A
blog of Bridge
Environment, updated most Tuesdays
Last
week, I concluded a series of blog entries on genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) with the thought that their perceived success or failure will come
down to the extent to which they help with the ultimate conservation issue:
human population and consumption. You would have to have your head in the sand
to be unaware that the human population has grown dramatically; this subject
has been a matter of concern and debate for decades. However, public discourse
today focuses more on our limited resources or the strained capacity of our
natural systems to handle pollution and other anthropogenic effects. Recent
studies even suggest the population will level out in the relatively near
future (UN World Population
Prospects, the 2012 revision). Nevertheless, the underlying concern
prevails. It is common that a general-interest seminar on environmental issues
will end with a knowing acknowledgement that population growth is the real and under-acknowledged
problem. I know people who have chosen to forego pregnancy because of their
concern over population growth. I struggled with this issue myself when
planning my family. However, today I aim to convince you that the real problem
lies not in our numbers or consumption directly, but in our inability to
consciously plan and enact regulations to achieve our desired future.
I
had a formative experience regarding human population control back in 1996. I
was almost 30 and had serendipitously positioned myself as a world expert on
the design of marine protected areas, a subject that had gone from virtually
unknown to the hottest of all marine conservation topics over the preceding
couple of years. Amidst requests to discuss protected areas, it was noteworthy
and intriguing when I was contacted by a regional Colombian government agency (La
Corporación Regional para el Desarrollo Sostenible del Archipiélago de San
Andrés, Providencia, y Santa Catalina, or CORALINA) asking if I could help them
determine the human carrying capacity of the islands within their jurisdiction.
Carrying capacity is an ecological concept that describes the size a population
will achieve if left to grow and thrive in the absence of disturbances. The
concept follows from the idea that competition for resources, the spread of
diseases, and even visibility to predators all increase as a population grows.
If the population is left undisturbed, these forces will eventually balance out
new growth, leaving the population at a stable size, its carrying capacity.
In
their question, though, I realized that CORALINA was not asking me just how
many people could be sustained on the islands. In a sense, the population was
already at its carrying capacity. Food consumed on the islands was shipped in
from elsewhere and water could be procured through desalinization or shipped in
as well. The natural limit on human population in the islands was a matter of
taste. If the population grew, people would face greater crowding and its
associated effects, such as pollution and the economic costs from increasing
demands for resources. The real concern of CORALINA was how many people could
live on the islands while maintaining healthy natural ecosystems, particularly
coral reefs. I steered them away from worrying about the number of people
living on the island, largely because of the insurmountable political challenge
of securing and executing the authority to do anything about it. Instead, I encouraged
them to enact a marine zoning plan that would manage their resources conscientiously.
Specifically, we explored the limits of their coral reefs. These limits
translated into trade-offs among competing human objectives, whether between scuba
ecotourism and fishing or between small-scale artisanal and industrial-scale
commercial fishing.
Though
the Colombians received this advice well, a lack of control over human
population size was frustrating. At first glance, it does seem like population
size would be a good focus for efforts to address environmental issues. China
certainly thought so in enacting its one-child policy. However, their success at
slowing and halting population growth has hardly resulted in healthy
environments. China suffers from some of the worst air and water pollution in
the world and their resource consumption continues to grow rapidly. Less-authoritarian
economic means to control population have been developed over time, and now
primarily focus on empowering women. Doing so typically leads to higher levels
of consumption as parents invest more in fewer kids and produce global citizens
who consume resources at higher levels. Whether via Chinese-style authoritarian
rule or a gentler western approach, we can produce political-economic systems
that discourage further human population growth. However, these efforts are
associated with higher per capita resource use, which limits their
environmental benefits.
If
population control isn’t the solution, is technology the answer? Here we run
into a phenomenon called the efficiency paradox, where efficiency gains from
technology are balanced out by additional uses. As an example, consider a
Stanford Engineering Department water recycling project I participated in a few
years ago. The engineers on the project were brilliant and energetic, and had
the tools necessary to design cost effective water processing plants that could
work on a building- or small-neighborhood-scale. In its cheapest form, such a
system would replace the use of municipal water for landscaping, a major source
of water use. I had to temper their excitement, though, by pointing out how the
efficiency paradox would play out. Home owners would essentially be provided
with a cheap additional source of water, and using that source would make them
feel they were contributing to environmental health. For some, the new
technology might reduce overall water use substantially. For others, it would
encourage them to switch from native xeriscaping (drought-tolerant landscaping)
to backyard rainforests. There would most likely be some overall water savings
at the local level, but not nearly as much as the increase in efficiency would
suggest. Worse still, the savings at the local level would affect regional
water markets. In California, water is a limited resource over which
residential, industrial, agricultural, and environmental interests compete
fiercely. Free up some water on the residential side and most of those savings
would be absorbed by other sectors. In short, local water recycling would only have
a mild effect on the overall consumption of water but would affect its
distribution and economics.
If
population control and technology won’t save us, could smart use work? Like we
did in Colombia, it is possible to look at the natural limits of systems and
plan our use such that we choose how we want to trade-off competing objectives.
If we used this approach widely, we would have an environment that would be far
from pristine. However, it would provide us with levels of service that
represented a trade-off between a cleaner, more natural world and economic use.
Rather than capping population to control resource use, we would cap resource
use to control population. With smart systems, the price of a resource plays a
key role. When a resource is in short supply, regulations would limit its use
and drive its price up. The high price would discourage use, leading to a
carrying-capacity-like balance. Left without a planning exercise to monitor and
limit resource consumption, shortages and high prices will still ultimately
limit resource use at a carrying capacity. It will just do so in a way that may
not match the attributes we would like from this system.
Moreover,
planning decisions of this sort are far less painful if made when resources are
still plentiful. Look at any fishery that has been overfished. The real goal of
a rebuilding plan is to take charge of the system and deliver a more appealing
combination of societal benefits in the future. Getting there once the resource
is depleted requires a lot more pain and suffering than enacting similar
regulations when the stock is still healthy.
So
what’s keeping us from this higher functioning system? Denial and a lack of discipline.
We have a tendency to procrastinate tackling long-term planning exercises, focusing
on short-term crises instead. Also, for a whole host of reasons related to our
psychology and history, we often view long-term planning exercises in terms of
addressing a problem. The existence of a problem is something that can be
debated, and such debates tend to stall any action. But a long-term planning
exercise isn’t a problem. It’s an opportunity to work out what we want from the
resources nature provides before we hit their limits. In addition to reframing
this whole approach in a more accurate and appealing light, we require
discipline…to get scientists to engage in useful advice, to get the interested
public to honestly discuss and negotiate over sometimes-conflicting objectives,
to study options for monitoring and control, and ultimately to make hard
decisions for what blend of performance we want from systems that cannot give
everyone everything. These decisions are far easier, though, if we exert
discipline and make them before we have stressed resources to the point that
short-term sacrifice is necessary to rehabilitate them.
The
value of this approach is not just a theoretical concept. It
was the basis of certain indigenous fishery systems that were proven to be
sustainable over centuries. We do not know whether those systems were
enacted before or after a collapse. We do know that they contributed to sustainable,
stable, and wealthy human societies. And we do know that they
required discipline to design, enact, and maintain.
Best,
Josh
For
more information, read our other blog posts and visit us at Bridge Environment.