Dr. Bartlett's Laws of Sustainability

Few words are as carelessly, ignorantly and malevolently misused as "sustainability." Our friend, Dr.Albert Bartlett, Professor Emeritus of the University of Colorado at Boulder, and star of the classic "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" video referenced on this blog many times, has compiled the following laws of real sustainability (ideally, one would view the video prior to perusing these, but here they are anyway). (Copied from The Oil Drum)

LAWS OF SUSTAINABILITY

The Laws that follow are offered to define the term "sustainability." In some cases these statements are accompanied by corollaries that are identified by capital letters. They all apply for populations and rates of consumption of goods and resources of the sizes and scales found in the world in 2005, and may not be applicable for small numbers of people or to groups in primitive tribal situations.

These Laws are believed to hold rigorously.

The list is but a single compilation, and hence may be incomplete. Readers are invited to communicate with the author in regard to items that should or should not be in this list.

First Law: Population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained.

A) A population growth rate less than or equal to zero and declining rates of consumption of resources are a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a sustainable society.

B) Unsustainability will be the certain result of any program of "development," that does not plan the achievement of zero (or a period of negative) growth of populations and of rates of consumption of resources. This is true even if the program is said to be “sustainable.”

C) The research and regulation programs of governmental agencies that are charged with protecting the environment and promoting "sustainability" are, in the long run, irrelevant, unless these programs address vigorously and quantitatively the concept of carrying capacities and unless the programs study in depth the demographic causes and consequences of environmental problems.

D) Societies, or sectors of a society, that depend on population growth or growth in their rates of consumption of resources, are unsustainable.

E) Persons who advocate population growth and / or growth in the rates of consumption of resources are advocating unsustainability.

F) Persons who suggest that sustainability can be achieved without stopping population growth are misleading themselves and others.

G) Persons whose actions directly or indirectly cause increases in population or in the rates of consumption of resources are moving society away from sustainability.

H) The term "Sustainable Growth" is an oxymoron.

I) In terms of population sizes and rates of resource consumption, “The only smart growth is no growth.” (Hammond, 1999)

Second Law: In a society with a growing population and / or growing rates of consumption of resources, the larger the population, and / or the larger the rates of consumption of resources, the more difficult it will be to transform the society to the condition of sustainability.

Third Law: The response time of populations to changes in the human fertility rate is the average length of a human life, or approximately 70 years. (Bartlett and Lytwak 1995) [This is called "population momentum."]

A) A nation can achieve zero population growth if:
a) the fertility rate is maintained at the replacement level for 70 years, and
b) there is no net migration during the 70 years.
During the 70 years the population continues to grow, but at declining rates until the growth finally stops after approximately 70 years.

B) If we want to make changes in the total fertility rates so as to stabilize the population by the mid - to late 21st century, we must make the necessary changes now.

C) The time horizon of political leaders is of the order of two to eight years.

D) It will be difficult to convince political leaders to act now to change course, when the full results of the change may not become apparent in the lifetimes of those leaders.

Fourth Law: The size of population that can be sustained (the carrying capacity) and the sustainable average standard of living of the population are inversely related to one another. (This must be true even though Cohen asserts that the numerical size of the carrying capacity of the Earth cannot be determined, (Cohen 1995))

A) The higher the standard of living one wishes to sustain, the more urgent it is to stop population growth.

B) Reductions in the rates of consumption of resources and reductions in the rates of production of pollution can shift the carrying capacity in the direction of sustaining a larger population.

Fifth Law: One cannot sustain a world in which some regions have high standards of living while others have low standards of living.

Sixth Law: All countries cannot simultaneously be net importers of carrying capacity.

A) World trade involves the exportation and importation of carrying capacity.

Seventh Law: A society that has to import people to do its daily work (“We can’t find locals who will do the work,”) is not sustainable.

Eighth Law: Sustainability requires that the size of the population be less than or equal to the carrying capacity of the ecosystem for the desired standard of living.

A) Sustainability requires an equilibrium between human society and dynamic but stable ecosystems.

B) Destruction of ecosystems tends to reduce the carrying capacity and / or the sustainable standard of living.

C) The rate of destruction of ecosystems increases as the rate of growth of the population increases.

D) Affluent countries, through world trade, destroy the ecosystems of less developed countries.

E) Population growth rates less than or equal to zero are necessary, but are not sufficient, conditions for halting the destruction of the environment. This is true locally and globally.

Ninth Law: ( The lesson of "The Tragedy of the Commons" ) (Hardin 1968): The benefits of population growth and of growth in the rates of consumption of resources accrue to a few; the costs of population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources are borne by all of society.

A) Individuals who benefit from growth will continue to exert strong pressures supporting and encouraging both population growth and growth in rates of consumption of resources.

B) The individuals who promote growth are motivated by the recognition that growth is good for them. In order to gain public support for their goals, they must convince people that population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources, are also good for society. [This is the Charles Wilson argument: if it is good for General Motors, it is good for the United States.] (Yates 1983)

Tenth Law: Growth in the rate of consumption of a non-renewable resource, such as a fossil fuel, causes a dramatic decrease in the life-expectancy of the resource.

A) In a world of growing rates of consumption of resources, it is seriously misleading to state the life-expectancy of a non-renewable resource "at present rates of consumption," i.e., with no growth. More relevant than the life-expectancy of a resource is the expected date of the peak production of the resource, i.e. the peak of the Hubbert curve. (Hubbert 1972)

B) It is intellectually dishonest to advocate growth in the rate of consumption of non-renewable resources while, at the same time, reassuring people about how long the resources will last "at present rates of consumption.” (zero growth)

Eleventh Law: The time of expiration of non-renewable resources can be postponed, possibly for a very long time, by:

i ) technological improvements in the efficiency with which the resources are recovered and used

ii ) using the resources in accord with a program of "Sustained Availability," (Bartlett 1986)

iii ) recycling

iv ) the use of substitute resources.

Twelfth Law: When large efforts are made to improve the efficiency with which resources are used, the resulting savings are easily and completely wiped out by the added resources that are consumed as a consequence of modest increases in population.

A) When the efficiency of resource use is increased, the consequence often is that the "saved" resources are not put aside for the use of future generations, but instead are used immediately to encourage and support larger populations.

B) Humans have an enormous compulsion to find an immediate use for all available resources.

Thirteenth Law: The benefits of large efforts to preserve the environment are easily canceled by the added demands on the environment that result from small increases in human population.

Fourteenth Law: (Second Law of Thermodynamics) When rates of pollution exceed the natural cleansing capacity of the environment, it is easier to pollute than it is to clean up the environment.

Fifteenth Law: (Eric Sevareid's Law); The chief cause of problems is solutions. (Sevareid 1970)

A) This law should be a central part of higher education, especially in engineering.

Sixteenth Law: Humans will always be dependent on agriculture. (This is the first of Malthus’ two postulata.)

A) Supermarkets alone are not sufficient.

B) The central task in sustainable agriculture is to preserve agricultural land. The agricultural land must be protected from losses due to things such as:

i ) Urbanization and development

ii ) Erosion

iii ) Poisoning by chemicals

Seventeenth Law: If, for whatever reason, humans fail to stop population growth and growth in the rates of consumption of resources, Nature will stop these growths.

A) By contemporary western standards, Nature's method of stopping growth is cruel and inhumane.

B) Glimpses of Nature's method of dealing with populations that have exceeded the carrying capacity of their lands can be seen each night on the television news reports from places where large populations are experiencing starvation and misery.

Eighteenth Law: In local situations within the U.S., creating jobs increases the number of people locally who are out of work.

A) Newly created jobs in a community temporarily lowers the unemployment rate (say from 5% to 4%), but then people move into the community to restore the unemployment rate to its earlier higher value (of 5%), but this is 5% of the larger population, so more individuals are out of work than before.

Nineteenth Law: Starving people don't care about sustainability.

A) If sustainability is to be achieved, the necessary leadership and resources must be supplied by people who are not starving.

Twentieth Law: The addition of the word "sustainable" to our vocabulary, to our reports, programs, and papers, to the names of our academic institutes and research programs, and to our community initiatives, is not sufficient to ensure that our society becomes sustainable.

Twenty-First Law: Extinction is forever.
SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

The challenge of making the transition to a sustainable society is enormous, in part because of a major global effort to keep people from recognizing the centrality of population growth to the enormous problems of the U.S. and the world.

• On the global scale, we need to support family planning throughout the world, and we should generally restrict our foreign aid to those countries that make continued demonstrated progress in reducing population growth rates and sizes.

• The immediate task is to restore numeracy to the population programs in the local, national and global agendas.

• On the national scale, we can work for the selection of leaders who will recognize that population growth is the major problem in the U.S. and who will initiate a national dialog on the problem. With a lot of work at the grassroots, our system of representative government will respond.

• On the local and national levels, we must focus serious attention and large fiscal resources on the development of renewable energy sources.

• On the local and national levels, we need to work to improve social justice and equity.

• On the community level in the U.S., we should work to make growth pay for itself.

An Answer To Technocopians

Of all those living in denial, there are few who Chaos finds so completely annoying as the Kurzweil technocopians, those who have an unshakable faith that technology will enable humanity to transcend laws of nature, physics, and arithmetic. The smug ignorance of these beings simply defies rational and logical thought, simply because they are true believers in a different kind of religious cult. To debunk this ridiculous system, here's a nice rebuttal, albeit written a few years back. Funny stuff, and true, as well.

The Fall Of Nauru: A Warning...

This fascinating article concerning the environmental destruction and consequent economic collapse of the tiny island nation offers an instructive lesson on several levels. Briefly, the people of this Pacific island enjoyed a resource-based bounty for a time: phosphate derived from bird guano. The birds were attracted by the rich coral reefs, but changing migratory patterns caused a long anticipated decline in the resource base (it's also quite likely that the resource was mined much faster than replenishment). Islanders had invested in a trust fund intended to provide financial security for leaner times, but corruption and mismanagement depleted the fund prematurely. In addition to leaving the population destitute, the phosphate mining produced vast environmental damage. Sadly, there apparently is still some phosphate to be mined from Nauru's soil, and this time, promises are made that a new trust fund will be properly managed. In the meantime, the island population has shrunk dramatically as those able to leave have departed permanently.

What's equally interesting about this piece is not just the bald facts of resource depletion and devastating environmental damage, but the author's astounding assertion that the fault lies in "failure to invest in economic growth." Here's some key evidence of this flawed logic:

"It's a cautionary lesson in the perils of failing to reinvest in the economy. There is no country in the world, not Nauru and not the United States, that can possibly sustain itself indefinitely on the proceeds of yesterday's economic successes.

There is no substitute for economic growth. Making some really bad investments was clearly one of the Nauruans' big mistakes. But over the long run, neither a big, well-managed trust fund nor a small, badly managed one will survive in the face of a shrinking economy."

Well. Some really amazing editorializing here, mostly just ignoring the undeniable fact that humans cannot exist without natural resources. This is typical of most of the material one reads in the MSM these days...completely clueless and without any context whatsoever. The author describes the overshoot and collapse of a civilization in miniature, without for a moment realizing what is being depicted in this unfortunate scenario or the implications for the rest of the planet. For a more accurate picture, try substituting the words "exploitation of natural resources" for "economic growth." Articles like the one posted should be serving as screaming warnings, but alas, no one pays attention.

Endless, Mindless Population Growth

One inevitable consequence (there are many others, all of them bad) of human overpopulation is species extinction, both from habitat destruction and for human stomachs, in the case of some species deemed edible by the killer apes. Nowhere is this phenomenon more heartbreaking than in the case of the world's fish. A potent reminder appears in today's paper of record. Also included are reasons that farmed fish, by and large, are vastly inferior nutritionally and ridiculously expensive in terms of calories, to produce, but oh well. Humanity clearly will adapt to its own systematic and progressive destruction of the planet and all life, long before it voluntarily limits its growth.

A Funny Symbol of the Gilded Age

Try this hilarious article on how to survive a friend's expensive birthday dinner, when there are multiple guests with wildly differing financial abilities. As an amusing piece of fluff, it is quite successful, but a sobering step back is also possible if one ruminates on the excesses of a society in which events like this take place. If you need concrete contrast, have a look at this account of a couple attempting to live on $1.00 per day, the better to imagine how 1 billion humans on the earth survive.

The State of the Oceans: Bad, And Getting Worse

Thanks to humanity's ever-increasing heavy "footprint" on the planet, the state of the oceans has never been poorer. Having killed off most of the larger fish in the oceans (by overfishing), unsurprisingly researchers are discovering that these predators are responsible for the health of the coral reefs. Comes now a couple of articles (here, and here) confirming what Chaos has recently read in a book (specifically, The World Without Us, highly recommended), to the effect that most of the oceans have suffered greatly from the human population explosion. It requires very little prognostication skill to see that the planet in the future will be terribly degraded, and no, humanity will not "wake up just in time" to mitigate its tremendously negative impact. It's not news (at least here it's not) that humanity has overshot the carrying capacity of the planet, and not by just a little. Just a few thoughts on what actually matters, as opposed to the ridiculous gladiatorial contests sweeping the national and local news media.

Two Views On Population: What We Cannot Say

It is not news to regular readers that Chaos wholeheartedly agrees with Dr. Bartlett's assertion that overpopulation (along with exponential growth) constitutes the root of most of humanity's troubles. Equally clear is the fact that these topics are not permitted to be discussed on any level; don't look for your favorite presidential candidate to add them to a stump speech, or your favorite flavor of political party to adopt them as 'planks' in their 'platforms.' Why not? Well, read Kurt Cobb's explanation of what happens when you do bring up the issue. Along the way, the author provides an excellent overview of the concept of "carrying capacity" and how OECD countries export their resource degradation to the rest of the world. Another view of the issue comes from this op-ed in the nation's paper of record by the eminent anthropologist Jared Diamond. Diamond reflects the current understanding among those concerned about the natural world that one's resource 'footprint' is more important than the numbers of humans inhabiting the planet. An other wise insightful article is marred towards the end by the now almost obligatory references to hopeful examples of growing awareness of the problems (along with an exhortation that diminished resource consumption need not constitute a diminished lifestyle, a ridiculous assertion but one necessary to publish in a mainstream newspaper, because nobody wants to hear anything like they might have to live differently than they do now), which Chaos found to be underwhelming at best, and mendacious at worst. Chaos' own view is that both population control and resource conservation are essential components of an effective strategy of solving the current woes, but not to worry: the Cobb article explains quite clearly that even a discussion of these is not ever going to happen.

Rapidly Accelerating Global Heating Melts Antarctic: World Shrugs

From the "News That Just Keeps Getting Worse and Worse" Department (which, in itself, is quite a large department, encompassing as it does the Iraq "war," global heating, species and habitat destruction, healthcare, and US politics in general), comes this now familiar piece which in essence conveys that glacial melting due to global heating (oh wait, that's just an invention of Al Gore's to bedevil the Fox News crowd in the US, not an actual phenomenon, or maybe it does exist, but it's a natural occurrence, which shouldn't concern us, because 1. it's not our fault, and 2. we can't do anything about it anyway) is proceeding much much faster than our best scientific minds can project it. Just another day in Cheap Energy Wonderland, though, because nothing is happening to stop it. (To be fair, what really needs to happen is not going to happen for quite some time, most surely not until it is way too late; Chaos is speaking, of course, of a massive dieoff, but let's not talk about such depressing stuff, shall we?)

The Annual Population Roundup

Since one of the "topics" here at the Edge is demographics (read: overpopulation), Chaos would be remiss if the annual Population Reference Bureau's 2007 report went unremarked. Since overpopulation is the root of most of humanity's problems, now and most especially in the future, one should become familiar with the mainstream demographers' and their predictions. Chaos is well aware that most readers will not have the time to peruse the entire report, but the executive summary(warning: pdf file) should give most at least a passing familiarity with world population growth.

Overshoot Primer: The Elephant in the Room

For those who have not the time to read the classic "Overshoot" but would like to know what terms like "carrying capacity," "sustainability," "dieoff" and of course, "overshoot" mean, and why overpopulation is really the problem we need to address, but won't (of course, those who have viewed Prof. Bartlett's video will already be familiar with this issue), this post from The Oil Drum (by contributor Guilder Guider) is probably the best short tutorial. If you have time, you might read the many and varied comments at the end, and note how uncomfortable some persons are with these ideas and how they attempt, vainly, to dispute the principles. Very entertaining, and sobering. It is, of course, exactly why any "solutions" will be fruitless.