REFLECTIONS ON SUSTAINABILITY

Albert A. Bartlett

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has done many constructive and beneficial things. The policies, actions, and leadership of the Agency are crucial to any hope for a sustainable society. In a recent report from the Agency, we read:

The Report ( EPA 1993 ) is both encouraging and distressing. It is encouraging to read of all of the many activities of the Agency which help protect the environment. It is distressing to search in vain through the Report for acknowledgment that population growth is at the root of most of the problems of the environment. While the Brundtland Report says that population growth is not the central problem, the EPA report avoids making this allegation. But the EPA report makes only a very few minor references to the environmental problems that arise as a direct consequence of population growth.

The EPA report speaks of an initiative to pursue sustainable development in the Central Valley of California:

There is no way that "A stronger emphasis on sustainable agricultural practices" can stop the "rapid urban growth" that is destroying farmland! An emphasis on agriculture cannot solve the problem. To solve the problems, one must stop the "rapid urban growth" which causes the problems. It is pointless to focus on the development of "sustainable agricultural practices" when agriculture will soon be displaced by the "rapid urban growth." However, if "A stronger emphasis on sustainable agricultural practices" means "stop the conversion of agricultural land to urban or other developments," then there is logic to the second of the statements.

With our present social and value systems, it is almost impossible to maintain agriculture in the face of urban population growth.

In speaking of the New Jersey Coastal Management Plan for the management of an environmentally sensitive tidal wetland, the EPA report says:

"Balancing" sounds nice, but it needs to be recognized that "balancing" generally means "yielding to."

In the Pacific Northwest:

These quotations of minor sections of the EPA report make it clear that the EPA understands the origin of environmental problems. Thus it is puzzling that the Agency so carefully avoids serious discussion of the fundamental source of so many of the problems it is called on to address.

In this thirty page report on the Agency's programs, the term "sustainable development" is mentioned hundreds of times, and population growth, the most important variable in the equation, is mentioned just these few times. It is as though one attempted to build a 100 story skyscraper from good materials, but one forgot to put in a foundation.

A proposal for the establishment of a "National Institute for the Environment" ( 1993 ) is being advanced. If the proposed institute is to be effective, its mission and charge must include, "Studying the demographic causes and consequences of environmental problems." This means "look at the numbers!"

We have seen how major national and international reports misrepresent and downplay ( marginalize ) the quantitative importance of the arithmetic of population sizes and growth. The importance of quantitative analysis of population sizes was pioneered by Thomas Malthus two hundred years ago, ( Appleman 1976 ) but the attempted marginalization of Malthus goes on today at all levels of society.

In an article, "The Population Explosion is Over" Ben Wattenberg finds support for the title of his article in the fact that fertility rates are declining in parts of the world. ( Wattenberg 1997 ) Most of the countries of Europe are ( 1997 ) at zero population growth or negative population growth, and fertility rates in parts of Asia, have declined dramatically. Rather than rejoicing over the clear evidence of this movement in the direction of sustainability, Wattenberg sounds the alarm over the "birth dearth" as though this fertility decline requires some immediate reversal or correction.

The most extreme case is that of Julian Simon who advocates continued population growth long into the future. Writing in the newsletter of a major think tank in Washington, D.C., Simon says:

It has been noted that a spherical earth is finite, but a flat earth can be infinite in extent. So if Simon is correct, we must be living on a flat earth. ( Bartlett 1996 )

As populations grow and demands on resources increase, an aspect of the problem that is often overlooked is the fact that there are major fluctuations in the ability of the environment to satisfy our needs. In the case of municipal water, if we build new subdivisions sufficient to consume the limiting maximum output of our of our municipal water supply in wet years, then in dry years we will be seriously short. When one is living at the limit of a renewable resource, small fluctuations in the annual yield of the resource can cause major dislocations. Prudence dictates that one should plan to consume no more water annually than the water supply can deliver during the dryest years. This problem is even more critical with world food supplies, which are very dependent on the vagaries of global weather patterns.

Echoing a view expressed earlier by the Ehrlichs ( Ehrlich 1992 ) Bartlett points out that because of the high per capita consumption of resources in the U.S., we in the U.S. have the world’s worst population problem! ( Bartlett 1997 ) Many Americans think of the population problem as being a problem only of "those people" in the undeveloped countries, but this serves only to draw attention away from the difficulties of dealing with our own problems here in the U.S. It is easier to tell a neighbor to mow his / her yard than it is for us to mow our own yard. With regard to other countries, we can offer family planning assistance on request, but in those countries we have no jurisdiction or direct responsibility. Within our own country we have complete jurisdiction and responsibility, yet we fail to act to help solve our own problem. In a speech at the University of Colorado, then U.S. Senator Tim Wirth observed that the best thing we in the U.S. can do to help other countries stop their population growth is to set an example and stop our own population growth here in the U.S.

There can be no question about the difficulty that we will have to achieve zero growth of the population of the U.S. An examination of the simple numbers makes the difficulty clear. In particular, population growth has "momentum" which means that if one makes a sudden change in the fertility rate in a society, the full effect of the change will not be realized until every person has died who was living when the change was made. Thus it takes approximately 70 years to see the full effect of a change in the fertility rate. ( Bartlett & Lytwak 1995 )

There are many encouraging signs from communities around the U.S. that indicate a growing awareness of the local problems of continued unrestrained growth of populations, because population growth in our communities never pays for itself. Taxes and utility costs must escalate in order to pay for the growth. In addition, growth brings increased levels of congestion, frustration, and air pollution.

In recent years, several states have seen taxpayer revolts in the form of ballot questions that were adopted to limit the allowed tax increases. These revolts were not in decaying rust-belt states; the revolts have been in the states that claimed to be the most prosperous because they had the largest rates of population growth. These limits on taxes were felt to be necessary to stop the tax increases that were required to pay for the growth. Unfortunately the growth has managed to continue, while the schools and other public agencies have suffered from the shortage of funds.

How do we work on the local problem? Many years ago I was discussing population growth of Boulder with a prominent member of the Colorado Legislature. At one point he said:

"Al, we could not stop Boulder's growth if we wanted to!"

I responded:

"I agree, therefore let's put a tax on the growth so that, as a minimum, the growth pays for itself, instead of having to be paid for by the existing taxpayers."

His response was quick and emphatic:

"You can't do that, you'd slow down our growth!"

His answer showed the way: communities can slow their population growth by removing the many visible and hidden public subsidies that support and encourage growth.

The Tragedy of the Commons ( Hardin 1968 ) makes it clear that there will always be large opposition to programs of making population growth pay for itself. Those who profit from growth will use their considerable resources to convince the community that the community should pay the costs of growth. In our communities, making growth pay for itself could be a major tool to use in stopping the population growth.

From the highest political and planning circles come various suggestions that are intended to address the problems caused by growth and thus to improve the quality of life. Many of these suggestions are "pseudo solutions" to the problems. At first glance, these sophistic solutions seem logical. A moment’s thought will show that, in fact, they are false.

The terms "growth management" and "smart growth" are used interchangeably to describe urban developments that are functionally and esthetically efficient and pleasing. Sometimes these planning processes are advocated by those who believe that we can’t stop population growth, therefore we must accomodate it as best we can. Other times they are advocated by those who are actively advancing population growth. The claim is made that growth management and smart growth "will save the environment." They don’t save the environment. Whether the growth is smart or dumb, the growth destroys the environment. "Growth management" is a favorite term used by planners and politicians. With planning, smart growth will destroy the environment, but it will do it in a sensitive way. It’s like buying a ticket on the Titanic. You can be smart and go first class, or you can be dumb and go steerage. In both cases, the result is the same. But given the choice, most people would go first class.

The favorite rallying cry of community leaders and politicians is, "We must create jobs."

One must respond to this cry by asking:

Most people don’t understand this, even though it can be explained easily. If the equilibrium unemployment rate is 5 % , and a new factory moves into town, the hiring at the new factory may lower the unemployment rate to 4 % . But then new people move into the town to restore the unemployment rate to the equilibrium value of 5 % . But this is 5 % of a larger population, so the number of unemployed people has increased. Every time 100 jobs are created in a community one can look for about 5 more unemployed people in the community.

The only possibility for having permanently low unemployment in a region is to build a wall around the region so that people can’t move in to take the jobs. The constitutionally acceptable way to "build exclusionary walls" around a region is to be so successful in promoting your region that you drive up real estate prices to a very high level so that people can’t afford to move into the community. This is the case in many popular recreational areas.

It is frequently said that we can reduce congestion and air pollution by building high-speed super highways. This can be proven false by noting that if this were true, the air in Los Angeles would be the cleanest in the nation. The falacy arises because of the fact that the construction of the new highways generates new traffic, not previously present, to fill the new highways to capacity. ( Bartlett 1969 )

As populations of nearby cities grow, the call is made for "regional solutions" to the many problems created by growth. This has two negative effects:

1 ) Regional planning dilutes democracy. A citizen participating in public affairs has five times the impact in his / her city of 20,000 as he / she would have in a region of 100,000 people.

2 ) The regional "solutions" are usually designed to accomodate past and predicted growth and hence they foster and encourage more growth rather than limiting it. In the spirit of Eric Sevareid’s Law ( below ), regional "solutions" enlarge the problems rather than solving them.

One concludes that regional solutions to problems already caused by growth will work only if the growth is stopped.