Fw: Rachel's #805: Living Within Limits

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: "Rachel News"
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 1:16 AM
Subject: Rachel's #805: Living Within Limits


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #805
> http://www.rachel.org
> November 25, 2004
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> LIVING WITHIN LIMITS
>
> It came out of the blue, an attack on the precautionary principle by
> the New York Times. The Times ran its anonymous broadside in its
> Sunday Week-in-Review section November 21 under the sub-heading, "ECO-
> ECONOMICS UNMASKED."[1]
>
> The main point of the Times's attack is that the environmentalist
> perspective on the world has now become mainstream and has "corrupted
> the study of economics." The Times says this corruption takes two
> forms:
>
> (1) an obsession with the need for limits, and
>
> (2) the assumption that people need to be cautious about economic
> development because it could have harmful unintended consequences,
> which has led people to foolishly embrace the precautionary
> principle.[2]
>
> The Times was quoting from an article by one Daniel Ben-Ami, titled
> "The dismal quackery of eco-economics," which appeared in October on a
> British web site called "spiked" (http://www.spikedonline.com). The
> full Ben-Ami article is available at http://www.rachel.org/library/-
> getfile.cfm?ID=491.
>
> At first blush, Mr. Ben-Ami appears to be an extremely learned
> scholar, a master of both philosophy and economics, tossing off names
> like Condorcet, Diderot, Goethe, Hume, Kant, Thomas Paine, Voltaire,
> Rousseau and Adam Smith. Unfortunately, Mr. Ben-Ami's scholarship
> turns out to be just a lot of fancy dancing around a cloud of
> flatulence -- in reality, a pop-gun attack on the precautionary
> principle by a guy who must have slept through high-school physics.
>
> Mr. Ben-Ami argues at great length that there are no real limits on
> economic growth because (a) when we run out of one resource, like
> copper, we'll simply substitute another; and (b) the amount of energy
> available to us is enormous because of sunlight.
>
> What Mr. Ben-Ami overlooks is the second law of thermodynamics, which
> tells us that all transformations of energy and matter -- in other
> words, all economic activities -- produce an increase in entropy, more
> commonly known as waste, pollution, disorder, externalities, side
> effects, or unintended consequences.[3] Therefore, the second law
> tells us, the ultimate limit on economic growth is the unintended
> consequences that it creates in the form of waste and disorder -- not
> the shortage of materials or energy.[4] On a finite planet, there is
> only so much waste and disorder that can be tolerated before the place
> becomes intolerably degraded -- and that's the kind of limit that is
> peeking over the horizon in modern times.
>
> The second law tells us that these unintended effects are inevitable;
> they cannot be avoided. We can reduce the harms associated with modern
> technologies, but we cannot eliminate them. To avoid turning the
> planet into an uninhabitable dump, we must learn to live within
> limits.
>
> The second law tells us that everything we do leaves behind a mess,
> and the more we do, the bigger the mess becomes. Want more coal? Then
> someone is going to remove more mountain tops in West Virginia and
> dump them into the nearest creek. Want to burn more oil? Then someone
> is going to cut roads and move heavy equipment into unspoiled areas
> and eventually warm the whole planet, leading to more floods and
> hurricanes and malaria and yellow fever. Need more food? Then someone
> is going to cut down more forests, leading to more soil erosion, more
> nutrients misplaced and more "dead zones" in the oceans. We all sense
> intuitively that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and the
> second law tells us that we are right, and it tells us why.
>
> In truth, some of my environmentalist friends don't like to
> acknowledge it, but even solar energy requires us to rip up the earth
> and build more platforms and towers and cables and substations to
> capture and transform energy and transmit it to where it's wanted.
>
> Of course we have been remarkably inefficient in the past and with
> greater efficiency we could create less damage while getting the same
> benefits -- but eventually we hit irreducible limits on efficiency
> (limits defined by the second law) and, at that point, the only way to
> make less of a mess is to do less.
>
> Eventually economic growth (growth in the amount of "stuff" we move
> around) must slow and then stop. On a finite planet, there is no way
> around these limits. That's what the second law says, and no one has
> ever found a way around it. Even when Newtonian physics gave way to
> quantum physics around 1900, the second law maintained its status as a
> fundamental law of the universe. It is the ultimate limiting law of
> nature.[4]
>
> There was a time when we seemed to be able to evade the limits of
> nature. At least that's how it appeared. That was because the world
> was nearly empty (of humans and their artifacts). When damage occurred
> it seemed local and of no great consequence, and we just moved on to a
> new place. But now the world is full. This is new, and Mr. Ben-Ami and
> the editors at the New York Times haven't yet modernized their
> thinking. We live in a different world than the one our grandparents
> inhabited. Growth used to be necessary and good, but that's no longer
> always the case. New conditions require new thinking. This is what the
> precautionary principle is about -- innovative thinking to keep pace
> with a changing world.
>
> Mr. Ben-Ami does get one thing right -- many in the "Third World"
> remain poor and malnourished while we in the overdeveloped North are
> trying to find our belly buttons amongst the rolls of fat.[5]
>
> The simple fact is, we in the U.S. long ago produced more goods and
> services than any one society could possibly need to claim the "good
> life." In the U.S., there's already way more than enough to go around
> -- it's just that 1% of our U.S. population has appropriated 40% of
> everything and is reluctant to share.[6] And that 40% is relentlessly
> pumping out propaganda like Mr. Ben-Ami's brand of "scholarship,"
> pretending that more growth will somehow feed the Third World poor.
> No, it won't -- the way things are set up now, more growth will merely
> give the world's wealthiest 1% more opportunities to make themselves
> even wealthier, and the Third World poor will remain poor. Indeed, the
> way things are set up now, more growth won't even help the poor in the
> U.S.[7] It is not for lack of food that hunger still plagues this, the
> wealthiest society the world has ever known
> [http://www.centeronhunger.org/facts.html]. It is for lack of sharing.
> We throw out half the food we grow, instead of making an effort to
> share it with those who are hungry.[8]
>
> The Third World DOES need -- and deserves[9] -- economic growth, but
> we live on a planet that is already showing signs of serious stress
> from past growth, such as:
>
> ** global warming;[10]
>
> ** depleted ozone layer;[11]
>
> ** women's breast milk contaminated with hundreds of industrial
> poisons [don't get me wrong: breast-feeding is still the best way to
> nourish an infant];[12]
>
> ** drinking water laced with low levels of viagra, anti-depressents,
> chemotherapy toxicants and several hundred other "personal care
> products" designed to be biologically active;[13]
>
> ** children's cancers and other environment-related diseases
> increasing;[14]
>
> ** many species of birds, fish, amphibians and mammals already
> extinct, and thousands more soon to become so;[15]
>
> ** and these are just a few of the more obvious signs that we have
> exceeded the natural limits of the Earth. This list could be readily
> extended.
>
> Intentional, targeted economic growth IS the answer to poverty in the
> Third World but, on a planet that is already stressed by the side-
> effects of growth, the "developed" countries have to stop growing in
> order to make room for growth in the Third World. Economist Herman
> Daly spelled this out some years ago.[16]
>
> Regional economic growth can continue, but it must be limited to those
> places where it is needed. The U.S. doesn't need more growth -- we
> just need more sharing to give everyone an opportunity to obtain a
> modicum of life's blessings. A full employment policy, to give
> everyone a decent job who wants a job would be a good first step
> (accompanied of course by a family-sustaining minimum wage).
>
> In the U.S. there's already plenty to go around. Our capitalist
> economy has done well by us, but it's now obvious that it has grown so
> large that it is wrecking the planet -- because of the inevitable
> waste and disorder that accompanies economic activity. So we need to
> learn to discern limits and live within them, aiming not to grow but
> to maintain the productive capacity that 400 years of hard work and
> economic growth have given us.
>
> Hitting the limits to growth also means we need to learn to share
> because we can no longer rely on growth to expand everyone's piece of
> the pie. Now we must pay attention to divvying up the pie more
> carefully, more fairly. The natural limits of the Earth require it,
> plus it will be good for our souls. Wasn't it Jesus who said, "It is
> easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
> man to enter into the kingdom of heaven"?
>
> To summarize: Based on his misinterpretation of the second law of
> thermodynamics, Mr. Ben-Ami says there are no real limits on human
> activity because we are such an ingenious species that we can always
> figure out some way to get around any limits that nature may impose.
> Economists may claim this is true, but physicists know it's not.
> That's what the second law is about -- there really ARE limits to
> growth, limits imposed by the unintended mess we make whenever we do
> anything useful. Physicists call the mess "entropy" -- and it takes
> the form of chemical wastes, heaps of mine spoils, polluted water,
> unhealthy air, eroded hillsides, and sick children. For any
> beneficial activity, the mess can be reduced, but it cannot be
> eliminated.
>
> For 400 years, the western ideology of "progress" has told us that any
> limits can be evaded if we are clever enough. But now we know that's
> false, and we have to learn to live in this new world, bounded by
> limits. Doing so will still demand that we be clever -- to get the
> benefits we need while doing the least harm.
>
> Every industry will need people to rethink and redesign almost
> everything they've been doing. Such innovation will create tons of
> good jobs. But the world of limits will also require us to be not only
> clever but also wise, asking, Which activities are truly beneficial,
> and which are not? And: Which benefits can we do without? In the new
> world of limits, we will always ask, of every activity, is this
> necessary? And: Is this the best we can do? This leads naturally to a
> discussion of alternatives, which is the heart of a precautionary
> approach.[17]
>
> Mr. Ben-Ami represents the old, defunct way of looking at the world:
> do whatever might make a profit, then phoney up a risk assessment to
> prove that it's safe. We now know that this old "risk assessment"
> approach produced enormous harm -- to our health, to the ecosystems
> that our economy depends upon, and to our democracy. (How can we claim
> to have a democracy when 1% of the people own 40% of everything? Does
> money not translate into political power? Who are we kidding?)
>
> Mr. Ben-Ami represents a point of view that has been relegated to the
> heap of outmoded ideas, alongside the flat earth theory and the use of
> leeches to cure disease.
>
> There is a broader shift happening in our culture, from short-term
> gain to long-term sustainability -- or ultimately from a value system
> based on money to one based on life.
>
> The precautionary principle is a powerful new anchor for a traditional
> value system based on compassion, cherishing community, environmental
> stewardship and nurturing future generations within a framework of
> wisdom and forward thinking. Precaution is the future -- positive,
> powerful, healthy, and good.
> --Peter Montague
>
> ===================
>
> [1] http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=495
>
> [2] For a brief discussion of the precautionary principle, see
> http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=532
>
> [3] Mr. Ben-Ami actually does discuss the second law, for the purpose
> of dismissing its role in placing limits on economic growth. He says,
> "One popular [environmentalist] approach was to argue that economic
> growth is limited by the amount of energy in the world. The idea was
> developed by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, an American economist of
> Romanian origin, in the 1970s and has more recently been taken up by
> the likes of Elmar Altvater, Herman Daly and Jeremy Rifkin. This idea
> was expressed in scientific terms as a consequence of the second law
> of thermodynamics, which states that the useful forms of energy in any
> closed system decline over time. An alternative way of expressing the
> same idea is that the entropy (disorder) in a closed system increases
> over time. But as previous articles on spiked have argued,
> environmentalists grossly underestimate the amount of energy available
> on earth. In any case, the earth is not a closed system -- it receives
> an enormous amount of energy from the sun every day. So the idea that
> the availability of energy limits economic activity has no basis in
> science."
>
> This passage reveals a fundamental misinterpretation of the second
> law's role in limiting economic growth. Mr. Ben-Ami says that
> environmentalists claim that "economic growth is limited by the amount
> of energy in the world... [because] the useful forms of energy in any
> closed system decline over time [which can also be expressed as] the
> entropy (disorder) in a closed system increases over time." Having set
> up this straw man, Mr. Ben-Ami then knocks it over by pointing out
> that the Earth isn't a closed system because sunlight is constantly
> streaming in (perhaps Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly had
> somehow not noticed the sun?), as if to imply that the second law
> therefore doesn't pertain on Earth. It is impossible to know whether
> this misinterpretation of the second law results from disingenuous
> intentions or from ignorance. In any case, this misinterpretation of
> the second law is put into service as part of a larger argument that
> there are no physical limits to economic growth, which adds up to a
> colossal misconstruction of the importance and meaning of the second
> law.
>
> [4] See, for example, Jack Hokikian, The Science of Disorder;
> Understanding the Complexity, Uncertainty, and Pollution in Our World
> (Los Angeles, Calif.: Los Feliz Publishing, 2002); ISBN 0-9708953-2-1.
>
> [5] See, for example, Jim Jong Kim and others, Dying for Growth;
> Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor (Monroe, Maine: Common
> Courage Press, 1999); ISBN 1-56751-160-0.
>
> [6] Chuck Collins and Felice Yeskel, Economic Apartheid in America
> (New York: New Press, 2000); revised and corrected data available at
> http://www.ufenet.org/research/Economic_Apartheid_Data.html#p55
>
> [7] See for example, William Julius Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged
> (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); ISBN 0-226-90131-9. And
> see Chuck Collins and Felice Yeskel, Economic Apartheid in America
> (New York: The New Press, 2000); ISBN 1-56584-594-3. See also Michael
> Zweig, The Working Class Majority; America's Best Kept Secret (Ithaca,
> N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2000); ISBN 0-8014-3637-0. And see G.
> William Domhoff, Who Rules America? (Mountain View, Calif: Mayfield
> Publishing, 1998); ISBN 1-55934-973-5.
>
> [8] Environment News Service, "Half the American Harvest Goes to
> Waste," November 24, 2004. Available at
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=497
>
> [9] The Third World deserves our help because conditions there were
> intentionally created by Europeans as they "developed" themselves
> while subjugating the Third World. For an overview, see "Chapter 10.
> Creating the Third World" in Clive Ponting, A Green History of the
> World (New York: Penguin Books, 1991); ISBN 0140176608. And see Walter
> Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (Washington, D.C.: Howard
> University Press, 1981); ISBN 0-88258-096-5.
>
> [10] http://www.greenfacts.org/studies/climate_change/
>
> [11] Athens News Agency, "Ozone Layer Will Remain Vulnerable in Coming
> Decades," June 17, 2004. http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=
> 496.
>
> [12] See for example, Thaddeus Herrick, "Toxins in Breast Milk:
> Studies Explore Impact Of Chemicals on Our Bodies," Wall Street
> Journal January 20, 2004.
> http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=498.
>
> [13] See, for example, "Drugs in the water," Rachel's Environment &
> health News #614 (Sept. 3, 1998); available at
> http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=501 . And see
> Christian G. Daughton and Thomas A. Ternes, "Pharmaceuticals and
> Personal Care Products in the Environment: Agents of Subtle Change,"
> Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 107 Supplement 6 (December
> 1999), pgs. 907-938, available at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/-
> 1999/suppl-6/907-938daughton/daughton-full.html
>
> [14] See, for example, "Tracey J. Woodruff and others, "Trends in
> Environmentally Related Childhood Diseases," Pediatrics Vol. 113, No.
> 4 (April 2004), pgs. 1133-1140. http://www.rachel.org/library/-
> getfile.cfm?ID=451
>
> [15] Agence France Presse, "Nearly 16,000 Species Threatened with
> Extinction: Report," Nov. 17, 2004. http://www.rachel.org/library/-
> getfile.cfm?ID=499
>
> [16] Herman E. Daly, Beyond Growth (Boston: beacon Press, 1996); ISBN
> 0-8070-4708-2. For a summary of Daly's arguments, see
> http://www.rachel.org/bulletin/index.cfm?issue_ID=1186 .
>
> [17] Mary O'Brien, Making Better Environmental Decisions; An
> Alternative to Risk Assessment (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000);
> ISBN 0-262-15051-4.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS
> Environmental Research Foundation
> P.O. Box 160
> New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
> Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@rachel.org
>
> SUBSCRIPTIONS
>
> Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, send E-mail
> to listserv@lists.rachel.org with the words
> SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME
> in the message.
>
> SPANISH EDITION
>
> The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish; to learn
> how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word AYUDA in an E-mail
> message to info@rachel.org.
>
> BACK ISSUES IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH
>
> All back issues are on the web at: http://www.rachel.org in
> text and PDF formats.
>
> COPYRIGHT NOTICE
>
> Permission to reprint Rachel's is hereby granted to everyone,
> though we ask that you not change the contents and we ask that
> you provide proper attribution.
>
> In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is
> distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
> interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.
>
> Some of this material may be copyrighted by others. We believe
> we are making "fair use" of the material under Title 17, but if
> you choose to use it for your own purposes, you will need to
> consider "fair use" in your own case. --Peter Montague, editor
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to rachel as: cwolman@MCN.ORG
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-rachel-51788U@gselist.org
> To join this list send a blank email to join-rachel@gselist.org
>
> Free Email Lists - Garden State EnviroNet - http://www.gsenet.org
> First in New Jersey for Environmental News and Information