|
“Sustainable development” has become a buzzphrase
often tossed out by the Clinton Administration, the United Nations, and
environmentalists. Development,
according to their theories, should be prohibited unless it is
‘sustainable’.
The phrase sounds wonderful. After all, only
‘corporate land-rapists’ would want unsustainable development, right?
But what does the term really mean?
Definition by the aforementioned ‘authorities’
usually entails the return of most lands to their ‘natural’ state and the
concentration of humans in pockets of habitation. Proponents advocate a
reduction of the current human population and the return to small,
self-sufficient, primitive agricultural societies whose populations somehow
remain static. It requires that we limit ourselves almost completely to
renewable resources: wind, water, sun, agriculture, and trees. (Already,
however, environmentalists demand that we harvest forests well below sustainable
levels. In addition to reducing our current use of a ‘sustainable resource’,
this also decreases future sustainable yields.)
“We
owe the benefits and comforts
of
the present era to free enterprise
and
the scarcity of the whales.”
Senator
Phil Gramm
‘Sustainable development’ would severely limit our
use of mined/drilled materials. Proponents would disregard our unimaginable
mineral resources: the ocean floor is a vast mineral resource and the entire
earth itself, from the outer crust clear to the center, is a mineral resource.
Is returning to the lifestyles of centuries ago and
spending our days behind a mule-drawn plow the right course to ‘save the
earth’?
There are many fallacies in the sustainable development
concept. Foremost is that primitive societies better protect their environments;
instead, they often consume their resources and degrade their environment.
Primitive agriculture (lacking fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and
petroleum-powered machinery) takes many more acres to feed a given population
than does modern agriculture. These are acres that cannot revert to their
natural ecological systems but are confined to a monoculture existence.
Devastating Forests For Energy
Primitive societies most often consume wood for cooking and
heating and, indeed, sustainable development proponents advocate the use of such
‘biomass’ for energy. When wood
is the main source of energy as well as of building materials, tremendous
demands are put upon forests. The
inhabitants of many Third World countries have devastated their local forests --
contributing to erosion and local climate changes -- in efforts to meet their
needs for energy. In contrast, the
United States, which was beginning to face the same dilemma in the 19th century,
has been able to increase its forests by over 140 million acres in the last
century.
Primitive societies are limited in the uses that they
make of the resources available to them. Technological
societies are able to actually increase resources available for use.
Oranges
In Our Stockings
Throughout history, doomsayers such as Thomas Malthus
in 1798 and Paul Ehrlich in the 1960s have predicted that humans would, within
the ‘next generation’ or even ‘the next decade’, eat ourselves out of
house and home. Agriculture and energy, they predicted, would not be able to
keep up with a growing population. Yet
world-wide famine and shortages stubbornly refuse to appear. Instead, each
successive generation in industrialized countries enjoys more luxuries, more
food, and more varieties of food than ever before.
Advances in agriculture, food preservation, energy, and shipping make it
possible not only for us to have an orange in our Christmas stocking (a special
extravagance in the last century) but oranges and kiwis and bananas every day of
the year!
The same advances apply to every facet of living in a
democratic industrialized country. When
a need is identified, a method or product is found. If a resource becomes scarce
or expensive, a substitute is found, developed, and brought to the market at
affordable prices.
Suddenly
petroleum was a ‘resource’.
During the English Industrial Revolution, wood became
scarce and therefore expensive. Early
efforts to use coal were fraught with mistakes and expense, but after much trial
and error the technology was developed to the point that coal was not only
economically feasible but actually superior to wood in many applications.
When whale oil (considered essential for lighting and lubrication in
America) became scarce, other resources were ‘found’. First attempts to use
coal oil and petroleum produced smoky, smelly, and expensive products, but
drilling and refining techniques were quickly developed and improved. Suddenly
petroleum was a ‘resource’.
According to Professor Dwight Lee, the first petroleum
oil sold for $10 a barrel. A year
later, in 1861, the price was down to 10 cents a barrel. The professor quotes
Senator Phil Gramm as saying: “We owe the benefits and comforts of the present
era to free enterprise and the scarcity of the whales.” Ironically, sperm
whales owe their continued existence to technology and the development of
petroleum.
Just as our forests were saved by technological
advances and conversion to a ‘new’ resource -- coal -- for energy, whales
were saved by substituting the
‘new’ resource of petroleum. History is filled with similar stories of
enterprising and creative humans finding a way to use an expanding base of
resources more effectively and intelligently.
Resource
Crises
A tin crisis, which occurred when ancient Greece was
cut off from its foreign supply, made the continued production of bronze
financially prohibitive. This ‘resource crisis’ spurred the efficient
development of iron to replace bronze in weapons, cooking utensils, and other
implements. During World War II,
when Japan controlled much of the rubber tree lands, American ingenuity
developed a synthetic rubber. In a thousand years or so, our supply of petroleum
may run out. By that time, if industry is allowed to continue to respond to
market conditions, safe, efficient, and limitless power -- nuclear or other -- will no doubt exist to supply affordable energy.
‘Where there’s a will, there’s a way’ has
applied to humans from our beginning. Human ingenuity and market responses have
enabled us to successively increase our standard of living and our national
wealth while we successively decrease environmental impacts. Finding new ways to
use resources and new resources to use enables us to actually multiply our
resources. If we have done this
through centuries, what makes us think that our descendants will be unable to do
so?
Technology
Creates Resources
Conservative
Environmentalism notes that the concept of sustainability implies several
things. “First, resource-rich
nations should be more prosperous than resource-poor nations.” As we all know,
many African and South American countries, as well as Russia, have vast
resources but are financially poor. In contrast, the tiny country of Japan
contains far fewer natural resources but is considerably richer. Indeed, one of
the most overlooked resources is the resourcefulness of the human mind and its
capacity for research, invention, improvement, and technological advances of all
types.
“Second,” continues the book,
“sustainability implies that we should save nonrenewable resources for future
generations. However, the very
definition of a mineral resource is highly time- and technology-sensitive.” The authors note that the early American Indian knew
virtually nothing about how to use titanium, iron, zinc, lead, kaolin, bentonite,
or any of the myriad mineral substances used by a modern technical society.
“Industrial societies, in a sense, create their own resources by
learning how to extract and use them.”
“....Third, sustainability implies that resources are
static. Yet, ...the amount of natural resources available to technological
societies is enormous, much greater than for any previous societies.
Technology creates resources.”
“Sustainable
development is a second-best goal.”
Conservative
Environmentalism
If the world still depended upon wood alone for
building and energy, our forests would have been decimated long ago.
Because we have found other resources, we have evolved far beyond what
would have been considered ‘sustainable development’ just two centuries ago.
“(S)ustainable development is a second-best goal.
The real goal should be to multiply or otherwise improve resources.”
As noted in Conservative Environmentalism, even
the very act of mining can multiply resources.
Gravel mining can create a pit which will fill with water and become a
lake, increasing the resource of fish, improving habitat for water birds,
increasing the land value around the lake, enabling water storage, creating jobs
that benefit the economy, producing minerals for consumers, and expanding scenic
and recreational resources. All from just one mine!
If sustainable development as generally understood by
the environmental community is implemented by society, the authors warn, the
result would be an environmental disaster.
Poor countries and primitive societies cannot afford environmental
protection, as evidenced by Third World nations. “In addition, the
implementation of the sustainability idea implies a massive bureaucracy that
would be intelligent, wise, efficient, and omnipotent -- clearly, the ultimate
oxymoron.”
Better
World? Or Bigger Government?
Is the goal of ‘sustainable development’ really to
create a better world -- one which will sustain generation after generation? Or
is the goal to create a bigger government -- a ‘massive bureaucracy’ which
will control current land uses and human actions?
Limiting development to that which special interests
deem ‘sustainable’ will cause drastic reductions in standards of living and
in the creation of wealth, which in turn leads to environmental degradation. By
continuing to use technology and by letting the market spur
development, the world will benefit both now and in the future.
Throughout the ages, man has found method after method
to improve his life and his environment. As we progress, we will continue to
find alternatives and improvements, as will our children and their children. As
Lord Thomas Macaulay succinctly stated in 1830, “On what principle is it that,
when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but
deterioration before us?"
(Sources:
Conservative Environmentalism, by James R. Dunn and John E. Kinney
[Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1996], quotes used with permission of James R.
Dunn; “Prophets of Doom: Allies
of Big Government”, by Professor Dwight Lee, printed in Abundant Wildlife,
January/February 1997)
And as Secretary Glickman and Deputy Secretary Rominger
have made clear, all of us at the Department of Agriculture are committed to
integrating the concepts of sustainable development throughout all our policies
and programs...
(USFS Chief Mike Dombeck)
|
