GreenYes Archives

[GreenYes Home] - [Thread Index] - [Date Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]

[greenyes] FW: [mnkids] Pollution as Entropy_Living Within Limits_Rachels

-----Original Message-----
From: dwallinga@no.address [mailto:dwallinga@no.address]
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 11:31 AM
To: susanh@no.address
Subject: [mnkids] Pollution as Entropy_Living Within Limits_Rachels

MN Kids Enviro Health <mnkids@no.address> -- posted by dwallinga@no.address
Submitter note: I assert that posting of this newsletter is in
accordance with the Copyright Notice at the end of this message, and
"fair use". - David Wallinga, MD

November 25, 2004



It came out of the blue, an attack on the precautionary principle by
the New York Times. The Times ran its anonymous broadside in its
Sunday Week-in-Review section November 21 under the sub-heading, "ECO-

The main point of the Times's attack is that the environmentalist
perspective on the world has now become mainstream and has "corrupted
the study of economics." The Times says this corruption takes two

(1) an obsession with the need for limits, and

(2) the assumption that people need to be cautious about economic
development because it could have harmful unintended consequences,
which has led people to foolishly embrace the precautionary

The Times was quoting from an article by one Daniel Ben-Ami, titled
"The dismal quackery of eco-economics," which appeared in October on a
British web site called "spiked" ( The
full Ben-Ami article is available at

At first blush, Mr. Ben-Ami appears to be an extremely learned
scholar, a master of both philosophy and economics, tossing off names
like Condorcet, Diderot, Goethe, Hume, Kant, Thomas Paine, Voltaire,
Rousseau and Adam Smith. Unfortunately, Mr. Ben-Ami's scholarship
turns out to be just a lot of fancy dancing around a cloud of
flatulence -- in reality, a pop-gun attack on the precautionary
principle by a guy who must have slept through high-school physics.

Mr. Ben-Ami argues at great length that there are no real limits on
economic growth because (a) when we run out of one resource, like
copper, we'll simply substitute another; and (b) the amount of energy
available to us is enormous because of sunlight.

What Mr. Ben-Ami overlooks is the second law of thermodynamics, which
tells us that all transformations of energy and matter -- in other
words, all economic activities -- produce an increase in entropy, more
commonly known as waste, pollution, disorder, externalities, side
effects, or unintended consequences.[3] Therefore, the second law
tells us, the ultimate limit on economic growth is the unintended
consequences that it creates in the form of waste and disorder -- not
the shortage of materials or energy.[4] On a finite planet, there is
only so much waste and disorder that can be tolerated before the place
becomes intolerably degraded -- and that's the kind of limit that is
peeking over the horizon in modern times.

The second law tells us that these unintended effects are inevitable;
they cannot be avoided. We can reduce the harms associated with modern
technologies, but we cannot eliminate them. To avoid turning the
planet into an uninhabitable dump, we must learn to live within

The second law tells us that everything we do leaves behind a mess,
and the more we do, the bigger the mess becomes. Want more coal? Then
someone is going to remove more mountain tops in West Virginia and
dump them into the nearest creek. Want to burn more oil? Then someone
is going to cut roads and move heavy equipment into unspoiled areas
and eventually warm the whole planet, leading to more floods and
hurricanes and malaria and yellow fever. Need more food? Then someone
is going to cut down more forests, leading to more soil erosion, more
nutrients misplaced and more "dead zones" in the oceans. We all sense
intuitively that there is no such thing as a free lunch, and the
second law tells us that we are right, and it tells us why.

In truth, some of my environmentalist friends don't like to
acknowledge it, but even solar energy requires us to rip up the earth
and build more platforms and towers and cables and substations to
capture and transform energy and transmit it to where it's wanted.

Of course we have been remarkably inefficient in the past and with
greater efficiency we could create less damage while getting the same
benefits -- but eventually we hit irreducible limits on efficiency
(limits defined by the second law) and, at that point, the only way to
make less of a mess is to do less.

Eventually economic growth (growth in the amount of "stuff" we move
around) must slow and then stop. On a finite planet, there is no way
around these limits. That's what the second law says, and no one has
ever found a way around it. Even when Newtonian physics gave way to
quantum physics around 1900, the second law maintained its status as a
fundamental law of the universe. It is the ultimate limiting law of

There was a time when we seemed to be able to evade the limits of
nature. At least that's how it appeared. That was because the world
was nearly empty (of humans and their artifacts). When damage occurred
it seemed local and of no great consequence, and we just moved on to a
new place. But now the world is full. This is new, and Mr. Ben-Ami and
the editors at the New York Times haven't yet modernized their
thinking. We live in a different world than the one our grandparents
inhabited. Growth used to be necessary and good, but that's no longer
always the case. New conditions require new thinking. This is what the
precautionary principle is about -- innovative thinking to keep pace
with a changing world.

Mr. Ben-Ami does get one thing right -- many in the "Third World"
remain poor and malnourished while we in the overdeveloped North are
trying to find our belly buttons amongst the rolls of fat.[5]

The simple fact is, we in the U.S. long ago produced more goods and
services than any one society could possibly need to claim the "good
life." In the U.S., there's already way more than enough to go around
-- it's just that 1% of our U.S. population has appropriated 40% of
everything and is reluctant to share.[6] And that 40% is relentlessly
pumping out propaganda like Mr. Ben-Ami's brand of "scholarship,"
pretending that more growth will somehow feed the Third World poor.
No, it won't -- the way things are set up now, more growth will merely
give the world's wealthiest 1% more opportunities to make themselves
even wealthier, and the Third World poor will remain poor. Indeed, the
way things are set up now, more growth won't even help the poor in the
U.S.[7] It is not for lack of food that hunger still plagues this, the
wealthiest society the world has ever known
[]. It is for lack of sharing.
We throw out half the food we grow, instead of making an effort to
share it with those who are hungry.[8]

The Third World DOES need -- and deserves[9] -- economic growth, but
we live on a planet that is already showing signs of serious stress
from past growth, such as:

** global warming;[10]

** depleted ozone layer;[11]

** women's breast milk contaminated with hundreds of industrial
poisons [don't get me wrong: breast-feeding is still the best way to
nourish an infant];[12]

** drinking water laced with low levels of viagra, anti-depressents,
chemotherapy toxicants and several hundred other "personal care
products" designed to be biologically active;[13]

** children's cancers and other environment-related diseases

** many species of birds, fish, amphibians and mammals already
extinct, and thousands more soon to become so;[15]

** and these are just a few of the more obvious signs that we have
exceeded the natural limits of the Earth. This list could be readily

Intentional, targeted economic growth IS the answer to poverty in the
Third World but, on a planet that is already stressed by the side-
effects of growth, the "developed" countries have to stop growing in
order to make room for growth in the Third World. Economist Herman
Daly spelled this out some years ago.[16]

Regional economic growth can continue, but it must be limited to those
places where it is needed. The U.S. doesn't need more growth -- we
just need more sharing to give everyone an opportunity to obtain a
modicum of life's blessings. A full employment policy, to give
everyone a decent job who wants a job would be a good first step
(accompanied of course by a family-sustaining minimum wage).

In the U.S. there's already plenty to go around. Our capitalist
economy has done well by us, but it's now obvious that it has grown so
large that it is wrecking the planet -- because of the inevitable
waste and disorder that accompanies economic activity. So we need to
learn to discern limits and live within them, aiming not to grow but
to maintain the productive capacity that 400 years of hard work and
economic growth have given us.

Hitting the limits to growth also means we need to learn to share
because we can no longer rely on growth to expand everyone's piece of
the pie. Now we must pay attention to divvying up the pie more
carefully, more fairly. The natural limits of the Earth require it,
plus it will be good for our souls. Wasn't it Jesus who said, "It is
easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich
man to enter into the kingdom of heaven"?

To summarize: Based on his misinterpretation of the second law of
thermodynamics, Mr. Ben-Ami says there are no real limits on human
activity because we are such an ingenious species that we can always
figure out some way to get around any limits that nature may impose.
Economists may claim this is true, but physicists know it's not.
That's what the second law is about -- there really ARE limits to
growth, limits imposed by the unintended mess we make whenever we do
anything useful. Physicists call the mess "entropy" -- and it takes
the form of chemical wastes, heaps of mine spoils, polluted water,
unhealthy air, eroded hillsides, and sick children. For any
beneficial activity, the mess can be reduced, but it cannot be

For 400 years, the western ideology of "progress" has told us that any
limits can be evaded if we are clever enough. But now we know that's
false, and we have to learn to live in this new world, bounded by
limits. Doing so will still demand that we be clever -- to get the
benefits we need while doing the least harm.

Every industry will need people to rethink and redesign almost
everything they've been doing. Such innovation will create tons of
good jobs. But the world of limits will also require us to be not only
clever but also wise, asking, Which activities are truly beneficial,
and which are not? And: Which benefits can we do without? In the new
world of limits, we will always ask, of every activity, is this
necessary? And: Is this the best we can do? This leads naturally to a
discussion of alternatives, which is the heart of a precautionary

Mr. Ben-Ami represents the old, defunct way of looking at the world:
do whatever might make a profit, then phoney up a risk assessment to
prove that it's safe. We now know that this old "risk assessment"
approach produced enormous harm -- to our health, to the ecosystems
that our economy depends upon, and to our democracy. (How can we claim
to have a democracy when 1% of the people own 40% of everything? Does
money not translate into political power? Who are we kidding?)

Mr. Ben-Ami represents a point of view that has been relegated to the
heap of outmoded ideas, alongside the flat earth theory and the use of
leeches to cure disease.

There is a broader shift happening in our culture, from short-term
gain to long-term sustainability -- or ultimately from a value system
based on money to one based on life.

The precautionary principle is a powerful new anchor for a traditional
value system based on compassion, cherishing community, environmental
stewardship and nurturing future generations within a framework of
wisdom and forward thinking. Precaution is the future -- positive,
powerful, healthy, and good.
--Peter Montague



[2] For a brief discussion of the precautionary principle, see

[3] Mr. Ben-Ami actually does discuss the second law, for the purpose
of dismissing its role in placing limits on economic growth. He says,
"One popular [environmentalist] approach was to argue that economic
growth is limited by the amount of energy in the world. The idea was
developed by Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, an American economist of
Romanian origin, in the 1970s and has more recently been taken up by
the likes of Elmar Altvater, Herman Daly and Jeremy Rifkin. This idea
was expressed in scientific terms as a consequence of the second law
of thermodynamics, which states that the useful forms of energy in any
closed system decline over time. An alternative way of expressing the
same idea is that the entropy (disorder) in a closed system increases
over time. But as previous articles on spiked have argued,
environmentalists grossly underestimate the amount of energy available
on earth. In any case, the earth is not a closed system -- it receives
an enormous amount of energy from the sun every day. So the idea that
the availability of energy limits economic activity has no basis in

This passage reveals a fundamental misinterpretation of the second
law's role in limiting economic growth. Mr. Ben-Ami says that
environmentalists claim that "economic growth is limited by the amount
of energy in the world... [because] the useful forms of energy in any
closed system decline over time [which can also be expressed as] the
entropy (disorder) in a closed system increases over time." Having set
up this straw man, Mr. Ben-Ami then knocks it over by pointing out
that the Earth isn't a closed system because sunlight is constantly
streaming in (perhaps Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen and Herman Daly had
somehow not noticed the sun?), as if to imply that the second law
therefore doesn't pertain on Earth. It is impossible to know whether
this misinterpretation of the second law results from disingenuous
intentions or from ignorance. In any case, this misinterpretation of
the second law is put into service as part of a larger argument that
there are no physical limits to economic growth, which adds up to a
colossal misconstruction of the importance and meaning of the second

[4] See, for example, Jack Hokikian, The Science of Disorder;
Understanding the Complexity, Uncertainty, and Pollution in Our World
(Los Angeles, Calif.: Los Feliz Publishing, 2002); ISBN 0-9708953-2-1.

[5] See, for example, Jim Jong Kim and others, Dying for Growth;
Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor (Monroe, Maine: Common
Courage Press, 1999); ISBN 1-56751-160-0.

[6] Chuck Collins and Felice Yeskel, Economic Apartheid in America
(New York: New Press, 2000); revised and corrected data available at

[7] See for example, William Julius Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); ISBN 0-226-90131-9. And
see Chuck Collins and Felice Yeskel, Economic Apartheid in America
(New York: The New Press, 2000); ISBN 1-56584-594-3. See also Michael
Zweig, The Working Class Majority; America's Best Kept Secret (Ithaca,
N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2000); ISBN 0-8014-3637-0. And see G.
William Domhoff, Who Rules America? (Mountain View, Calif: Mayfield
Publishing, 1998); ISBN 1-55934-973-5.

[8] Environment News Service, "Half the American Harvest Goes to
Waste," November 24, 2004. Available at

[9] The Third World deserves our help because conditions there were
intentionally created by Europeans as they "developed" themselves
while subjugating the Third World. For an overview, see "Chapter 10.
Creating the Third World" in Clive Ponting, A Green History of the
World (New York: Penguin Books, 1991); ISBN 0140176608. And see Walter
Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (Washington, D.C.: Howard
University Press, 1981); ISBN 0-88258-096-5.


[11] Athens News Agency, "Ozone Layer Will Remain Vulnerable in Coming
Decades," June 17, 2004.

[12] See for example, Thaddeus Herrick, "Toxins in Breast Milk:
Studies Explore Impact Of Chemicals on Our Bodies," Wall Street
Journal January 20, 2004.

[13] See, for example, "Drugs in the water," Rachel's Environment &
health News #614 (Sept. 3, 1998); available at . And see
Christian G. Daughton and Thomas A. Ternes, "Pharmaceuticals and
Personal Care Products in the Environment: Agents of Subtle Change,"
Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 107 Supplement 6 (December
1999), pgs. 907-938, available at

[14] See, for example, "Tracey J. Woodruff and others, "Trends in
Environmentally Related Childhood Diseases," Pediatrics Vol. 113, No.
4 (April 2004), pgs. 1133-1140.

[15] Agence France Presse, "Nearly 16,000 Species Threatened with
Extinction: Report," Nov. 17, 2004.

[16] Herman E. Daly, Beyond Growth (Boston: beacon Press, 1996); ISBN
0-8070-4708-2. For a summary of Daly's arguments, see .

[17] Mary O'Brien, Making Better Environmental Decisions; An
Alternative to Risk Assessment (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000);
ISBN 0-262-15051-4.

Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf@no.address


Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, send E-mail
to listserv@no.address with the words
in the message.


The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish; to learn
how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word AYUDA in an E-mail
message to info@no.address


All back issues are on the web at: in
text and PDF formats.


Permission to reprint Rachel's is hereby granted to everyone,
though we ask that you not change the contents and we ask that
you provide proper attribution.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.

Some of this material may be copyrighted by others. We believe
we are making "fair use" of the material under Title 17, but if
you choose to use it for your own purposes, you will need to
consider "fair use" in your own case. --Peter Montague, editor

View the ARCHIVES of this list at:

For help with listserv SUBSCRIPTIONS visit:

Questions, comments, concerns? Email us: support@no.address

[GreenYes Home] - [Date Index] - [Thread Index]
[Date Prev] - [Date Next] - [Thread Prev] - [Thread Next]