



By Frosty Wooldridge

Part 2: Let’s talk about sustainability as it relates to resources

“Let every individual and institution now think and act as a responsible trustee of Earth, seeking choices in ecology, economics and ethics that will provide a sustainable future, eliminate pollution, poverty and violence, awaken the wonder of life and foster peaceful progress in the human adventure.” John McConnell, founder of International Earth Day

For over thirty years, I attended lectures at the University of Colorado where Physics professor Dr. Albert Bartlett lectured and promoted discussion on human overpopulation. His extraordinary lecture on “ Arithmetic, Population and Energy ” can be seen at www.albartlett.org . He presented it over 1,600 times around the world. While the world ignored his and many other top scientists in the world, including Dr. Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb , in 2010, the population noose tightens around this civilization’s neck. Other top experts join the chorus such as Richard Heinberg, Dr. William Catton, Jared Diamond, William Ryerson, Dave Paxson, Aldolpho Doring, Dr. Diana Hull and Amanda Zackem.

SUSTAINABILITY

“The terms “sustainable” and “sustainability” burst into the global lexicon in the 1980s as the electronic news media made people increasingly aware of the growing global problems of overpopulation, drought, famine, and environmental degradation that had been the subject of Limits to Growth in the early 1970s, (Meadows, et.al., 1972),” said Bartlett. “A great burst of increased awareness came with the publication of the report of the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, the Bruntland Report, which is available in bookstores under the title Our Common Future. (Bruntland, 1987)

“In graphic and heart-wrenching detail, this Report places before the reader the enormous problems and suffering that are being experienced with growing intensity every day throughout the underdeveloped world. In the foreword, before there was any definition of “sustainable,” there was the ringing call,

“What is needed now is a new era of economic growth – growth that is forceful and at the same time socially and environmentally sustainable. (p.xii)

“One should be struck by the fact that here is a call for “economic growth” that is “sustainable”. What is “economic growth?” Is it an increase in economic activity per capita, or is it an increase in total economic activity? Whatever the definition, one has to ask if it is possible to have an increase in ecomomic activity without having increases in the rates of consumption of non-renewable resources? If so, under what conditions can this happen? Are we moving toward those conditions today? As we have seen, these two concepts of “growth” and “sustainability” tend to conflict with one another, yet here we see the call for both. The use of the word “forceful” would seem to imply “rapid,” but if this is the intended meaning, it would just heighten the conflict. A few pages later in the Report we read,

“Thus sustainable development can only be pursued if population size and growth are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.(p.9)

“One begins to feel uneasy. What does the Commission mean by the phrase “in harmony with…?” It can mean anything. By page 11 the Commission acknowledges that population growth is a serious problem, but then, “The issue is not just numbers of people, but how those numbers relate to available resources.” Urgent steps are needed to limit extreme rates of population growth.

“The suggestion that “The issue is not just numbers of people” is alarming. Neither “limit” nor “extreme” are defined, and so the sentence gives the impression that most population growth is acceptable and that only the “extreme rates of population growth” (“extreme” is not defined) need to be dealt with by some undefined process of limiting. By page 15 we read that, “A safe, environmentally sound, and economically viable energy pathway that will sustain human progress into the distant future is clearly imperative.

“Here we see the recognition that energy is a major long-term problem and we see the important acknowledgment that “sustainable” means “into the distant future.”

“As the authors of the Report searched for solutions, they called for large efforts to support “sustainable development.” The most commonly quoted definition of “sustainable development” appears in the first sentence of Chapter 2,(p.43)

“Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

“This definition, coupled with the earlier statement of the need to “sustain human progress into the distant future,” should form the basis for our understanding of the use of the term, “sustainable development.”

“Unfortunately, the definition gives no hint regarding the courses of action that could be followed to meet the needs of the present, but which would not limit the ability of generations, throughout the distant future, to meet their own needs.

“The Commission’s recognizes that there is a conflict between population growth and development:(p.44)

“An expansion in numbers [of people] can increase the pressure on resources and slow the rise in living standards in areas where deprivation is widespread. Though the issue is not merely one of population size, but of the distribution of resources, sustainable development can only be pursued if demographic developments are in harmony with the changing productive potential of the ecosystem.

“Can the Commission mean that population growth slows the rise of living standards only “in areas where deprivation is widespread?” This statement again plays down the role of population size in exacerbating resource and environmental problems. The Commission repeats the denial that the problems relate to population size and it shifts the blame to the distribution of resources. The Commission then speaks of “demographic developments,” whatever that may mean, which must be “in harmony with…”, whatever that means. If one accepts reports that the “global productive potential of ecosystems” is declining, due to deforestation, the loss of topsoil, pollution, etc., then the “in harmony with…” could mean that population also will have to decline. But the Commission is very careful not to say this.

“These quotations (above) are thought to be representative of the vague and sometimes contradictory messages that are in this important report.

“It seems that the Bruntland Commission Report’s definition of “sustainability” was, with reason, both optimistic and vague. The Commission probably felt that the definition had to be optimistic, but given the facts, it was necessary to be vague in order not to appear to be pessimistic. Straight talk about the meaning of “sustainability” is similarly avoided in a more recent report that came out of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio, which was…the largest gathering of world leaders in history [which] endorsed the principle of sustainable development. (Committee for a National Institute for the Environment, 1993)

##

Contact Dr. Bartlett at www.albartlett.org , Boulder, Colorado.

For additional information: contact Marilyn Hempel at www.populationpress.org

Additionally: William Ryerson at www.populationmedia.org

Dave Paxson at www.worldpopulationbalance.org ;

Niki Calloway at www.thesocialcontract.com ;

Gretchen Pfaff at www.Capsweb.org;

Roy Beck at www.NumbersUSA.org .