|
|
This site maintained by: Aomar Boum. Site last updated on October, 2001. |
Journal
of Political Ecology:
Case Studies in History and Society |
|
|
VOLUME 6 (1999)
The Ultimate
Resource - 2 (revised edition). By Julian L. Simon. 1996. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press. 734pp.
Reviewed by Peter Harries-Jones, Department of Anthropology, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This re-issued and revised volume of a book originally
published in 1981 is bound to touch a hot spot of any interested environmentalist. Simon's
major expertise lies in the field of population economics and one of the
main motivations for his original volume was a profound academic disagreement
with the conclusions of Paul and Anne Ehrlich, together with the United
Nations and their supporters, over interpretation of population and resource
issues. In the earlier edition Simon predicted correctly, entirely against
UN evidence at that time, a slowing rate of population growth in the world,
especially Third World. A major theme of this revised edition is
to rephrase and reverse Malthus' equation between subsistence and population. Simon's
Law is as follows: whether or not population grows exponentially, subsistence
grows at an even faster exponential rate, largely but not entirely because
of population growth. And capacity to improve other aspects of the
standard of living, beyond subsistence, grows at a still faster exponential
rate, due largely to the growth of human knowledge (1996: 106). What may have begun as legitimate dispute about the
effects of growth trends in human population evidently turned Simon against
"anti-population growth environmentalists" in toto, along with
anyone who predicts dire consequences from rapid depletion of natural
resources. A conceptual quantity, such as "natural resources"
is not finite or infinite in itself, he says, but rather finite or infinite
according to definitions of "resource." In relation to most
definitions of "resource," the problems of global population
growth have been wildly exaggerated. According to Simon, humanity
has demonstrated an inherited capacity through human rules and
customs to deal successfully with resource problems through history. Adding
people may exacerbate the problems in the short run, but high fertility
leads in the long run to increased survival of the group, through demand
for goods and supply of ingenious minds (1996: 75). For example, the amount of arable land is increasing
year by year in the world and even if some of this arable land is of poor
quality, taken as a whole, we should not worry about diminishing returns
in the long run ( 1996: 128). As for desertification, this is the
result of faulty economic arrangements rather than of population growth. While
biologists and environmentalists focus on the physical aspects of desertification
and how it is likely to be exacerbated by global warming, Simon believes
the social aspects are predominant. Satellite evidence of desertification
in the western United Sates has shown that this degradation is taking
place on public lands, where individuals do not have a stake in maintaining
the value of land assets. Where land is privately owned, the satellite
apparently does not report degradation. As for loss of arable land,
the Sahel famine of 1968-1973, in which 300,000 people were alleged to
have died was "largely a public relations stunt." Moreover,
human beings have not even begun to investigate the potential of hydroponic
farming. Simon has received notable media attention mainly
because he launches wholesale attack against all environmentalist interpretation
and because his own style reduces subtle interpretation to the media ploy
of cops and robbers, or in this case, "optimists and doomsayers". For
Simon, environmentalists are "doomsters," who draw their conclusions
from vague signs of environmental disruption, even though there is no
indication of incipient collapse. To give Simon his due, if he were still
basing his arguments upon the dark public mood in the 1970's, when the
activities of the oil cartel and subsequent inflation in industrial countries
resulted in extravagant scenarios of paucity of natural resources, mapped
against rapid population growth, as in the Club of Rome Report, they would
have historical merit. Yet the grounds of the whole environmental
argument has shifted over time from resource inventories to questions
about total effects of resource use. In addition, the "vague signs"
have become replaced by hard evidence, but Simon seems unaware of this. Take
the case of stratospheric ozone depletion. Simon argues that the ozone
issue is a transient concern. To quote him: "evidence on the
geography or the time pattern of skin cancers over the years does not
square with the thickness of the ozone layer." Scares come and
go, Simon says, but as with global warming and acid rain that there will
be series of favorable technological responses to ozone depletion, both
medical and non-medical, that will ensure effect on human health will
be negligible. Meanwhile environmentalists are responsible for creating
unsubstantiated fears of CFCs which "has led to added regulation
of private behavior and new police powers [with regard to refrigeration
systems]" (1996:270-272). He even asserts that "increased
ultra-violet radiation stemming from decreased ozone may have beneficial
effects in reducing rickets disease." Compare this to James Lovelock, of Gaia fame, who
regarded his own findings from his experimentation in the Antarctic to
detect chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere as constituting only
"a remote and hypothetical threat" to the earth's ozone layer
in 1972. In fact, Lovelock joined a group of scientists who opposed
legislation to stop emissions of CFC's, since he believed at that time
that there was no scientific merit in the case. But Lovelock shifted his
position: by 1990 the increase of CFCs and industrial halocarbons had
increased by 500 percent and there is clear evidence on a global scale
that UV-B intensities at the Earth's surface are increasing. Lovelock
is now positive that without chlorine from industrial gases there would
be no thinning of the ozone layer at the South Pole. Though skeptical
about the direct relationship of ozone depletion to skin cancers, and
to natural ecosystems in general, he recognizes the 'knock on' effect
of CFCs in the atmosphere, and has joined forces with those urging regulation
of emissions, because ozone depletion increases the greenhouse effect
(J. Lovelock, 1990:164-170). In fact, certain causality links UV-B sunburn
and to the development of non-melanoma skin cancer, but the evidence of
this link between UV-B and melanoma, the most lethal form of skin cancer, is
confined to laboratory findings with mice. Other suspected risks
are from increased UV-B are cataracts in the eyes and the depression of
the human immune system (Environment Canada reporting on the 10th anniversary
of the signing of the Montreal Protocol to control production of ozone
depleting substances). Simon ignores "knock on" effects, or positive
feedback throughout natural ecosystems. The admission is crucial, for
here environmental argument is in basic disagreement with the conventional
approach of extrapolation from historical data or trends. Simon believes
in a passive environment on which humanity is able to act without long
run penalties because, in the long term, humanity is able to employ an
infinite series of technological fixes, one at a time, to correct adverse
circumstances deriving from natural resource exploitation. He believes
the historical record supports this claim: the more resources we use,
the better off we become and there is no practical limit to improving
our lot forever (1996:73). Some environmentalists have labeled him
a "cornucopian" for holding the views but he replies that he
does not suggest that nature is limitlessly bountiful. He is simply
arguing that the possibilities of the world are sufficiently great so
that with the present state of knowledge, even discounting future knowledge,
"we and our descendants" can manipulate the elements in order
to have all the raw materials we desire at prices ever smaller relative
to other goods and to our total incomes. One must wonder who "we" is in this quotation. Environmentalists
always point the finger at North Americans, but Simon dismisses their
finger-pointing. While the United States may consume 40 percent of
world resources with only 5 percent of the world's population, environmentalists
do not take into account the creation of resources by the same U.S. population,
he says. The more we use in resources, the better off we become. Our
growing ability to create new resources more than makes up for temporary
setbacks due to local resource exhaustion, pollution, population growth
and so forth. There's no practical limit to improving our human lot forever.
The Ultimate Resource-2
covers a great deal of ground in the 734 pages validating its case. Simon's
style of authorship is to repeat something often enough so that the repetition
seems to gain a ring of truth. As a result, Chapter 18, a chapter
that might have been 'colorful' and controversial in the earlier edition
of this book, is full of inaccurate assertions. Here he takes a look
at the "calendar" of what he terms "bad environmental and
resource scares" and dismisses them one by one. Under "definitely
disproven threats" are such are one-liners such as: "nuclear
winter - as a threat to humanity as a whole this was soon found to be
shoddy science" (no evidence for this statement cited and for evidence
contra see P. Harries-Jones, 1985). Another one-liner: "the assertion
that bovine somatotropin, a growth-producing element, will make cows more
liable to infection has been proven false" (no evidence cited and
I note in today's newspaper that the Canadian Government will not allow
the use of BST in Canada on these precise grounds). The evidence Simon
presents for acid rain, global warming and the ozone layer as being no
more that "environmental scares" is not well researched and
this edition would have been more credible if the whole of this chapter
had been edited out. Simon can get away with academic bombast because he
has a political agenda behind his assertions. His three main assumptions
against the environmentalists are first, that market price is an appropriate
signal for environmental resources since market pricing covers as many
"externalities" as can reasonably be surmised; second, that
the source of human civilization lies in technical fixes, and third, environmental
activists are subverting appropriate pricing and/or technical fixes. His
political agenda is that of securing private ownership of natural resources,
along with "economic freedom" in agricultural and resource markets
- meaning absence of any marketing boards or government control of price
of food. Simon's political agenda approximates that of the World
Bank during the 1980s and 1990s - until its seeming change of heart following
the financial meltdown of the so-called Asian miracle. There are deeper methodological lessons to be learned
from this book, which reveal how facile is the presentation of "optimists
versus doomsayers." Since environmentalists believe that environment
is not simply a passive register of human actions carried out upon it,
mutual co-adjustments between human activity and its surround must be
accounted for, otherwise "knock on," or feed-forward effects
will change the condition of ecological oscillations, but will go unobserved. While
the paths of this co-adjustment are exceedingly difficult to discern because
they display multiple patterns at different times and places, they cannot
be ignored. Moreover, observed feed-forward must necessarily constrain
human activity in its interactive relationship with its own environment.
The reference to methodology ushers in Simon's famous
bet. In the first edition of the book he offered to stake $10,000 that
mineral resources or food or other commodities, that are not government
controlled, would not rise in price in future years - adjusted for inflation. He
originally formalized the bet with Paul Ehrlich and others on the prices
of a basket of commodities that Ehrlich and his cohort chose. Simon
won at settling time in 1990. In this edition he enlarges his bet. The
long-run material prospects are so favorable for our species that his
"new expanded offer" bets "that just about any environmental
and economic trend pertaining to basic human material welfare ...will
show improvement in the long run" including rate of species extinction,
whether the Earth's forested area is increasing or decreasing, possible
ill effects of any ozone layer depletion and greenhouse warming and infant
mortality" (1996: 36). In addition, he bets "a week's or
a month's pay that just about any trend pertaining to human welfare will
improve rather than get worse, with his winnings going to charity"
(1996:586). Are the executors of his estate prepared? I will
take the case of the fishing industry. According to Simon, fish crops
are not fundamentally different from field crops. By 1988 the global fish
catch had reached 98 million metric tons a year and was still rising rapidly. There
was "no limit to harvest of wild varieties of seafood in sight,"
and fish farms had begun to produce at or near competitive prices (tilapia,
catfish, salmon) to wild varieties of fish (1996: 104). True, in
1988. In July 1992 the Canadian government declared a moratorium on fishing
northern cod stock, a vast ecological resource which played a major part
in the settling of European peoples in North America. And the government
put a severe reduction in the catch of other major groundfish species,
all in all an industry worth $3 - 6 billion annually to Newfoundland and
Labrador. The moratorium was declared because the northern cod,
the major source for the cod fishing industry, had been fished to near
extinction. The moratorium persists this year, and the population of the
province of Newfoundland anticipates only limited return to fishing when
and if the moratorium is lifted. For many communities the loss of
fishing and plant work income from processing northern cod has been devastating,
with large decreases in community income, and downturn in business and
as much as 30 per cent out migration in the last two to three years. Houses
normally selling for $80,000 now sell for far less, some fetching as little
as $2-3,000 [all figures from The East Coast Report, March 1998, House
of Commons, Ottawa]. This near extinction of northern cod was brought
about by the rush to subsidize privately owned fishing fleets off the
Grand Banks in order to secure a market driven demand for fish, in which
the government-supported Canadian fishing companies competed against other
subsidized international fishing fleets such as those of Japan and Spain.
The rush to privatize a public resource, the very program that Simon urges,
increased the rate of rapid ecological collapse. The fate of the
northern cod fish is one example of a global trend for fish as global
fish production has been dropping since 1989 and of the 15 major oceanic
fisheries, 9 -11 are already in decline. Fish farming has not offset the
decline in the much larger wild marine catch (L. Brown, 1994:10-11). Simon might reply that his bet concerned the price
of fish, all fish not simply codfish, and in any event the cod moratorium
is a typical example of inappropriate government action that cannot be
considered as a case which proves him wrong. Simon would no doubt
object, as he objects in this book, that Lester Brown is always unreliable.
Not this time. Not every forecast of "the doomsayers"
is turning out "flat wrong." In the longer run, it would
appear that the use of natural resources is limited as in the short run,
but for very different reasons. The longer-run differences lie first
in the multiple temporal levels that lead to accumulation and dissipation
in an ecological setting, which a simple pricing system cannot estimate. Thus,
emergent circumstances of interaction between humanity and environment
can arise, for example, when a dramatic increase in market forces among
an enlarged human population impinges upon stable biotic stocks. Then
causalities in the emergent circumstances become different and, as suggested
above, historical trends of prior market price soon become false signals
for resource use (P. Harries-Jones, A Rotstein and P. Timmerman, 1999).
Second, a crucial characteristic of global market
forces, one Simon ignores, is that market forces generate damaging collective
effects that are not either desired nor chosen by any individual firm
or household. In fact, environmental analysis introduces a new sense of
the human collective, which, different in origin from class analysis,
brings with it a similar approach to issues of social justice. Under
present circumstances risk from global pollution cannot be avoided by
anyone, yet the treadmill of global production in a neo-liberal global
economy is allowed to continue to produce more and more pollution. Jacobs
calls this "the invisible elbow," that is, market forces
affect the welfare of the victim in many spheres, even where the victim
is geographically distant or is yet unborn (M. Jacobs 1993:127 and 16ff). The
impact of environmental crisis is not felt in the same way by every victim
and because, in general, poor people live in the worst environments, so
poor people die earlier. On this ground alone, Simon's whole analysis,
which rests on demonstrating trends through raw figures, is suspect. References Cited: Brown, Lester.
Harries-Jones, Peter. January 31, 1985. The Nuclear Winter Hypothesis: a
broadened definition. In Nuclear Winter and Associated Effects: A Canadian
appraisal of the environmental impact of nuclear war. Ottawa:
The Royal Society of Canada. pp. 374-382. Harries-Jones, Peter, Rotstein, Abraham and Peter Timmerman.
Jacobs, Michael E.
Lovelock, James.
Julian L. Simon.
|