive instructions). When I was a kid in school, we had fire drills. When you heard the fire alarm, you got out of the building. We also had tornado drills. When you heard the tornado alarm, you crouched next to a sturdy wall, covered your head, and hoped no bricks would fall on you.

Therein lies the problem with the malaise literature. The alarm is ringing, but what do we do? For a while I was a big fan of the genre, but I had to stop paying attention as I found myself slipping into a state of despair. My main trouble stemmed from obsessing over all the problems society faces without a clue about what to do. Here’s a non-inclusive laundry list of these problems: war, overpopulation, famine, increasing disparity between rich and poor, climate change, drought, loss of ecological productivity, emerging diseases, and social isolation. Try thinking about any of these problems or all of them or add a bunch of your own. Add that to your basic worries about getting through the day and making ends meet, and you’ve got a recipe for malaise.

I used to have a boss who was fond of telling us employees what we couldn’t do. Using his most austere voice, he’d say, “You can’t do this. There’s no way we can do that.” One day we finally asked, “Well then, what can we do?” That’s the way it is with the malaise literature. After being told we can’t continue to burn fossil fuels at this rate, we can’t cut the forests, we can’t allow populations to keep spiraling upwards, we can’t…, I need some ideas about what we can do. I finally found a way to work on all these problems at once.

What we can do is focus on economic growth. More specifically we can strive to determine and achieve an optimal scale for our economy. Human society has made some great strides over the centuries, but the challenges are keeping pace. This blog will discuss economic growth and address some negative aspects associated with it. At the same time, I will present potential solutions to problems and positive actions that people can take to reach these solutions. I don’t want this blog to become part of the malaise literature, and I hope to provide some optimism for the future of our society.

Thanks for reading.

By RobDietz | December 5, 2007 – 12:22 pm| Steady State Economy and Ecological Economics | Tagged , , , , | Comments (7)

 

 

 

My Zimbio
Top Stories

Add to Technorati Favorites