The Foundation of a New Conservation Movement: Professional Society Positions on Economic Growth

T American Fisheries Society, American Society of Mammalogists, and Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) are contemplating position statements on the conflict between economic growth and conservation of fish, mammals, and biodiversity, respectively. Similar considerations are bubbling up in the Ecological Society of America, Society for Range Management, and International Society for Ecological Economics. Positions have already been taken by The Wildlife Society, SCB’s North America Section, and the US Society for Ecological Economics, complemented by numerous position statements and endorsements from nonprofessional conservation organizations and individuals. The proponents of this movement have overcome some high hurdles, and the finish line beckons.What prize awaits, not only for the proponents but also for the conservation community at large? The prize is a foundation of solidarity upon which to build a new, grounded, more socially relevant conservation movement. This new conservation movement won’t dance to the seductive political tune, cantillated from right and left, that “there is no conflict between economic growth and environmental protection.” This new movement goes beyond the oxymoronic “smart growth” to a smarter approach of development without growth. This movement won’t allow itself to be miscast as a “socialist” agenda. Rather, this movement is about clarifying—for the public, the firm, and the policymaker—the trade-offs society faces between increasing production and consumption of goods and services and protecting the environment. Clarification will lead to political accountability, policy reform, and a more responsible consumer ethic. Like all good things, this new conservation movement won’t come easy. Taking a position can be a daunting task; fears abound, and sometimes the struggle doesn’t seem worth it. The objectives of this article are to uproot unwarranted political fears and provide an overview of how positions on economic growth may be used. This article does not address technical matters. Those have been addressed elsewhere and adequately enough, for example, to empower an organization as cautious as The Wildlife Society to identify a “fundamental conflict between economic growth and wildlife conservation” (Wildlife Society 2003). “Skeptical environmentalists”and others who would yet argue that there is no conflict should address their objections to the burgeoning literature on that conflict.