Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
Regular Contributors:  Herman Daly, Brian Czech, Brent Blackwelder, James Magnus-Johnston, and Eric Zencey. Guest authors by invitation.

Krugman’s Growthism

by Herman Daly

Herman Daly

 

Paul Krugman often writes sensibly and cogently about economic policy. But like many economists, he can become incoherent on the subject of growth. Consider his New York Times piece, published earlier this month:

 

…let’s talk for a minute about the overall relationship between economic growth and the environment.

Other things equal, more G.D.P. tends to mean more pollution. What transformed China into the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases? Explosive economic growth. But other things don’t have to be equal. There’s no necessary one-to-one relationship between growth and pollution.

People on both the left and the right often fail to understand this point…On the left, you sometimes find environmentalists asserting that to save the planet we must give up on the idea of an ever-growing economy; on the right, you often find assertions that any attempt to limit pollution will have devastating impacts on growth…[Krugman says both are wrong]…But there’s no reason we can’t become richer while reducing our impact on the environment [emphasis mine].

Krugman distances himself from “leftist” environmentalists who say we must give up the idea of an ever-growing economy, and is himself apparently unwilling to give it up. But he thinks the “right-wingers” are wrong to believe that protecting the environment will devastate growth. Krugman then advocates the more sensible goal of “becoming richer,” but fails to ask if growth in GDP is any longer really making us richer. He seems to equate, or at least fails to distinguish, “growing GDP” from “becoming richer.” Does he assume that because GDP growth did make us richer in yesterday’s empty world it must still do so in today’s full world? The usual but unjustified assumption of many economists is that a growing GDP increases measured wealth by more than it increases unmeasured “illth” (a word coined by John Ruskin to designate the opposite of wealth).

To elaborate, illth is a joint product with wealth. At the current margin, it is likely that the GDP flow component of “bads” adds to the stock of “illth” faster than the GDP flow of goods adds to the stock of wealth. We fail to measure bads and illth because there is no demand for them, consequently no market and no price, so there is no easy measure of negative value. However, what is unmeasured does not for that reason become unreal. It continues to exist, and even grow. Since we do not measure illth, I cannot prove that growth is currently making us poorer, any more than Krugman can prove that it is making us richer. I am just pointing out that his GDP growthism assumes a proposition that, while true in the past, is very doubtful today in the US.

To see why it is doubtful, just consider a catalog of negative joint products whose value should be measured under the rubric of illth: climate change from excess carbon in the atmosphere; radioactive wastes and risks of nuclear power plants; biodiversity loss; depleted mines; deforestation; eroded topsoil; dry wells, rivers and aquifers; the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico; gyres of plastic trash in the oceans; the ozone hole; exhausting and dangerous labor; and the un-repayable debt from trying to push growth in the symbolic financial sector beyond what is possible in the real sector (not to mention military expenditures to maintain access to global resources).

Deforestation–one of the many “illths” created by continual GDP growth

These negative joint products of GDP growth go far beyond Krugman’s minimal nondescript category of “pollution.” Not only are these public bads un-subtracted, but the private anti-bads they make necessary are added to GDP! For example, the bad of eroded topsoil is not subtracted, but the anti-bad of fertilizer is added. The bad of Gulf and Arctic oil spills is not subtracted, but the anti-bad of clean-up is added. The natural capital depletion of mines, wells, forests, and fisheries is falsely accounted as income rather than capital draw-down.

Such asymmetric accounting alone is sufficient to refute growthism, but for good measure note that the growthists also neglect the most basic laws of economics, namely, the diminishing marginal benefit of income and increasing marginal cost of production. Why do they think these two curves will never intersect? Is Krugman just advocating temporary growth up to some level of optimality or sufficiency, or an ever-growing economy? If the latter, then either the surface of the Earth must grow at a rate approximating the rate of interest, or real GDP must become “angel GDP” with no physical dimension.

Krugman is correct that that there is no necessary “one-to-one relationship between growth and pollution.” But there certainly is a very strong positive correlation between real GDP growth and resource throughput (the entropic physical flow that begins with depletion and ends with pollution). Since when do economists dismiss significant correlations just because they are not “one-to-one”?

Probably we could indeed become richer (increase net wealth) while reducing our impact on the environment, as Krugman hopes. But it will be by reducing uneconomic growth (in throughput and its close correlate, GDP) rather than by increasing it. I would be glad if this were what Krugman has in mind, but I doubt that it is.

In any case, it would be good if he would specify whether he thinks current growth in real GDP is still economic in the literal sense that its benefits exceed its costs at the margin. What specifically makes him think this is so? In other words, is GDP growth currently making us richer or poorer, and how do we know?

Since GDP is a conflation of both costly and beneficial activity, should we not separate the cost and benefit items into separate accounts and compare them at the margin, instead of adding them together? How do we know that growth in GDP is a sensible goal if we do not know if the associated benefits are growing more or less rapidly than the associated costs? Mainstream economists, including Krugman, need to free their thinking from dogmatic GDP growthism.

Depletion of Moral Capital as a Limit to Growth

by Herman Daly

In thHerman Dalye Social Limits to Growth, Fred Hirsh argues that

Morality of the minimum order necessary for the
functioning of a market system was assumed,
nearly always implicitly, to be a kind of permanent
free good, a natural resource of a non depleting kind.

Elaborating on the relation of Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments to his Wealth of Nations, Hirsh points out that for Smith, men could safely be trusted not to harm the community in pursuing their own self interest not only because of the invisible hand of competition, but also because of built-in restraints on individual behavior derived from shared morals, religion, custom, and education. The problem that Hirsh sees is that

continuation of the growth process itself rests on certain preconditions that its own success has jeopardized through its individualistic ethos. Economic growth undermines its social foundations.

The undermining of moral restraint has sources on both the demand and supply sides of the market for commodities. In his essay, “The Growth of Affluence and the Decline of Welfare,” E. J. Mishan has noted that

a society in which ‘anything goes’ is ipso facto, a society in which anything sells.
(Economics, Ecology, Ethics)

A corollary is that self-restraint or abstinence in the interests of any higher claims than immediate gratification by consumption is bad for sales, therefore bad for production, employment, tax receipts, and everything else. The growth economy cannot grow unless it can sell. The idea that something should not be bought because it is frivolous, degrading, tawdry, or immoral is subversive to the growth imperative. If demand is to be sufficient for continual growth then everything must sell, which requires that “anything goes.”

On the supply side, the success of science-based technology has fostered the pseudo-religion of “scientism,” i.e., the elevation of the deterministic, materialistic, mechanistic, and reductionistic research program of science to the status of an ultimate World View. Undeniably, the methodological approach of scientific materialism has led to great increases in our technological prowess. Its practical success argues for its promotion from working hypothesis or research program to World View. But a World View of scientific materialism leaves no room for purpose, for good and evil, for better and worse states of the world. It erodes morality in general and moral restraint in economic life in particular. As power has increased, purpose has shrunk.

The baleful consequence of this fragmenting of the moral order, which we are depleting just as surely as we are wrecking the ecological order, is, as Mishan points out, that

effective argument [about policy] becomes impossible if there is no longer a common set of ultimate values or beliefs to which appeal can be made in the endeavor to persuade others.

Just as all research in the physical sciences must dogmatically assume the existence of objective order in the physical world, so must research in the policy sciences dogmatically assume the existence of objective value in the moral world. Policy must be aimed at moving the world toward a better state of affairs or else it is senseless. If “better” and “worse” have no objective meaning, then policy can only be arbitrary and capricious. C. S. Lewis forcefully stated this fundamental truth:

A dogmatic belief in objective value is necessary to the very idea of a rule which is not tyranny or an obedience which is not slavery.

Likewise, Mishan claims that

a moral consensus that is to be enduring and effective is the product of a belief only in its divine origin.

In other words, an enduring ethic must be more than a social convention. It must have some objective, transcendental authority, regardless of whether one calls that authority “God,” or ‘the Force,” or whatever. All attempts to treat moral value as entirely a part of nature to be manipulated and programmed by psychology or genetics only ends in a logical circularity.

Moral value cannot be reduced to or explained as a mere result of genetic chance and natural selection, without at the same time losing its authority. Even if we knew how to remake moral values as human artifacts, we must still have a criterion for deciding which values should be emphasized and which stifled in the new order. But if that necessary criterion is itself an artifact of humanly manipulated mutation and selection, then it too is a candidate for being remade. There is nowhere to stand.

Once the false belief spreads (and it already has) that morality has no basis other than random chance and natural selection under impermanent environmental conditions, then it will have about as much authority and truth claim as the Easter Bunny. In sum, the attitudes of scientific materialism and cultural relativism actively undercut belief in a transcendental basis for objective value, which in turn undercuts moral consensus. Lacking that consensus there is no longer the “morality of the minimum order necessary for the functioning of a market system” presupposed by Adam Smith and his followers.

What to Do When You Suspect We’re Headed for Collapse

by Rob Dietz

Dietz_Author_PhotoIf you’ve been paying attention to the environmental news, then you know people are pummeling the planet. Because of the way we run the economy, with continuously growing population and consumption, we are destabilizing the climate, depleting topsoil, drawing down aquifers, acidifying the oceans, and driving species to extinction. Even as we impoverish the Earth’s ecosystems, billions of us struggle daily to find enough food for a decent dinner.  In this age of worldwide environmental and social turmoil, it’s natural to want to help. It’s also natural to wonder how you can possibly make a difference. These troubled times prompt each of us to ask a simple, but absolutely critical question: “What should I do?”

Before tackling what to do, let’s get something out of the way — what not to do:

  • Deny the severity of the problems. Suppose you go swimming along a beach and notice an agitated 20-foot-long great white shark swimming directly below you. No matter how much you refuse to acknowledge its existence, the shark will still be there, cruising along and considering whether you’d make a satisfying snack. You are more likely to survive if you assess your situation accurately and react to your new reality. (The chances of actually meeting a great white shark are slim because of overexploitation — just like humanity’s relationship with so many species, but that’s another story).
  • Refuse to take responsibility. Too many people deny not only the severity of the problems, but even the very existence of the problems. A disconcerting number of climate change denialists (perhaps better termed de-nihilists) live in virtual bomb shelters they constructed to avoid having to confront reality. It’s up to the rest of us — those who live in the real world and understand the severity of humanity’s plight — to take responsibility. We have to move with purpose and we have to move now.
  • Stick with the status quo. As environmental scientists continue to overload us with sobering findings, the easiest thing to do is to keep walking the business-as-usual path. There’s a certain solace to having a “normal” career, carrying on without making sacrifices or changing behavior in ways that may cause difficulty and even pain. As social creatures, we are pre-programmed to conform to the dominant culture. But the difficulty of taking a countercultural path pales in comparison to the chronic difficulties you’ll experience if your way of life contradicts your core beliefs.
  • Leave it to a higher power. Calling on a spiritual or technological force to save the day offers a soothing strategy for escaping from our environmental and social traps, but it’s also an unconscionably irresponsible strategy. People have good reasons to believe God or Google can deliver some amount of help, but that doesn’t absolve us from doing our part. We got ourselves into this mess — we must look to ourselves to find a way out.

Back to the central question: “What should I do?” Like a flock of vultures, the problems circle ominously overhead. The solutions are more like songbirds; they hide in branches and thickets, but they’re there. Despite their presence all around us, it’s still hard to spot proper solutions. It would be a huge relief to have one simple method for scuttling the vultures, but it just doesn’t exist. Solutions come with a certain degree of complexity (e.g., multiple partial solutions that are related to one another). To begin piecing together your answer to “What should I do,” then, it’s helpful to divide actions into three categories: (1) learn something, (2) say something, and (3) do something.

Learn Something

Seek out colleagues who also recognize the problems, but especially people working on creative solutions. I have found myself in the most amazing, life-enriching company while trying to learn more about how to build a sustainable and fair economy. Listing the scholars and leaders who have taught me how to think in systems and see the world through an ecological lens seems like an ill-advised exercise; I know I would omit someone, and I would feel like a name dropper. But when I think about people I’ve met on my quest to learn something, I feel so fortunate (here’s a short list of heroic “Bills”: Bill McKibben, Bill Rees, Bill Ryerson, and Bill Twist).  I’m thankful to all my colleagues, even those not named Bill!

The upshot: you don’t have to slog your way through boring tomes in the dusty corners of the library. On the contrary, you can engage with some of the most compassionate and insightful people on the planet, just as long as you share their desire to help, and you commit to learning something.

Say Something

"Keep Consuming" Poster by Adbusters

As the writers and artists at Adbusters effectively demonstrate, there are always opportunities to speak up and ask, “Why?”

Saying something (at least saying something intelligent) is tougher than learning something, especially for us introverts. My method of saying something consists mostly of writing. I co-wrote a book. I wrote articles (for example, this one in USA Today). I wrote Daly News essays. It’s easier for me to say something clear with a pen or keyboard than with my vocal chords (although I occasionally work up the courage to stand in front of a live audience and pass along what I’ve learned).

If you keep your eyes, ears, and heart open, you’ll find opportunities to say something, and it doesn’t have to be on some grand stage. If you’re a student, ask your professors and classmates probing questions:

Why does the economy have to keep growing? How much consumption is enough for a person, a community, or a society? What are the ultimate goals of our economy?

If you read news reports, write comments and send letters to the editor. A continuous procession of articles in praise of continuous economic growth marches across the front pages of mainstream media sources, providing ample opportunities to respond.

If you participate in a book club, try Enough Is Enough or something similar. Where my coauthor, Dan O’Neill, lives in Leeds, UK, a dedicated group of activists is strategizing how to build the kind of economy described in the book. The same thing has happened where I live in Corvallis, Oregon, and we’ve heard about other groups forming in Bermuda and Wisconsin. Changes begin with the simple act of discussing and sharing ideas. We can all engage our families and friends — you never know what positive events will emerges from your conversations.

Do Something

Doing something represents another step up in commitment. In choosing what to do, the most important point is to make your behavior match your knowledge and values. For example, you can reduce consumption, especially fossil fuel. You can engage in acts of protest. You can give your time and money to organizations that are championing causes dear to you. I have chosen to live with my family in an aspiring ecovillage. We do our best to support the local economy and disengage from the unsustainable, cost-externalizing, globalized economy. We ride bikes. We make music. The idea is to spend time fostering needed changes and have fun doing it.

It’s in that spirit that I embark on my next career adventure. I’ve said enough for the moment as the editor of the Daly News. To understand the motive behind my move, consider this quote from Buckminster Fuller:

You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.

I am excited to be helping Farmland LP build a better agricultural model. We are out to prove that organic, ecologically sound farming practices outperform the outdated model we have been saddled with. The old model, based on 19th- and 20th-century ideas of industrial production, offers no future. In the new model, we manage farmland as an ecosystem — not a mine from which we extract and deplete resources. Farmland LP, founded by Jason Bradford and Craig Wichner, is doing something simple, elegant, and brilliant. The company raises money to buy conventional farmland and convert it to organic. The point is to bolster regional food systems, improve environmental conditions, create meaningful jobs, and provide investors with a good place to put their money. In a sense, we are performing an aikido move. We’re using the momentum of current financial and business systems to create a better way of managing landscapes and providing sustenance. I’m proud to play a role.

I’m also proud of my work on the Daly News. I’ve done my best to move the conversation along, and I look forward to learning more as CASSE continues to curate this forum. I’m engaged in a lifelong journey of learning something, saying something, and doing something. I hope you are too and that you’re bringing friends along. It’s not easy, but you’ll never regret doing what needs to be done. Onward!

Tensions in Ukraine: A Scramble for Growth?

by James Magnus-Johnston

The situation in Ukraine is undoubtedly complex, but it may be as much about a scramble for growth and fossil fuel as it is about ethno-cultural identity.

In a statement issued last week, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk focused heavily upon energy politics. He accused Russia of using energy as a “new nuclear weapon.” The cold war reference is clear: just as the former Soviet Union used its nuclear arsenal to hold the world hostage to conflict, today it’s fossil fuel that’s used as a bargaining chip in the geopolitical game.

Europe’s dependence upon Russian fossil fuel helps explain why the Russian leadership has been able to act without fear of retribution. Over 50 percent of Russian gas exports to Europe pass through Ukraine, and Europe relies on Russia for 40 percent of its imported fuel.

The energy sector drives the European economy as well as the world’s high-finance casino, in which speculative claims on fossil fuel inflate dividends to inequitable heights. Yatsenyuk acknowledges that “[the Russians] sell oil and gas mainly to the EU and then take Euros, dollars and pounds — and buy weapons [and] military equipment.” This creates a vicious cycle in which super-inflated fossil fuel dividends can be leveraged to buy even more military equipment, which is in turn used to control fossil fuel infrastructure. And voila — uneconomic growth.

Danger in Ukraine

Pursuit of cheap energy and unending growth spell danger in Ukraine and elsewhere around the world (photo credit: Trey Ratcliff).

The resulting concentration of wealth in the hands of the few appears to feed nationalist fervor at home just as it buys political favor abroad. Russia’s biggest players have been investing around the world for years, but references to Russian power and influence belie the extent of Russian inequality. Russia “has the highest level of wealth inequality in the world, apart from small Caribbean nations with resident billionaires,” according to a 2013 report by Credit Suisse. In Russia, 110 billionaires hold a shocking 35% of all wealth; globally, billionaires collectively account for only 1-2% of total household wealth.

My intent is not to characterize Russia as the classic American villain. In fact, Ukrainian nationalists are, by some accounts, as menacing to Ukraine’s future as Putin’s Russia, and there is plenty of Western hypocrisy for a second editorial. What we need to consider is that the remaining Russian carbon should not be removed from the ground, and all of the supposed spinoff benefits — the military buildup, the further fuel extraction, the super-inflated dividends — generate harmful growth that benefits only a few.

Yet according to the outdated neoclassical script for economic success, growth is signalling to some that Russia is somehow on the right track — a display of power, progress, and innovation. Like other present-day examples, including nationalistic rhetoric surrounding tar-sands production in Canada, dogmatic support of growth is more accurately characterized as hubris, stagnation, and ill-advised development.

The planet’s life support system doesn’t have time for a rehearsal of twentieth-century nationalism fed by a rush for cheap oil; nor will the “victors” in any contemporary power struggle have the opportunity to cash in their casino winnings. Without embracing a post-growth paradigm shift, we’ll all be in for a gruesome ride. With cheap oil and the casino economy fading into history, we need to adopt a steady-state economy and give everyone a chance at winning; otherwise we’ll have to accept senseless land and resource grabs in which everyone loses.

James Magnus-Johnston is the Canadian Director of CASSE and a professor of political studies and economics at Canadian Mennonite University.

An Economic Game Plan to Prevent Water Pollution

by Brent Blackwelder

BlackwelderEven though the Clean Water Act is more than 40 years old, its goals have not been met, and America is still beset with chronic water ailments and acute pollution incidents. Already this year major toxic spills from coal operations in West Virginia and North Carolina have provided grounds for demanding comprehensive changes to a broken system of pollution control.

On January 9, 2014, people in Charleston, the capital of West Virginia, began vomiting while others complained of a strange pervasive licorice odor. The problem was traced to chemicals from a malfunctioning chemical/coal facility just upstream from the city’s water supply intake. A state of emergency was declared to provide after-the-fact protection to the 300,000 people who get their drinking water from this system. Both the water supply company and the chemical company allowed the emergency to unfold despite repeated warnings over the years about unsafe structures and operations.

On February 5, 2014, a spill from a coal ash impoundment unleashed 78 million pounds of arsenic-laden sludge into the Dan River, the source of drinking water for cities and towns in Virginia and North Carolina. Duke Energy, a giant utility, operates fourteen coal-fired power plants in North Carolina, and it dumps the toxic combustion byproduct, coal ash, into unlined ponds. The result: groundwater contamination and toxic spills into drinking water supplies. The Duke Energy spill comes with a sad, but familiar footnote. Pat McCrory, the governor of North Carolina, used to work for Duke Energy and has been on a crusade to weaken pollution controls ever since he took office.

Ongoing experience with such grotesque toxic spills, and even growing awareness of global water shortages have failed to generate sufficient responses. Today’s economic framework blocks significant progress on such crucial problems because it props up extractive and highly polluting industries.

Governments are stuck in a business-as-usual, growth-at-all-costs mindset, and they face constant pressure to deregulate industries. Since industry is fixated on profits and growth, it attempts to pay as few costs as possible; cost externalization is a built-in feature of the economic system. But someone always pays — just look at the people downstream or the species and ecosystems where spills occur.

The key to preventing and cleaning up water pollution is to shift the economy from the pursuit of unending growth to the pursuit of stability. Why would water pollution decline in a steady-state economy? Here are three reasons.

Coal ash in the Dan River

Coal ash in the Dan River from the Duke Energy spill in North Carolina (photo credit: Dan River Basin Association).

(1) Changing the macroeconomic goal away from growth and toward maintenance of life-support systems would change the way businesses and other institutions behave. The goal of a true-cost economy is sustainable and equitable well-being, rather than continuous growth. Actors in such an economy would care more about the medium and long-term future than quarterly returns.  For example, in a true-cost economy, chemical companies would engage in green chemistry, and utilities would produce renewable energy. The costs of using fossil fuels and other toxic substances would simply be too high to pay. Regarding the outrageous scenario of having decaying storage tanks full of dangerous chemicals directly upstream from the water supply intake for a state capital: it would never happen in a true-cost economy.

(2) Companies would be required to have eco-auditors just as they are now required to have financial auditors. Such eco-auditors would assess whether a company was externalizing costs and whether the company’s production was harming life-support systems. Eco-auditors could also show businesses how to avoid pollution. Companies would disclose their ecological impacts in an annual report just as they do with financial audits.

(3) There would be consequences for repeat polluters. For example, in the decade prior to its gigantic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, BP had been responsible for a refinery fire in Texas with significant loss of life and two oil spills in the Arctic Ocean from the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline. Why not three strikes and you’re out? Why not deny BP the right to do business in the U.S.? Instead, the Obama administration has done the opposite by giving BP the go-ahead to drill again in the Gulf of Mexico!

Another example: given the repeated incidents of pollution oozing from Duke Energy’s numerous coal ash ponds, despite years of complaints and penalties, shouldn’t it be denied the right to do business in North Carolina? Shouldn’t its facilities be turned over to more responsible utilities? After all, the vulnerability of coal ash impoundments has been making headlines since December of 2008 when a TVA storage pond in East Tennessee burst and contaminated the Clinch River. Clean-up efforts continue to this day, and costs have exceeded $1.5 billion. TVA said it could never happen again, but in January of 2009, not even a full month later, another coal ash pond failed, this time in Alabama.

We need to adopt a broader, transformative economic approach and stop thinking that pleading with companies and government agencies will suffice. We need to (1) change the goal from growth to sustainability, (2) change company reporting to include ecological audits, and (3) change incentives by denying companies the right to operate when they dodge their responsibilities. Under the current economic paradigm, pollution will persist and natural resources, including soils, waters, forests, and oceans, will continue to decline. Only a new economic game plan can protect our shared water resources and prevent pollution.

Biocultural Heritage: The Foundation of a Sustainable Economy

by Claudia Múnera

Claudia_MuneraPorta Palazzo in the city of Turin, Italy, is recognized as the largest open air market in Europe. Visiting this market provides a unique experience: vendors in all directions offer a seemingly endless supply of breads, pastas, meats, poultry, fish, vegetables, herbs, and olives. The kaleidoscope of colors and jumble of aromas threaten to overload the senses. Italians and foreigners alike gather here to find the foods they want – whether it’s a local ingredient for a traditional Italian dish or something exotic to summon the tastes of a faraway home.

Even though there’s such diversity, all the foods at Porta Palazzo share something in common. You can trace each type of food to a particular ecosystem and a particular way of life for the people who inhabit (or once inhabited) that ecosystem. Each food product in the market comes with its own biocultural heritage. Among all the products we buy and sell in today’s economy, food is probably the easiest to connect to biocultural heritage (assuming we’re not talking about a pre-packaged, frozen microwave dinner). For instance Colombians crave bocadillo veleños, the traditional confection made from guava and sugarcane. And Salvadorians keep an eye out for pupusas, which are made from a cornmeal dough that redefines the phrase “comfort food.” When living abroad, people from a given region often organize festivals in which traditional foods play a central role.

Biocultural heritage wraps a lot of concepts into one term. It’s about relationships between people and the natural environment. It consists of biological resources, from genes to landscapes. But biological heritage also consists of human history, from practices to pools of knowledge and the way humans shape their surroundings and vice versa. According to the International Institute for Environment and Development, some 370 million indigenous people in the world depend directly on natural resources — they rely on their biocultural heritage for survival. Biocultural heritage also influences religious beliefs, sense of place (especially sacred places), and sense of self. It’s easy to be overwhelmed by the tangle of connections when considering the biocultural heritage of a good or a service — maybe that’s why food is a good place to start when trying to get a feel for it. But an astute observer can recognize that other goods and services, such as medicinal plants, tourism, or even health services, also flow from a rich biocultural heritage.

Scenes from Porta Palazza

Colorful vegetables, colorful meats, and even more colorful characters make up the scene at Porta Palazza (photo credit: Claudia Munera).

Throughout my career, it has become increasingly clear that conservation of biocultural heritage is the long-term key to maintaining both healthy ecosystems and healthy economies. As a conservation biologist, I could probably be accused of having a biased viewpoint — I have always believed that endangered species, tracts of wilderness, and other aspects of biodiversity are intrinsically valuable and worthy of conservation. As a result, I have spent a lot of time and effort on projects aimed at protecting ecosystems and the species they contain. I believe that maintaining parks and protected areas is a worthy endeavor, but it’s not enough. Drawing boundaries around biodiversity hotspots or cherished scenic areas will fail in the face of ongoing exponential economic growth and mounting pressure to turn protected areas into commodities.

My research on biocultural heritage at the Rio San Juan Biosphere Reserve in southeastern Nicaragua aims to illustrate the point. Nicaragua is changing at a fast pace, trying to follow a European or North American model of economic growth at the expense of its rich natural capital. Deforestation is on the rise with forest cover diminishing from 42,340 square kilometers in 1994 to 30,440 in 2011. There are several causes, but the main one is to meet the demands of markets: cattle for dairy and meat, hardwood lumber, and crops such as palm oil, sugarcane, and peanuts. In short, forests are being transformed into commodity landscapes.

Poster for Chocolate Tours

Biocultural services: chocolate tours in Rio San Juan Biosphere Reserve (photo credit: Claudia Munera).

The intense pressure applied by economic growth is threatening flagship species such as the jaguar and tapir, internationally significant wetlands, and the species-rich (not to mention carbon-sequestering) forests of this region in Nicaragua. In light of such pressure, the best way to conserve the natural areas is to recognize the value of the biocultural heritage of these areas. Local communities and indigenous populations are making a living and thriving by growing traditional crops, creating handcrafts, and preparing traditional foods that are founded on the local environment and framed in Nicaraguan history and culture. Several communities are embracing ecotourism (it’s a lot easier to entice a tourist to visit the Rio San Juan, Bosawas, or Ometepe Biosphere Reserves if they haven’t been converted to palm oil plantations or cattle farms). Farmers are also having a go at organic cocoa production. A certain amount and certain types of economic activity are compatible with the natural resources of the region, but if we fail to conserve the biocultural heritage of the region, the natural resources will eventually become commodities in economic activities that are incompatible with the landscape.

Other places around the world also demonstrate how championing biocultural heritage can produce desirable results for people and ecosystems. For example, the provinces of Guangxi and Yunnan, China, contain rice terraces, mountain agriculture, and forests that have provided people with livelihoods for centuries. During the last three years, however, droughts have threatened the economy and local food security. Farmers have relied on their biocultural heritage to cope — planting traditional drought-resistant maize varieties and raising ducks in the rice fields as a pest control strategy. Farmers have accrued health benefits by eliminating pesticides and earned profits by selling their products in niche organic markets.

In Tuscany, Italy, the landscape has been shaped and preserved by centuries of human influence, but in recent times, the people have been engineering the landscape into a homogenized agricultural landscape of mechanized monocultures with no consideration of traditional farming and forestry practices. Consequences include biodiversity loss, erosion, and deteriorating quality of life for residents who have strong ties to their landscape. According to UNESCO, “Cultural landscapes originated by human action, as well as biodiversity connected to them, can only be maintained by preserving local cultural heritage. Abandonment of traditional practices can lead to reduction of landscape diversity with impacts on biodiversity, economy, and quality of life of rural communities. To overcome these problems, parts of the landscape have been included in the World Heritage Sites list (Medici Villas and Gardens). At the same time, ecological restoration of agricultural and natural areas has spurred tourism, revitalized local foods production, and led to the creation of markets for locally grown food that help preserve Tuscan culture.

Protecting the biosphere comes down to making sure enough ecosystems around the globe maintain their structures and functions. A strong appreciation of biocultural heritage is a key to doing this job, especially in the face of pressures from ongoing economic growth. Local economies in which people maintain a sense of place and a sense of their ecological and cultural limits provide an alternative, resilient model to the infinite growth paradigm.

Claudia Múnera is a conservation biologist and the director of CASSE’s Colombia Chapter.

A Medical Missionary’s Environmental Epiphany

by Herman Daly

Herman DalyDr. Paul Brand was the son of British missionary parents in South India where he grew up. He returned to England to study medicine, then went back to take care of people with leprosy in India, mainly doing reconstructive hand and foot surgery — some 3,000 operations over many years. He also spent some time in Ethiopia doing similar things, and finally ended up as director of the only leprosy hospital in the U.S., located in Carville, Louisiana. I believe that hospital closed about ten years ago, after Dr. Brand retired. He died in 2003. His son happened to be a student of mine at Louisiana State University (LSU), so that is how I met him. Medically he is credited with having established that leprosy is not the direct cause of decay or necrosis of the hands and feet universally observed in people with leprosy. Rather the damage to extremities is self-inflicted, resulting from the loss of sensation and inability to feel pain. Without pain there is no feedback to tell you that you are damaging yourself. Brand developed routines and practices to help avoid self-inflicted injuries, and wrote a book entitled Pain: the Gift that Nobody Wants. He also wrote the standard medical textbook on hand and foot surgery.

LSU is a big football school, and an assistant coach invented a super-cushioned helmet that much reduced head pain on impact. This was thought a great thing until Dr. Brand pointed out that head pain was what kept football players from breaking their necks. Would you rather have a headache or a broken neck?

So much for background. I want to focus on a paragraph that Dr. Brand wrote in 1985:

I would gladly give up medicine tomorrow if by so doing I could have some influence on policy with regard to mud and soil. The world will die from lack of pure water and soil long before it will die from a lack of antibiotics or surgical skill and knowledge. But what can be done if the destroyers of our earth know what they are doing and do it still? What can be done if people really believe that free enterprise has to mean absolute lack of restraint on those who have no care for the future?

What led him to such a statement? Living in India, Ethiopia, and Louisiana — and witnessing the same thing in each place.

Rice Terrace

Dr. Brand prescribed practices to help his patients avoid self-inflicted injuries. He realized that similar principles apply to managing our ecosystems (photo by Alain).

In India he received his first lesson in soils management at age six, from an old Indian farmer who reprimanded him and some other boys who carelessly broke the little turf dams on the terraced rice paddies along the mountain side while chasing frogs in the wet level terraces. The old man scooped up a handful of mud and said, this soil will feed my family year after year. But the soil has to stay up here. The water wants to carry the soil down the mountain to the river, and then to the sea. Do you think the water will bring it back up? No, they answered. Will you be able to bring it back up? No, grandfather. Will rocky hillsides without soil feed my family? No. Well, that is why the dams must be cared for. Do you understand? Yes, grandfather, we’re sorry. Returning to this area many years later Brand observed barren rocky hillsides — the result of government programs to use ex-prisoners to grow potatoes, but without first teaching them the wisdom of the old farmer.

In Ethiopia most of his leprosy patients were farmers, and that brought him again to the farms where he witnessed terrible erosion where there had once been trees and grasses. The Nile carried Ethiopian soil to Egypt. Farms grew poor crops, and the fields were full of large stones. But the stones were not so large that they could not be levered up and rolled to the edge of the field where they could have made useful walls instead of obstacles to tilling and harvesting. Why were such simple improvements not made, Brand asked. The peasants explained that if they made their fields look good and productive they would lose them to the ruling class. Someone from the city would claim that his ancestors had owned it, and the peasants had no chance in court. So injustice, as well as water and wind, contributed to erosion of the soil. People with leprosy who returned to the eroded farms did not have a good prognosis even if their leprosy was now under control.

The leprosarium at Carville, Louisiana, was just a stone’s throw from the Mississippi river. It dated from before levies had been built to contain the river. Therefore all the buildings and houses were built on stilts — maybe four to eight feet high. For a week or so each year water swirled under your house, but you got around in a skiff or pirogue. (Nowadays a fiberglass bass boat with a 200 horsepower Mercury outboard engine is the standard mode of transportation in Louisiana bayous.) Meanwhile the water deposited its silt before returning to its banks, transferring Midwestern topsoil to the Louisiana delta or rebuilding the eroding marshlands or barrier islands. Now the river is contained between levies to eliminate annual floods, so the silt is deposited in the river bottom rather than on the land, necessitating higher levies. Or the silt flows all the way out into the Gulf of Mexico and over the continental shelf, no longer rebuilding coastal marshlands that are now disappearing — and would have served New Orleans as a buffer against Hurricane Katrina. In addition to silt, the Mississippi carries fertilizer and pesticide runoff from Midwestern farms into the Gulf, creating a dead zone the size of New Jersey. “Cheap” corn and soybeans do not include the costs of lost seafood in the Gulf.

So in light of these experiences in Dr. Brand’s life, let us reread the first part of his statement:

I would gladly give up medicine tomorrow if by so doing I could have some influence on policy with regard to mud and soil. The world will die from lack of pure water and soil long before it will die from a lack of antibiotics or surgical skill and knowledge.

A physician treats our internal organs — heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc. in order that we may live longer and better. But our lives depend on external organs as well, environmental life support systems. What good are our lungs if there are no trees and grasses capable of photosynthesis? What good is our digestive tract if the land won’t grow food? What good are our kidneys if the rivers run dry, or are toxic? I think it is not much of a stretch for a good physician to realize that health and wellness now depend as much on care of our collective external organs as on our individual internal organs. Reconstructing a patient’s hands and feet, and then sending him to slowly starve on eroded farmland is at best a partial cure.

The other part of Dr. Brand’s statement, his questions, is also important:

But what can be done if the destroyers of our earth know what they are doing and do it still? What can be done if people really believe that free enterprise has to mean absolute lack of restraint on those who have no care for the future?

Environmental destruction, like other sins, is not just the result of ignorance. There is ignorance to be sure, but mostly we know what we are doing. We are caught up in structures that demand fast growth, rapid turnover, and quick profits. And that is facilitated both by ignorance of environmental costs, and by willingness to shift those costs on to others. Simple denial also plays a role — pie-in-the-sky savior fantasies of space colonization and belief in perpetual motion schemes — technological Gnosticism, I call it.

We all seem to suffer from a symptom of leprosy, we do not feel pain in our external organs and structures (our environmental extremities), and therefore do not stop the behavior that is damaging them. In part this is because often the benefits of the damaging behavior go to the people responsible for the behavior while the costs fall on others — the painful feedback is diverted to people who did not cause the damage. The fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico pay the cost of pesticide and fertilizer runoff caused by careless farming. Environmental costs have been shifted from those who caused them to those who did not.

It would be easy to say, “Well this is nothing new, just the same old prophets of doom in modern dress — there is nothing new under the sun.” But there is something new — the earth is now relatively full of us and all our stuff. In my lifetime world population has tripled, and the populations of livestock, automobiles, and refrigerators have vastly more than tripled. Meanwhile the size of the earth has stayed the same — so it is a lot more full. And the growing scale of the economy means that environmental and social cost-shifting is ever larger and more dangerous.

Consequently there are many more environmental problems than soil erosion. I focused on that because it was what led Dr. Brand to his realization. Other, newer environmental problems, many of them interrelated, include climate change, biodiversity loss, ozone layer depletion, overpopulation, oil depletion, etc. Not to mention modern warfare. I’ll spare you a complete litany.

Many environmentalists look at this list and despair. Humans, after all, they say, are just one more animal species and will over-consume and over-reproduce until they provoke a collapse — just like deer on an island or bacteria in a flask. But Christians like Dr. Brand, and other thoughtful people as well, cannot take that attitude. Yes, we are a part of the Creation, and share many commonalities with our fellow creatures, and we are kin to them by evolution. But we are inescapably the creature in charge — the one that bears the capability and responsibility of the imago Dei. Dr. Brand was an example and witness to that truth.

Who’s Going to Lead the Way to a Sustainable Economy?

by Rob Dietz

Dietz_Author_PhotoIn a snarky moment, the late economist Kenneth Boulding said, “Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.” Unfortunately madmen and delusional economists seem to be running the show. That’s why it’s so refreshing to meet someone who can see through the illusion of perpetual growth. It’s especially refreshing when that someone is in the early stages of a promising career — after all, today’s youth will be in charge of the transition to a sustainable economy (thank goodness, since they’re almost guaranteed to achieve a better track record for sustainability than their parents’ generation).

William Niancen Miao is not the sharpest knife in the drawer; he’s the sharpest knife in the whole kitchen, maybe all the kitchens within a fifty-mile radius. As a Fulbright Scholar studying industrial environmental management at Yale, he is synthesizing lessons from economics, legal studies, public policy, and the natural sciences into a solid understanding of what makes a sustainable business and a sustainable economy. His studies are surely shaping his big-picture view, but two other factors have also contributed: his history of worldly experience and his willingness to go against the grain.

Miao was born in 1990 and spent most of his youth in Shenzhen, a Hong Kong neighbor that was in the midst of a startling transformation from a fishing village to a concrete maze of skyscrapers. According to Miao, Shenzhen was built up in preparation for the handover of Hong Kong from the British to the Chinese. He says, “The Chinese government made it a special economic development zone. Hills and mountains were converted to quarries. The surrounding areas became factories.” The river that divides Shenzhen and Hong Kong got dirtier and smellier, and air quality declined to the point that blue became an uncommon color for the sky. After living under deteriorating environmental conditions and expanding stress from crowding and competition, Miao’s family made the decision to emigrate to New Zealand at the time he was starting high school.

The contrast between the lifestyles in New Zealand and China was obvious. Even though he had to learn a new language and culture, the pace of life slowed after the move. Miao de-emphasized his rigorous study of math and science, and took up art, music, and social studies. He found time to explore the beaches and beautiful landscapes of his adopted country. Miao says, “I was a very hard worker when I lived in China, but I became a more well-rounded person in New Zealand.”

Miao enrolled at the University of Auckland where he considered majoring in economics, but decided to specialize in chemical engineering. From his point of view, chemical engineering is more grounded in the real world, whereas economics resides in the theoretical realm (mainstream economic beliefs about the inevitability of continuous growth are especially theoretical). He also believed that a degree in chemical engineering would provide more job opportunities by outfitting him with a unique skill set.

Beat-up Shell Oil Can

Young people entering the workforce have better options than the antiquated fossil-fueled economy.

He was right about the job opportunities. At the end of his third year, he landed an internship at Shell Oil. By this time he was becoming increasingly aware of the principles of sustainability and green chemistry, and in his time at Shell, he realized his values didn’t mesh well with the company’s mission. Miao had been assigned to help with an offshore oil and gas project, and given the climate crisis, he questioned why he was even doing it. At the same time, he noticed that as supervisors climbed higher in the corporate hierarchy, they became more and more bound to Shell’s mission. They didn’t seem to think beyond production and profits, or consider the negative impacts of Shell’s activities. He asked himself, “Do I want to be like one of these folks?” The “no” answer brought another question to mind: “How can I do something greener, something broader?”

Miao knew he could get a six-figure salary if he took a standard chemical engineering job after graduation. That’s quite an enticement, but he concluded, “It’s more important to do what I actually want to do.” The only trouble: he wasn’t sure what that ought to be! Luck intervened. As a volunteer guide at a bird sanctuary (perhaps also a sanctuary for Miao himself from the Shell experience), he regularly hobnobbed with tourists. One such tourist was a professor who suggested that he look into the field of industrial ecology. That suggestion started Miao on another worldly adventure — this time to his current station at Yale.

He is learning to view industrial facilities and economic processes through an ecological lens. His combination of ecological understanding, grounding in the physical and chemical sciences, and love of the natural world (not to mention his work ethic) give him a unique potential to be an agent of change — to fix the broken parts of our industrial and economic systems. He wants to help firms achieve true systems thinking so that sustainability underpins every decision instead of being tacked on merely to create a better image or provide cost savings.

It takes sensitivity to recognize social and environmental problems. It takes insight to understand the systems from which those problems emerge. It takes integrity to align actions with values in an effort to change the systems. It takes courage to confront the mainstream point of view. And it takes sacrifice to put aside comfort and convenience to strive for something more elusive. Doesn’t it make you smile to know that students like William Miao are on such an honorable path?

How Studying in Asia Made Me See the Need for a Steady State Economy

by Jan de Graaf

Crossing the border from Singapore to Malaysia allows anyone to see the real-life benefits that can come with economic growth. Singapore is modern, prosperous, organized, clean, safe and efficient. Malaysia less so. On Malaysia’s side of the border the roads aren’t as good, the traffic signs not as clear, the sidewalks not as clean and the greenery not as well maintained. Singapore’s transformation looks impressive, especially since it was expelled from Malaysia only in 1965.

I noticed this cross-border difference during a two-year master’s program in public policy at the National University of Singapore. Soon I learned that Singapore’s rapid economic transformation came with considerable tradeoffs. A lack of political freedom is one of them. Singapore’s political system — dominated by one ruling party since independence — has yet to prove its resilience. But Singapore’s economic growth has provided obvious benefits too; many citizens in southeast Asia would forego political freedoms for Singapore’s level of prosperity. Who wouldn’t want to raise children in a safe, efficient, tropical but air-conditioned country with little corruption and top-quality education and healthcare?

Paradoxically, the answer seems to be: Singaporeans themselves. Singapore has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world. The government is vigorously encouraging couples to have babies, though so far with little effect. The former prime-minister Lee Kuan Yew — one of Singapore’s founding fathers — stated last year that Singapore can “fold up” if citizens do not reproduce. He said, “The answer is very difficult but the problems, if we don’t find the answers, are enormous.” Like many other countries, Singapore is being blinded by fears of a shrinking population and ignoring an obvious fact: one of the tiniest countries in the world can’t grow its population forever. The optimal population size is likely less than what it is now, not more.

Singapore’s population has increased almost 280% since independence: from 1.9 million in 1965 to 5.3 million people today. Its land area, on the other hand, has increased by only 23% (it was 224 square miles at independence and after some reclamation of land from the sea, it is now 276 square miles — about the size of Chicago). The country is squeezed in between Malaysia, a narrow sea strait and Indonesia. Physical expansion in such a physically bounded space cannot continue indefinitely. It has to stop growing at some point, a principle that applies not just to the number of people, but also to economic production and consumption.

Singapore and Malaysian Slum

The glitz of Singapore (photo by C. Andersson) and the slums of Malaysia (photo by D. Nunuk) are different, but equally unsustainable results of continuous economic growth.

Singapore like any country, needs to achieve demographic, political, economic and environmental sustainability. Maintaining a healthy environment is often under-appreciated, even though it is just as important as (and directly related to) the other types of sustainability in this list. I recognized this when I lived in China during a semester abroad and traveled through other parts of Asia. I breathed the toxic air in Beijing and Shanghai, walked through piles of waste in India’s urban slums, and saw the vast palm-oil plantations that have replaced tropical forests in Malaysia and Indonesia. If all these countries were to emulate Singapore, which is in a state of ecological overshoot, the environmental impact would be disastrous.

China seems to be doing its best to follow in Singapore’s ecological footsteps. It has managed to lift more than 600 million people out of poverty in roughly thirty years, an unprecedented achievement. Real GDP growth averaged 10% per year from 1978 to 2011. Its economy is more than 30 times bigger than it was in the late 1970s. It will soon be the biggest economy in the world. At the same time, China is in absolute terms now also the world’s largest energy consumer, greenhouse-gas polluter, crop importer, cement consumer and potash consumer, to name only a few things. How many more examples of explosive growth like China’s can the planet withstand?

India, another Asian giant, cannot do the same thing China has done. India has about as many people as China (1.2 billion versus 1.35 billion; each country has about one-sixth of the world population). Yet, India’s economy is less than one-fourth the size of China’s as measured by GDP. What if India’s economy had already grown to the size of China’s economy, with similar physical inputs (e.g. minerals, food, coal, etc.) and outputs (e.g. air pollution, soil depletion, biodiversity loss, etc.)?

Clearly, we need to take steps to achieve sustainable and equitable prosperity around the world. But trying to achieve prosperity through ever more growth — a method that irreversibly damages the planet, depletes natural resources and destabilizes societies over the long term — is not the way. The elephant in the room, the global problem that needs to be solved is “us” — the rich, industrialized part of the world that generates an unsustainable ecological footprint. “We” have only been able to live beyond our means because enough other people don’t. Communities in rural India, Namibia or Costa Rica could continue living their lives, with modest ecological footprints, for centuries without being a threat to global civilization and the planet. “We” in Europe, North America, Singapore, Shanghai and other rich parts of the world, on the other hand, cannot.

Still, many people in the world aspire to the lifestyles of Singapore, coastal China and the West. What if more and more people demand their fair share? Aside from the energy received from the sun, the Earth is a closed system with finite resources, so “we” the over-consumers have to get used to living with a much more modest ecological footprint. The predicament of the over-consuming countries raises some fundamental questions: how can we call our current economic growth “progress” if it can never be attained by all? And how can we call our current economic growth “progress” if it is based on depleting precious nonrenewable resources?

Real progress would take the form of new political and economic models that achieve a sustainable and resilient equilibrium. Unfortunately, as my home country (the Netherlands) and the nations I visited in Asia are demonstrating, we are far from it. That’s why I volunteer with CASSE to promote the concept of a steady-state economy. The over-consuming nations of the world are teaching an important lesson: the current spoils of continued economic growth come with a spoiled foundation for achieving continued prosperity in the future. Are we smart enough to heed the lesson?

Since graduation in Singapore, Jan de Graaf has been an intern at the United Nations headquarters and a trainee at the European Commission. He now works in the clean energy sector in Africa for an American start-up company.

Do We Have the Courage to Bring the 800-lb Gorilla out of the Corner?

by Jimmy Fox

Jimmy FoxThe planet’s ability to provide useful materials and absorb wastes (its biocapacity) is deemed essential to sustain human life. Yet consumption of those useful materials (our ecological footprint) per person is rising at an alarming and unsustainable rate. According to the Global Footprint Network, humanity currently uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets worth of biocapacity per year. Stated another way, it takes the Earth 1.5 years to regenerate what we use and waste in a year. Here in the USA the average person’s ecological footprint in 2010 was approximately 8 soccer fields per person per year — the largest of any nation — while the global capacity in the same year was estimated to be about 2 per person. What this tells us is we Americans are not living within our means. In addition to deficit spending we are, in fact, deficit living. And other countries are not far behind.

ecological footprint scenarios

Our ecological footprint — which path will we take? (Image courtesy of Global Footprint Network).

Today this reality is a conundrum for anyone with an ecological conscious, particularly an American in the field of conservation. Current production and consumption of energy (for our bodies and machines) directly and indirectly create a suite of problems from loss of habitat to pollution. For conservationists, the 800-lb gorilla in the room is our society’s pursuit of economic growth fueled by conspicuous consumption. Quite simply our country’s gross domestic product (GDP) serves as a self-evident indicator for loss of nature and liquidation of our shrinking resource base. As conservationists, we need to bring this gorilla out of the corner and help friends and neighbors understand the problem. It’s time to have frank conversations about the need for intelligent consumption, recycling and reusing, and stabilizing human population.

Some will say this is too radical and not an issue a conservationist should be wading into. I would argue nothing is more important or in need of leadership. In the past Olaus Murie, Aldo Leopold, and Rachel Carson spoke to the matter. In 1948, articulating the need for a land ethic, Aldo Leopold wrote, “Our bigger-and-better society is now like a hypochondriac, so obsessed with its own economic health as to have lost the capacity to remain healthy.” Approximately ten years later, Olaus Murie pressed for the establishment of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and believed it was emblematic of, “the real problem of what the human species is to do with this Earth.”

Today, Dr. Curt Meine (author of Correction Lines), Dr. Julianne Warren (author of Aldo Leopold’s Odyssey), and Dr. Brian Czech (author of Shoveling Fuel for a Runaway Train and Supply Shock: Economic Growth at the Crossroads and the Steady State Solution) are Americans in the field of science writing and speaking passionately about the real problem. I encourage you to follow their work. If reading books isn’t your cup of tea or you’re short of time, check out the Aldo Leopold Foundation’s documentary, Green Fire and Rob Dietz and Dan O’Neill’s call for a steady state economy in Enough is Enough, or if you’re into Hollywood entertainment, watch Wall-E with the kids for an exploration of where we could be headed.

Of course there are critics inside and outside the conservation community. The status quo is tenacious. Calling for change is uncomfortable. We have to be prepared for the allegations. Like Thomas Jefferson’s efforts to abolish slavery while being a slave owner, we have to acknowledge we own a piece of this mess while we move humanity forward. We must admit we conservationists are contributing to the problem with every aerial survey, vehicle, item of clothing, glass of wine, or electronic device we buy (even the six-year old MacBook Pro I’m using to write this post). Acknowledging our contribution to the problem isn’t enough — otherwise it’s just rhetoric. We must act and model the behavior we hope for ourselves and others. Consider these three broad actions to get started:

1. Break the problem down. Become familiar with what contributes to the problem of an oversized ecological footprint. There is a mountain of literature on the unsustainability of human population growth and consumption of natural resources. Figure out the myriad connections between the nation’s pursuit of higher GDP and the conservation challenges we face today.

2. Identify solutions. There are so many ways we can lessen our ecological footprint from the individual level to the national pursuit of a steady state economy. Start at home and the workplace. Make an inventory of the wasteful practices and figure out how to make life and work more sustainable. Don’t overlook local, state, national and international solutions that could use our support and advocacy.

3. Exhibit leadership. The solution to this problem will require all of us to adapt. There are no technical fixes that will save us, no easy remedies and no authority figures leading the way. Solutions will be found through our interactions and relationships with others. Find the courage to share your concerns about the current reality and speak passionately about your aspirations. Talk about what we can do to close the gap between our unsustainable lifestyle and a sustainable one — and do it.

I realize this issue isn’t much fun to think or talk about. It’s personal. It calls into question what we do and our devotion to nature. It forces us to think about how our actions today will negatively affect future generations. As a conservationist, it’s much easier and more socially acceptable to treat the injury than call for a cure. We can busy ourselves with species protections and habitat restoration. But if we value nature — if we value humanity — business as usual is unacceptable. As conservationists we are documenting the outfall of the problem and have a moral obligation to sound the alarm. Ask yourself, would Rachel Carson ignore the gorilla in the room were she alive today? Ask yourself, if we won’t act, why should we expect anyone to? Now is the time for leadership. Leadership means having the courage to address the ultimate source of our conservation problems.

Bringing the 800-lb gorilla into a public forum isn’t easy. But like most hard work, it’s useful.

Jimmy Fox advocates for intelligent consumption as a citizen of Fairbanks, Alaska. He is a Fellow of the National Conservation Leadership Institute and serves his country as a distinguished manager in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He also promotes leadership in conservation at cognizantfox.com.