Commentary

Jim Andrews: Working toward an ecologically sustainable economic system

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Jim Andrews, a conservation herpetologist from Salisbury, who has been working in Vermont for over 40 years.  He coordinates the Vermont Reptile and Amphibian Atlas and have been doing ecological research and teaching part-time at a variety of institutions including the University of Vermont and Middlebury College.  

The Salisbury Conservation Commission recently sponsored a talk entitled “Infinite Economic Growth and other Fairytales that Destroy Ecologies and Communities” by ecological economist Dr. Jon Erickson of the Gund Institute at UVM.  A video of the presentation will be available on Middlebury Community Television and via Better (not bigger) Vermont.

Erickson’s central message was that we are trusting a long-outdated economic system that does not reflect ecological realities and is currently, and will continue to, destroy our ecosystems here in Vermont and around the world. 

Our ecosystems in Vermont are suffering.  Because our population is relatively small compared to many other states, some assume that we have much more of our resource capital to spend without damage. This is not the case. We have the opportunity to address that damage now or continue to wait until it is irreversible.  

Here are some background data:

  • The biggest threats to all wildlife and fully functioning ecosystems are habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation.
  • Between 1997 and 2007, 75 square miles of land were developed in Vermont.
  • Between 2007 and 2013, 75,000 acres of forest land were lost.
  • Since European settlement 35% of our wetlands in Vermont have been lost.
  • We continue to lose 200-400 acres per year of wetlands.
  • Twenty percent of our reptiles and amphibians are listed as threatened or endangered and one has likely been extirpated.
  • Although we have had some wonderful successes recovering a few bird species that had suffered from the use of pesticides that have since been discontinued, many birds, insects, and plants continue to decline and will need to be listed in the future.
  • Despite valiant efforts on the part of many state employees, Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources does not have the required funding or personnel to survey, monitor, and conserve our ecosystems when faced with the continual loss, fragmentation, and loss of habitat brought about by a perpetual growth economic system.  The best they can do is minimize the damage.

A biologist colleague of mine working for the state of Rhode Island once told me that his state was 20 years to build-out. I asked him what that meant. He replied, at the rate Rhode Island is growing, it will have developed all non-conserved land within 20 years. He went on to say, “I hope Vermont learns from our mistakes.” 


It is clear to me that if we wish to maintain our wildlife, forests, agricultural lands, and fully functioning ecosystems (our life support system), these losses cannot continue and the forces behind the losses must be stabilized. Those forces are generated by a growing global human population and growing resource use per person.  An economic model that depends on perpetual growth in those areas, is not sustainable.  

Recent declines in our birth rate have once again revealed our mistaken belief that more people using more resources will fix the problem. It will not. It is the problem.   Don’t misunderstand me, ethically we will have to allow emigration and migration of people as they move from state to state and country to country.  Also we don’t have to tell people how many children they can have. Most developed countries are already seeing declines in birth rates as a result of the education of women and availability of family planning resources. The decline in birth rates that we are currently seeing is a wonderful and necessary result that we should be embracing. It will clearly bring about challenges (school and Social Security funding), but we cannot rely on the perpetual growth model to deal with it.  It will only make things worse in the long run.

Likewise for resource use per capita. There are certainly areas of the world that need an increase in basic life-supporting resources, but many of us in developed countries will need to reduce our resource use per capita, for that to happen.

VTDigger is underwritten by:

As most Vermonters are well aware, we have to deal with global warming as aggressively as we can to head off global disaster. But even here, we cannot expect to lower greenhouse gas emissions if we continue to have more people using more material and energy resources around the world.

What I see every year are Vermont’s reptiles and amphibians struggling to survive as our population grows and we consume and fragment more land, drive more cars, and emit more toxins. Others might see fewer and fewer places to hunt, fish, hike, snowmobile, generate pollinators, snowshoe, bird watch, raise food, provide clean water, reduce flooding, harvest renewable forest resources, or provide a myriad of other ecosystem services.

I think many Vermonters know deep down that growth cannot continue forever without seriously degrading the planet for our children and grandchildren. Let’s inform ourselves now and start working toward an ecologically sustainable economic system. We can start by countering this misinformed proposal of solving our problems by importing more people into Vermont. They will come, but it is not the answer to our problems.

If readers are not already familiar with ecological economics, steady state economies, and degrowth, I urge them to investigate these topics.


Commentary

About Commentaries

VTDigger.org publishes 12 to 18 commentaries a week from a broad range of community sources. All commentaries must include the author’s first and last name, town of residence and a brief biography, including affiliations with political parties, lobbying or special interest groups. Authors are limited to one commentary published per month from February through May; the rest of the year, the limit is two per month, space permitting. The minimum length is 400 words, and the maximum is 850 words. We require commenters to cite sources for quotations and on a case-by-case basis we ask writers to back up assertions. We do not have the resources to fact check commentaries and reserve the right to reject opinions for matters of taste and inaccuracy. We do not publish commentaries that are endorsements of political candidates. Commentaries are voices from the community and do not represent VTDigger in any way. Please send your commentary to Cate Chant, [email protected]

Email: [email protected]

Reader Footnotes

VTDigger will no longer be publishing Reader Footnotes. We welcome your feedback on this decision; please write to [email protected]. Readers who have a substantive opinion may submit a commentary. See our guidelines. We also encourage readers to use our 'Tip Drop' and 'Report an Error' forms found at the end of every article.

 

Recent Stories

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Jim Andrews: Working toward an ecologically sustainable economic syst..."