Philosophy of Sustainability

1. Philosophy of Sustainability Scott Matthews 12-712 / 19-622 Lecture 3

2. Administrative Issues • HW 1 Due Today • Few came to office hours – keep same times • HW 2 Given Out, Due Next Wednesday

3. Rise of “Sustainable Development” as a Thought • Last reading – plenty of history on early efforts and recognition of managing resources (and the consequences of failing to do so) • Efforts achieving / failing “triumph over nature” • BY and large, technological progress over time has come at the expense of nature

4. Anti – Tech / Pro-Environment • Europe mostly civilized (i.e. developed) by 1800s. US mostly unspoiled land • Arguments of Manifest Destiny • Goal to develop/inhabit the west like Europe had done • Thoreau / Emerson promoted the virtues of an unspoiled wilderness as escape from civilization, technology, etc.

5. 20th century • Massive technological progress – car, electricity, war efforts/production • New recognitions of natural limits • Florman: technology did not cause problems. Seeking comforts is human nature (free will). Blame humans not the technology

6. Brief commentary on utility • Utility = economic measure of well being • E.g., “I get more utility by consuming more” or “I get twice as much happiness drinking 2 beers as I do drinking one”

7. Define: Carrying capacity • Supportable population given demand for food or resources and the supply of those resources, without degrading future generations

8. Tragedy of the Commons • Hardin, 1968 (partly a retelling of an example by old British economist lloyd from 1800s). • Argument against “invisible hand” of Smith • Picture a pasture open to all. • Each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. • May work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land.

9. Each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Asks "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?”. Two components • Positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is ~ + 1. • Negative is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision­making herdsman is only a fraction of - 1.

10. The Tragedy • Taken as a big series of indivudal “one more animal?” decisions there is no noticeable effect • But the sum of the negatives from all of the additional animals is enormous • And eventually the sum of the small parts leads to the ruin of the commons • The commons is nature. By taking action without regard to impact, we ruin the commons

11. Link to Population • Little tragedy of commons when population density (or population) is low • Brings us to IPAT – simple equation • Environmental Impact = Population × Affluence × Technology

12. IPAT – originally about T • Orginally pushed that I was mostly a function of T • Observation that impacts of new technology increase over time more than the rate of benefit that come with them • Over 20 years, consumption of beer only up slightly but nonreturnable bottles up 600% • Bottles as technology? Need to replace bottles

13. Ehrlich et al: Independent P,A,T • Hard to dissociate population in variables • Effect of population underestimated • Leaded gasoline: Pop up 41%, VMT doubled (affluence), emissions up 83% • IPAT = 5.16, 416% increase (compared to 1.0) • Without population, only 3.66 (266% inc) • Popultion effect a clear multiplier

14. IPAT-like equations for climate change • Energy use =Pop * (GDP/person)*Energy/GDP • Same for carbon emissions (carbon/GDP) • IE master equation: • Env Impact = Pop * GDP/Person * Env Impact/per-capita GDP • is only definable for each impact separately (without weighting methods)

15. More from Chertow paper • Sample problems?

16. Julian Simon • Ingenuity is the ultimate resource • Somehow we have survived despite challenges • Distinction between definitions of reources • Economic – do not exist until discovered, can be created (almost infinite supply of these) • Physical • Scarcity causes us to find alternatives to physical • We depend more on economics resources

17. Simon • Natural limits and carrying capacity do nott exist (we’ve always found solutions to shortages). Claims of running out always false • For a resource: time to depletion • Quantity available in reserves / rate of use • Market will solve any problems, sustainability not an issue

18. Simon-Ehrlich Wager (1980) • Ehrlich was author of population book. • Central premise was that population growth was outstripping our ability to provide food – catastrophe (Simon disagrees) • As evidence, they made a wager (food data too easily manipulated) that resource prices would decrease.

19. Wager continued • Simon: resource prices will not rise in long run • Simon told Ehrlich he could pick any commodity he wanted, select any date in the future (1+ year) • Ehrlich chose 5 metals: copper, chromoum, nickel, tin, tungsten (Ehrlich up, Simon down). On paper bought $200 of each • Payoff date 9/29/90. Inflation adjusted prices • Winner paid loser net gain or loss

20. Results of Wager • Over that 10 years: • Population increased by 800 million (largest one decade increase in history) • 3/5 decreased in absolute terms, all 5 with inflation (some 50% less) • Ehrlich mailed a check for $576 to Simon

21. Bjorn Lomborg – Skeptical ENvironmentalist • Environmental dangers overstated • Shows stats that refute popularly stated beliefs and conclusions about environment • Summary: • Big picture is global improvement in humanity • Pollution/environmental problems have peaked • No sign of reaching carrying capacity soon, that we have exhausted our resources, or that we have irreparably harmed nature

22. His evidence • Crop yields, food prouction per capita increased (50-100 yrs), so has life expectancy and personal income • He says (fairly) that environmentalists inject their bias into their work by using poor or misleading data, then similarly make bad visuals

23. Recent: Al Gore hockey stick chart • Graph that shows arctic warming and relates it to ice melting • But in previous warming periouds, inconsistent melting showed up in data