The
new article on the environmental paradox of biking, which says that the net environmental benefits are zero because bikers live longer and therefore consume more resources, is an example of the absolute worst scholarship. The real environmental insult is that trees are being used and coal burned to print such nonsense.
Humans are part of the environment -- not separate from it -- so anything that benefits human welfare is by definition an environmental improvement!
For too long, environmentalists have created a dichotomy between humans and the environment, and hopefully, with this paper and its absurd conclusions, we can all finally lay it to rest. If not, then stop reducing stress or exercising or eating well because you might actually live longer. In fact, the best thing for the environment, according to this perverse school of thought, is for everyone to kill themselves!
Jason Scorse, PhD
Assistant Professor and IEP Program Coordinator
International Environmental Policy Program
Graduate School of International Policy Studies
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Institute Webpage: http://policy.miis.edu/faculty/faculty.html?id=171
Comments
View as Flat
Penfold007 Posted 2:51 am
19 Jul 2006
Dude, chill...
I think it is pretty clear that the purpose of this paper was spark a dialogue about how we evaluate environmental impacts and how to factor population into the debate. Don't take it to literally. I quote the concluding paragraph of Prof. Ulrich's study:
"The bicycle is a remarkable machine, allowing humans to transport themselves much more efficiently than by most other means. At the same time, physical activity, fitness, and health are almost axiomatically worthy objectives. And yet, the steady improvements in human health and longevity have a tremendous impact on the energy use and environmental impact of the human population. Indeed the greatest environmental peril society may face is the looming prospect of slowing the aging process. In this article, I use the focused example of human-powered transportation, longevity, and environmental impact to illuminate this basic conflict. My hope is to open a dialogue about the interplay among population, individual energy consumption, and environmental impact."
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:10 am
19 Jul 2006
No, it's not a conflict, that's the point....
increasing human longevity and health is a great thing and will only lead to more time devoted to environmental causes, lower population growth rates, and other great things. The trade-offs this paper illustrates are illusory and silly.
J.S.
Permalink
headsetoptions Posted 4:13 am
19 Jul 2006
What about economists?
That's like saying inflation is good for the environment because we will all be broke and can't afford to drive or perish because we can't afford medicines!
check this blog
hso @ headsetoptions.org
Permalink
Stentor Posted 10:12 am
19 Jul 2006
pros and cons
What's your point? Sure, something that improves human welfare counts on the "pro" side of the equation. But those gains may come at the expense of greater costs to other parts of the environment (as well as to other humans in other places or times). Just saying "it benefits humans" isn't enough, because the whole point of environmentalism is to look at the whole environment, both humans and non-humans.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:03 pm
19 Jul 2006
exactly and...
decreasing energy consumption while at the same time lengthing human life is umabiguously good- not a wash as the authors state- who DO NOT count the benefits to human longevity as a positive environmental gain.
J.S.
Permalink
jwebb Posted 5:14 am
20 Jul 2006
....and what??
I always thought it was increasing quality of life, not the length. It's pretty hard to say that having the same birth rate and lowering the death rate will not impact the environment. We are consumers, whether we can mitigate our impacts to a greater extent through those technologies or not is the question. And we don't exactly have the tract record to prove this. And the enviros don't necessarily live longer than others, as Willie said "there are more old drunks than there are old doctors". That whole sustainability curve aint the hockey stick, but the point is pretty clear: more people, more needs, more problems.
Permalink
Leprof Posted 1:36 pm
20 Jul 2006
Humans are bad for the environment
Humans are part of the environment, but so is kudzu, Microstygia, European Starling (S. vulgaris), carp, etc here in the South. Heck, plastic bags, as a "natural waste product" of a natural part of the environment (i.e. us), are part of the environment themselves. An "abiotic factor," to dig up the bio textbook.
The point is, that aspects of the environment can be bad, and we would be better off if we got rid of them. Microstygia, naturalized here from Japan, is a huge problem because Microstygia HAS been so successful at becoming part of our environment.
Make no mistake, humans are bad for the environment. When was the last time that you heard of a brewing environmental catastrophe that is not caused by humans?
Would I advocate for the voluntary extinction of the human race? Probably not. But I think it clear that the environment would benefit were we, as a species, to get our affairs in order and ride our bikes off of cliffs.
Think about it in terms of biodiversity. The perpetuation of the human race is likely to come at the necessary trade off of several thousand or million other species. And if we accept, from an ecological standpoint, that humans are merely another part of the environment, then one hardly needs to puzzle over which option is better for the environment (on the one hand we have humans, on the other, the overall wellbeing of the entire biosphere...)
I understand the argument that it may be beneficial to selectively perpetuate those humans who seek to do environmental good (i.e. those who might bike to avoid greenhouse and particulate emmissions). However, like it or not, such people still generally do net harm to the environment. Anyone has an ecological footprint; as members of an affluent society, you and I have especially large ones. I hold that a rare few (and here I'm thinking about environmentalists of the caliber of Chico Mendes and the like) who actually do net good in the world, offsetting their own footprint by positively impacting the footprints of many others.
I don't know any of you, and I don't want to make blanket statements that may or may not be true about those participating in this discussion, but I am sure that a vast majority of environmentalists, while they try to positively impact the environmental lives of others, get no where near far enough to offset their own consumption of resources.
Every time you or I eat, whether its organic or local or whatever, we contribute to the demand for (and shortage of) arable land, and thus desertification, forest destruction, and so forth.
Like it or not (I sure don't) the environment is worse off for greater population, and the most hardcore of environmentaists would probably run around committing violent acts of terror (which I would not even CONSIDER FOR A MOMENT to have ANY merit).
Yup, so inflation and drug shortages may be good for the environment.
One important distinction, however, is that in the developping world, environmental good is very tied to educational successes, which in turn are somewhat tied to standard of human life. So, to a point, environmental success does depend on the standard of living. We have far exceeded this threshold in the western world.
Permalink
Leprof Posted 1:44 pm
20 Jul 2006
one more thing
I also would not posit that the environmental do-gooder should stop riding his or her bike. I think that the positive example set by this action is probably more than enough to offset any ambiguity caused by the slightly increased life expectancy of that person. I think that in general, healthy environmental actions are helpful, and they offset problems associated with life expectancy. My main quarrel is with the idea that actions that benefit humans necessarily benefit the environment on the grounds that humans are a part of the environment. Plus, biking around town (and any other form of outdoor recreation) is a great way to get more in touch with and involved in our environment.
Permalink
Leprof Posted 2:45 pm
20 Jul 2006
apology
I apologize, upon having re-read my first post, to any who may be offended by the terrorism reference. The comment was in poor taste, was written in poor judgement, and poorly articulated the point that I wished to make (that decreased population is a great thing for the environment). I hope that readers will be able to ignore this comment, and I deeply and sincerely apologize to those who cannot. I invite anyone who might have editing capabilities to strike that comment from the post. Thank you and my apologies.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:20 pm
20 Jul 2006
biodiversity the criterion?
Merci bien, Monsieur le Prof, for these very interesting comments.
Gristmill has indeed discussed the very painful subjects of eco-terrorism -- eccentric, anomalous, unfortunately a favorite subject of the news media -- , and the charge made by some not in sympathy with environmentalism that an important part of the environmentalist "agenda" is the destruction of the human race.
I am glad you saw through the weakness of Jason's syllogism:
- A certain set of circumstances, "C," is beneficial to human beings.
- Human beings are part of the environment.
- Therefore, C is beneficial to the environment.
In fact, "environment" here needs definition, and "being part of" it needs analysis.You are quite right, Le Prof, to point out that life on earth can be described as a constant warfare. There are winners and losers; some winners win, because of their own virtues; some winners win, because they have been given unfair advantages. Your list of invasive plants and animals makes the point very well.
And more subtly, one might add such an example as this: the red fox, one of the most successful carnivores on the planet, is expanding its range northward, thanks to global warming, and in North America helping to drive the more delicate Arctic fox to extinction. The examples of the adverse effects of global warming on biodiversity are accumulating.
In a recent NYTimes Book Review, on two accounts of the Hurricane Katrina story, I read one fascinating little detail which I had not seen before: The people at the New Orleans aquarium successfully shipped out their penguins to California, which got a lot of press; what did not get any press, I think, or any that I saw, was that they destroyed all their piranhas, for fear that they might escape. Wouldn't that be fun, if the Mississippi system suddenly found itself with a healthy resident population of piranhas!
You write:
<<
Would I advocate for the voluntary extinction of the human race? Probably not. But I think it clear that the environment would benefit were we, as a species, to get our affairs in order and ride our bikes off of cliffs.
>>
I think we agree, that "benefit to the environment" in the first place means the preservation of a rich and complex biodiversity. And in that regard, human activity, responsible for global warming and for the spreading of invasive species, has done nothing to benefit the environment.
I would just add, though, that our treating a rich and complex biodiversity as a thing of great value is a humanist concept. And a noble one too: something that we consider desirable, whether or not there are human beings present to enjoy it. Would a carp, or starling, or red fox, think the same kind of thought?
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:48 pm
20 Jul 2006
Environmentalists Are Bad for the Environment
Usually when people say "humans are bad for the environment", they mean other humans.
So, let's try it this way.
LeProf is bad for the environment. (He, she says so).
Anyone else?
It must be the heat, the silly season seems to be on!
patrick
Permalink
ivory Posted 9:29 am
21 Jul 2006
environmentalism woes
And that's why some have a problem with environmentalism. b/c it seems anti-human at the cost of glorifying nature (and one only needs to look at Animal Planet or the Discovery Channel to see the ugly side of Mother Nature). Take population growth, for example. I care very much for the environment but by no means will I say that people must become less so that the environment can be sustained. Many of the arguments that I have read on enviro websites logically lead to the absurd conclusion that a person should just commit suicide if they want to have the least amt of impact on the environment. Is there not room in the environmental movement to see humans as resources that can better the world around them? Indeed, bring out the good of nature- like desigining beautiful nature parks, organic farming, etc.
Sorry to sound preachy but this point really annoys me about the green movement as a whole. But it doesn't stop me from caring for the environment!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:43 am
22 Jul 2006
right on ivory...
you said it better than me!
J.S.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:25 am
22 Jul 2006
humans vs. the evironment (tum tum tum)
Umm, actually I think that the environment (at least our concept of it) would not exist without humans. Let me elaborate.
Environment is a very obscure concept, since there really is no good definition of it. Urban environment is quite different from a agricultural environment, which is yet again quite different from the virtual environment of a video game. Environment is our surroundings, which is inevitably going to be highly influenced by humans, anywhere where there are humans. By suggesting that humans are bad for the 'environment' is like saying that humans are bad for that building right there, or the road that leads to it. After all these things are a part of our environment, and dilapidation of these objects is bad for our environment. Undoubtedly, we all would agree that Detroit or any other city in the 'Rust Belt' has a much worse environment than that of a well-off town with good landscaping and control on dev't.
Now if we want to start talking about other species' habitat and their environments, then we are talking about negative impacts. However, while I do understand that all things have their own inherent worth, I also believe that the majority of environmentalists are that because of their will to help our 'environment', which we are an inherent part of. We want to create or sustain an environment that we like. After all, that is exactly what the European settlers did when they clear-cut the forests to create an environment that they preferred for millenia: an agricultural landscape. And that is exactly what nowaday mostly urban population wants to do when they want preservation of forests (for their recreation, essentially).
Invasive spp. and poisonous plants like poison ivy are a good example of things in our environment that we do not desire, and would like to get rid of. However, these organisms are a part of the environment nonetheless, and by getting rid of them are we helping the environment or hurting it? It depends on who is writing the definition.
Permalink
Leprof Posted 10:45 am
22 Jul 2006
Environment to me
Points taken, atreyger and ivory. I have tried here (with mixed results) to respond to both in one shot.
There are some definitions that we environmentalists can agree on. Neither you nor I will rally behind a cry to save a strip-mall environment that's slated to be bulldozed to create an organic co-op.
To me, preserving the environment essentially means three things:
1. Maintaining species diversity
The world is made a more colorful, interesting, sometimes sad or scary, and wonderful place for its creatures.
2. Preserving wilderness
Insert "wilderness" for "creatures above.
3. Preserving the sorts of open space (e.g. farms) that are used effectively by nature. These places are the union of civilization and nature.
With these three goals in mind, some things become apparent. Overpopulation concerning any species is a bad thing. Humans either have recently exceeded or are about to exceed the carrying capacity of the earth. This carrying capacity may significantly decrease as we continue to unnecessarily degrade our resources (land, water, atmospheric). I do not advocate mass suicide or homicide or negligence towards human rights, but I perceive it as blindingly obvious that the environmentalist's goals are well-served by regulating the human population, possibly through education or birth control distribution.
Invasive exotics are a bad thing. The run biodiversity out of the window. One who would argue that wonderful exotics make the quality of life better and should be preserved may have a valid point, but I would not consider him or her to be an environmentalist, and his or her point is one with which I would vehemently disagree. Poison ivy, incidentally, is a good thing. Birds love its fruit, kids learn to avoid it; its itch (from which I am currently suffering) falls in with the "scary or sad" elements of the environment that make life on earth amazing.
I don't wish to glorify nature as a happy la la land of cute fuzzy animals. To tell the truth, cute fuzzy animals kind of bug me. But I am entirely committed in the belief that the natural world is so complex, fine-tuned, intricate, and perfect that it is worth trying to preserve as many pieces of it as possible. It is the most beautiful thing in the world to me, even the ugly parts. Well, maybe it ties with human culture as the most beautiful thing in the world. I would not unequivocally uphold the environment at the expense of human culture, but I would absolutely use every humane means to lessen the sheer numbers of humans. Indeed, many human cultures are facing extinction under the pressure of population. The Sahel peoples are finding themselves desertified, India's masses have less and less space to thrive in, the old American farming ways of life are on their way out...
I agree, atreyger, that it depends on who's writing the definition, but for my purposes, I write the definition, and my kind of environmentalist sees humans, at least in the excessive numbers and consumerist lifestyles that they have reached, as essentially detrimental. I am not a hypocrite, because I don't advocate that any human sacrifice themselves for environmental benefit. Still, I would have to look at such people with grim admiration, because they may be accomplishing more than I am willing to.
As an environmentalist, I try to do less damage than most to the environment as I define it for myself. I do not succeed in this endeavor, but I do succeed in doing less damage than most other Americans. I hope that through activism and effort I might be able to make large enough differences in the world to erase my own contributions to environmental destruction, but I recognize that the chances may be slim.
Let me end by making three things clear, if I haven't already.
- In my opinion, "the good in nature" does not need to be "brought out" by humans. It exists as something that we could not hope to better through interference (except in the cases of us already having screwed it up and trying to restore it).
- I glorify the natural world at the expense of human numbers, but not at the expense of human life. I do not wish to reduce human numbers through malice or negligence.
- I glorify the environment for its astounding beauty and complexity in every way. Species interactions, individual interactions, the functioning of organisms, the sheer diversity of life, make the environment worth saving. I do not consider the natural environment to have "bad parts" like poison ivy or "ugly parts" like that could be witnessed on the Discovery Channel. I've seen cute fuzzy things get maimed, before. It's ugly when a car does the maiming, but beautiful when a hawk dives and catches prey.
I hope I articulated myself well. I hope you understand my position. I hope you will needle me about it if I was unclear or illogical. I hope that you are as steadfast in your position as I am in mine and that I have not changed your mind about anything. I affirm that I understand your position and need no more explaination of it. I recognize that our ideas have a great deal of common ground from which we can work together towards the mutual preservation of your "environment" and my "environment."Thank you.
De rien.
LeProf
Permalink
MAM Posted 11:45 am
22 Jul 2006
Driving to the gym
So often these debates waste everybody's energy, when most of us here are really on the same page in our goals and beliefs about how people ought to live. The original argument about "the paradox of biking" was bogus from the start.
Where's the evidence that enviros who start biking instead of driving will live longer anyway? I have many slender, healthy friends, who consider themselves pro-environment, who drive miles to the gym every week. If they rode bikes for all their transportation instead it wouldn't change their life expectancy because they're already fit.
These analyses of relative impacts of various human activities are rarely carefully researched or well thought out. They're junk science. Common sense makes a better guide.
Rosemary
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:56 pm
22 Jul 2006
Hehey
"the net environmental benefits are zero because bikers live longer and therefore consume more resources"
Smoking is the best way to benefit society in so many ways.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em. Save social security by dying young, and save the planet at the same time.
I actually enjoy the smell of tobbacco smoke now. And those ciggy buts all over the ground? No problem. They are like cute little death flowers.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
atreyger Posted 3:57 am
23 Jul 2006
LeProf
Effing beautiful...
That's the way I feel.
We are the most invasive species, and as much as I say that I am an environmentalist for the humans, it's all about the complexity 'out there' that I see every day. It really is about the biodiversity: it's too much fun when you see something that people don't even know exists. I don't mean to make it so selfish, but I think I will go try to find some walking ferns today...
Permalink