Thank you for addressing the issue of "sustainable development" (OGJ, July 7, 2003, p. 17) which has become the latest buzzword in environmental circles. As you correctly noted, environmentalists have generally interpreted this term to mean development that uses up nothing and disturbs as little as possible. Unfortunately, those who loudly proclaim this gospel conveniently exclude population growth but apply it to everything else. Let me cite two examples.
As I have shown in two recent papers, since US per capita energy consumption in the year 2000 was virtually the same as in 1974, the 25-quad increase in energy consumption during this period was due almost entirely to the 68.6 million people added to the US population, not to SUVs, pick-up trucks, or other common scapegoats for increasing US energy consumption. Substantial constraints on energy consumption in the face of increasing population will only lead to reduced per capita GDP growth.
Yes, I know the true apostles of environmentalism would have us believe we are going to get almost unlimited supplies of energy from some generic "renewable" sources. That is not going to happen. In the first place, although the environmentalists don't like to admit it, all of the renewables have environmental costs associated with them. Secondly, the two most widely touted renewable energy sources, solar and wind, produce only electrical energy, and the production is not always reliable and does not necessarily match the demand curve. Conversion of this electrical energy to liquid fuels involves large efficiency and economic costs.
Another area, which (unfortunately) has drawn the interest of the "sustainable development" crowd is agriculture. Although most people undoubtedly marvel at the fact that a mere 1.9 million farm operators in the US are able to produce abundant high-quality, low-cost crops and free the other 280 million Americans to do things other than grow their own food, this crowd argues that modern agriculture is not sustainable because it uses fossil inputs for fuel, fertilizer, and pesticides. If all such fossil inputs were removed, then we basically revert to hand labor and slash-and-burn agriculture. This system, incidentally, is not sustainable either. Commercial fertilizers, including potash and phosphates, but especially nitrogen, have been enormously beneficial in reducing soil erosion. Soil erosion is a symptom, not the primary cause of soil destruction. One of the principal causes is nutrient impoverishment and inadequate plant populations. The problem is unsustainable population growth, not modern agriculture.
Donald F. Anthrop
Professor
Department of Environmental Studies
San Jose, State University
San Jose, Calif.
