What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont? ~ May 2014

What is an Optimum /
Sustainable Population
for Vermont?
~ May 2014
“A sustainable human population is one where the people living in
a given politically or geographically defined area
(such as Vermont) do not live beyond the limits of the renewable
resources of that area for either input (energy and matter) or
output (food, material goods, and absorption of pollution). They
then purchase or trade from environmentally-aware sources those
necessities that cannot be locally satisfied, either in sufficient
amounts or at all. They will thereby be living in a manner that
present and future generations of people, and all other life native
to that area, will be able to enjoy a healthy
habitat over the long term.”
© Copyright 2013, Vermonters for a Sustainable Population
All Rights Reserved.
Edited, assembled and designed by Heather V. Davis
Any questions, comments, or suggestions regarding this report, or
population issues more generally, can be directed to
George Plumb at [email protected]
Reviews
“Discussions about what constitutes an optimal, sustainable population will always elicit varying opinions, but it’s a discussion
that is well worth having. People everywhere, including Vermont, need to have a better understanding of how population
pressures are affecting natural resources, living conditions, biodiversity, and the bio-systems that sustain human well-being.
This is an informative and eye-opening report.” ~ Robert Walker, President, Population Institute
“Non-renewable resources are, by definition, being depleted as they are used, and the most accessible of many key resources have already been consumed. Within the lives of many Vermonters today, the state will have to rely mostly on
renewable resources, as easy access to many metals and minerals, including fossil fuels, will no longer be possible or affordable. Vermont must plan for a day when the quality of life will dramatically be affected by the number of people competing for limited renewable resources. It is time to evaluate the state’s resource sufficiency under various population and
lifestyle scenarios. This publication is an important start in doing just that.”
~ William Ryerson, President, Population Media Center
“The U.S. population has more than doubled since 1970. Another doubling of current U.S. population of 315 million equals
half of India’s current population! If Citizens in Vermont wish to preserve their quality of life, they should actively support Vermonters for Sustainable Population.” ~ Yeh Ling-Ling, Executive Director, Alliance for a Sustainable U.S.A.
“The Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club is proud to be a sponsor and supporter of this groundbreaking report. The study is
exceptional in laying out a vision for a socially, environmentally and economically sustainable Vermont. Particularly admirable is its demonstration of the connectedness that exists between different disciplines, the importance of science and technology in the process, and the absolute necessity of an open and holistic approach. And while opinions may differ as to
specific findings and conclusions, it stands as an admirable contribution to Vermont’s continuing search for sustainability.” ~ Charles McKenna, Chairman, Vermont Chapter of the Sierra Club
“If it is not sustainable, then it’s condition is terminal.” ~ Nancy Rae Mallery, Publisher, Green Energy Times
“I commend Vermonters for Sustainable Population for making a great effort to describe the sustainable population of their
great state.” Common Vermonters know, it is the weakest link in the chain -- not the average strength of all the links that
determines the chain’s strength. They already know the sustainable population of Vermont is not the average of the sustainable estimates in the summary page. The report tells them, Vermont remains unsustainable, until its population is below
150,000.” ~ Jack Alpert PhD, Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory
“Population Matters, a British sustainable population organization, warmly congratulates Vermonters for Sustainable Population on this deeply thoughtful report. With England already the most over-populated country in Europe and the whole UK
growing fast, you are way ahead of us - particularly in your clear distinction between the maximum bio-physically sustainable population, entailing life at bare subsistence level, and the much smaller number that can share an optimal quality of
life. Would that the UK could embrace such a model!”
~Roger Martin, Chair, Population Matters
“What a great service Vermonters for a Sustainable Population (VSP) has rendered to all jurisdictions in North America —
though most may not recognize it yet. Would that others take heed of Vermont’s example of questioning the mindless pursuit of growth that has wrongly been equated with well-being and striving to determine an optimum population based on
an empirical assessment of its resources and carrying capacity. Sadly, Canada remains committed to the delusion that
perpetual population growth and the accelerating extraction of resources is the path to prosperity, while it impoverishes its
biodiversity and decimates its farmland. I hope that this VSP booklet will serve as a guidance document for North Americans
to pressure their governments at the municipal, state or provincial, and federal levels to consider ecological sustainability
and future generations in their policies.” ~ Madeline Weld, President, Population Institute Canada
“Our urgent response to climate change demands the strongest possible response from both governments and individuals.
350.org is pleased to see that this report acknowledges that both short and long term responses to reducing our greenhouse
gas emissions factor into the need to stabilize our global population as quickly as possible.” ~ David Stember, Tar Sands Northeast Organizer, 350.org
“Biological diversity is often missing in the discussion on sustainability and the CBD is very pleased to see the strong inclusion
in both the definition of sustainability and that it is one of the indicators to determine future sustainability.”
~ Kieran Suckling, Executive Director, Center for Biological Diversity
“A refreshing report where the authors address a question that typically is either not discussed or labeled as a developing world issue.
The issue of a desirable population size for Vermont encourages us to reconsider the boundaries and physical limits to the growth of our
economy, how much output is enough for our wellbeing, and what are the conditions for true quality of life. Donella Meadows, lead
author of Limits to Growth and world renowned systems thinker, saw that a shift to a new paradigm would require speaking “louder and
with assurance” from the new paradigm; starting the conversation on population size is then not only timely, but morally necessary.”
~ Marta Ceroni, Director of the Sustainable Economies Program
Donella Meadows Institute, Norwich, Vermont
“We’re talking 50 years ago here. Back in 1962 as a participant in the “Teachers for East Africa” project -- I taught English at an African
boys secondary school in Kenya. At the time Kenya’s population was about 8.5 million people. Today, Kenya’s population is about 38.4
million people. That’s a more than a quadrupling of human numbers over the 50-year period. It is not only timely, it is more than timely,
even urgent for us to consider “What is an Optimum/Sustainable Population for Vermont” in a world where human numbers are and
have been exploding. Congratulations for talking up this terribly important issue.”
~ Nat Frothingham, Editor, The Bridge
“Population is an issue which most people don’t acknowledge as a significant environmental problem, much less know how to begin
talking about it. VSP has managed to fearlessly quantify the challenges we face, as well as articulate a detailed roadmap which can
begin guiding us towards finding solutions.”
~ Kathryn Blume, Executive Director, Vermontivate!
“Population 2.0, the newest population organization, located in Belgium, congratulates the Vermonters for a Sustainable Population
with this wonderfull report. It clearly points out that within all discussions on social welfare, on sustainability, on energy, housing, environment, oil, ... most people forget that “it’s about us”.”
~ Tim Aerts, Executive Director, Population 2.0
“Vermont is not immune to the global challenges that we face, including climate change, resource depletion, unchecked corporate
power, and over-population. It is therefore timely that VSP is asking the difficult -- and controversial -- question of what is the state’s capacity to grow if we are to retain the qualities that make Vermont special.”
~ Brian Shupe, Executive Director, Vermont Natural Resources Council
“This is a very important study, as it helps to demonstrate how moving toward a steady state economy is not only the sustainable alternative to growth, but results in substantial improvement across a wide variety of environmental and social indicators.”
~ Brian Czech, Ph.D., President,
Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
Table of Contents
~ SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5
~ INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7
~ BIODIVERSITY - JAMES ANDREWS, MS, Vermont Reptile & Amphibian Atlas Project, Adjunct Assistant
Professor at UVM .................................................................................................................................................... 10
~ DEMOCRACY – LISA SAMMET, Library Director at Jeudevine Memorial Library, President at Vermonters
for a Sustainable Population ................................................................................................................................ 16
~ ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT – CARMEN HOWE, MS, PMP, State of Vermont Department of Health: Information
Technology
................................................................................................................................................................ 20
~ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – ANNETTE SMITH, Executive Director at Vermonters for a Clean Environment ................... 23
~ FOOD SELF-SUFFICIENCY – HEATHER V. DAVIS, MA, Monitoring & Evaluation & Research Consultant .......................... 26
~ FOREST COVER - MARK POWELL, Environmental Volunteer ................................................................................................ 29
~ GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – JOAN KNIGHT, MAT, MS, CMHC, Burlington Cohousing ............................................... 31
~ HAPPINESS OF VERMONT CITIZENS – TOM BAREFOOT, Co-Coordinator at Gross National Happiness, USA .................. 34
~ POVERTY - EBEN FODOR ............................................................................................................................................................... 37
~ QUALITY OF LIFE – VALERIE ESPOSITO, Ph.D., Director and Assistant Professor, Environmental Policy Program
at Champlain College .......................................................................................................................................... 40
~ RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION – LUKAS SNELLING, Executive Director at Energize Vermont ................................... 43
~ RURAL LIVING / WORKING LANDSCAPE – GEORGE WEBB, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Department of
Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, College of Medicine, UVM ................................................................. 46
~ SCENIC BEAUTY – GEORGE PLUMB, Executive Director at Vermonters for a Sustainable Population ........................... 48
~ SPIRITUAL CONNECTEDNESS – REV. GREGORY WILSON, Minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church of
Brevard, Florida, and HELEN WILSON (Spiritual Director), Summer residents of Vershire .............................. 51
~ STEADY STATE ECONOMY – ERIC ZENCEY, Ph.D., Fellow at Gund Institute for Ecological Economics
at UVM, Visiting Associate Professor, Historical and Political Studies and International
Programs at SUNY Empire State College ............................................................................................................ 54
~ WATER QUALITY - GEOFFREY GOLL, PE, Vice-President at Princeton Hydro ...................................................................... 57
~ RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................... 61
~ SPECIAL THANKS ....................................................................................................................................................................... 63
~ ABOUT THE AUTHORS ................................................................................................................................................................ 64
~ RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................................................................ 65
Summary
Vermont is the first State in the U.S., and perhaps the first political entity in the world, to have a well-researched and written report on what is an
optimal/sustainable population size. This report uniquely uses fifteen different indicators, reflecting important elements of our environment and our
cherished quality of life. This study concludes that an optimal/sustainable population size for Vermont is 500,000 based upon the average of these indicators. However, we must also consider, if the population is not sustainable for any one of these indicators, then we are not in a sustainable place.
Because of this it could be argued that we should only accept the lowest number - Ecological Footprint (150,000) - if we are to truly be sustainable.
Another possible method of calculating a final population number would be to weigh each indicator based upon it’s importance, but give this task
to ten different people and you will come up with ten different results - it’s a very subjective process and it is not within the scope of this work to assess the relative importance of each indicator.
Indicator
Optimal/Sustainable Population for VT
Biodiversity
310,000
Democracy
626,011
Ecological Footprint
150,000
Environmental Health
400,000
Food Self Sufficiency
432,923
Forest Cover
600,000
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
400,000
Happiness of Vermont Citizens
No recommendation
Poverty
500,000
Quality of Life
700,000
Renewable Energy Production
600,000
Rural Living/Working Landscape
450,000
Scenic Beauty
600,000
Spiritual Connectedness
450,000
Steady State Economy
600,000
Water Quality
600,000
Average
494,210
With Vermont’s population currently at 626,000 people, this size, in the opinion of many of these writers, is not optimal/sustainable. Additional population growth – and Vermont did grow by 17,000 during the last decade, although that stabilized in 2012 – would only add to the difficulty of achieving a truly optimal/sustainable state, a clear priority for many, if not most, Vermonters.
5
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations below are abbreviated forms of the more detailed recommendations found at the end of the report.
1. Individual Level
A.
Become an outspoken advocate for socially and ecologically responsible childbearing, advancing the argument that “One or None” represents the necessary reproductive response to an overpopulated world where humans have surpassed the planet’s ecological limits.
B.
Form a community coalition focused on stopping sprawl within your community.
C.
Support organizations that work toward achieving a sustainable population, including family planning; a new form of an economy, such as a steady-state economy; sustainable population; and limits on growth.
2. Municipal Level
A.
B.
Develop a commitment to large and permanent open spaces in towns and cities.
Conduct a survey, hold hearings, and otherwise seek input on what the citizens of the village, city, or town feel is an optimum popu-
lation size and then develop policies to help ensure that the population does not exceed that size, such as limiting the number of new development permits per year.
3. State Level
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Create a Vermont Population Commission that would be concerned with long-term planning to stabilize Vermont’s population.
Maintain a balance between the number of jobs and number of job-seekers.
Develop population education programs in the public schools, the media and community organizations (Lions, Rotary, etc.) to teach people of all ages the role of population growth in Vermont’s social and economic future.
Establish family planning programs which ensure that all voluntary fertility-control services are available to everyone.
Limit the number of income-tax exemptions to two children.
Adopt the Genuine Progress Indicator and implement policies so that Vermonter’s quality of life becomes more important than grow-
ing the economy by measuring only GDP.
4. National Level
A.
Strongly support national and international family planning including free contraception to all women of the world who want and need it.
B.
Strongly support international women’s rights, including improved educational opportunities for young women worldwide.
C.
The national government should also adopt policies similar to those suggested for Vermont.
Recommendations numbered 2A, 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E were all taken from the Population Policy Report published by the Vermont Natural Resources Council in 1973 but never implemented. However, they are still valid today.
Summary
6
Introduction
In 1973, the Vermont Natural Resources Council, in what may be the first
environmental report ever published in Vermont -- the Vermont Population Policy Report -- stated that, ”We must determine Vermont’s carrying
capacity, then we must estimate the number of people that can live
here so that every Vermonter has access to a life of quality that he can
afford.1” Carrying capacity was the term in use back then, and now we
more often use the term “sustainable” which is a more accurate and
comprehensive term. Unfortunately, here we are forty years later and
that determination was never done. Meanwhile, Vermont’s population has increased by more than 50% since that time. As a direct result,
Vermont’s environment has deteriorated significantly in most areas since
then, as is well documented in many scientific reports, including those
found on the website of Vermonters for a Sustainable Population.2 We
are now beginning to run out of the cheap fossil fuels that made that
growth possible and we are also faced with global warming, which will
have a major impact on population size in eco-regions around the world.
Two new books published in 2012 both said that Vermont is not sustainable. In Greening Vermont: The Search for a Sustainable State, environmental leaders Elizabeth Courtney and Eric Zencey state, “Vermont is not
now a sustainable state….” And in the book, Dancing to the Beat of the
Great Green Heart, climate activist Kathryn Blume says, ”But scary as this
time is, also know this: as fast as things seem to be falling apart, exponential growth works both ways. We can move from living deeply unsustainable lives to living in harmony with the planet and each other with
blinding swiftness. And the faster we choose sustainability, in all its forms,
the sooner it happens.”
It could be argued that there are two factors that determine what is sustainable. In the opinion of this author, the most important factor is population size, and this report begins the discussion on that factor. The other
factor is, of course, consumption of resources and what we do with the
pollution caused by the production and use of those resources.
Definition of Optimal
“Best or most effective”
future generations. In this report we have tried to find the best expert in
each field to make that determination of what is the optimal population
size for that particular factor.
Definition of Sustainable
There are several common definitions of sustainable, the most common
of which says that, “Meeting the needs of the present generation without
diminishing the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”3 However, this definition pits one generation against another, does not define
the geographical area that is being discussed, and only speaks to human
needs and not the needs of all species.
Vermonters for Sustainable Population has therefore developed its own
definition of sustainable, which we think is much more accurate and
meaningful.
“A sustainable human population is one where the people living in a
given politically or geographically defined area (such as Vermont) do
not live beyond the limits of the renewable resources of that area for
either input (energy and matter) or output (food, material goods, and
absorption of pollution). They then purchase or trade from environmentally-aware sources those necessities that cannot be locally satisfied, either
in sufficient amounts or at all. They will thereby be living in a manner that
present and future generations of people, and all other life native to that
area, will be able to enjoy a healthy habitat over the long term.”
Vermont Population Facts
As can be seen from the following chart, Vermont grew rapidly between
1790 to 1850, and then it actually had a relatively stable population for
over one hundred years, until 1970. It then began to grow rapidly again
due to the completion of the interstate highway system and the back-tothe-land movement. In subsequent years, people began to move here
to escape the overcrowded areas where they lived and to seek a better
quality of life, and for many, a more environmentally-aware state.
This definition opens the question of what is best and most effective for
1http://www.vspop.org/Popuation_Policy_for_Vermont-1973.pdf
2www.vspop.org
7
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
3
United Nations definition of Sustainable Development
In 2011 and 2012 Vermont’s population did stabilize, probably due, at
least in part, to the economy.
size and growth, although that realization came too late in the writing to
include them in the study.
During this same time period, Vermont’s population density also changed,
from an average of 8.88 people per square mile in 1790, to 67.73 people
per square mile in 2012. Although it is considered a rural state, and is the
second-least populated state in the country, its density is not far below
the national average of 87.4 and there are many states that have a lower density.1
We recognize that some of these indicators, and thus the population they
suggest, are quite subjective, with no quantitative method of assessment.
While there is no objective method for assessing things such as Spiritual Connectedness and Scenic Beauty, they are still very important, are
impacted by population, and should be included in the conversation. At
the same time, these authors are not just randomly pulling numbers and
do use a form of logic to come up with their recommendations.
Based on the 2010 census, The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia projects that the 2040 population size for Thanks to modern electronics, this report can be updated at any time so
Vermont will be 723,282.2 Although this is a scientific projection based on if there is someone who would like to write about one of the missing indiages, fertility rates, etc., with global heating we could easily see “environ- cators, or some other indicator they think is important, please let us know.
mental refugees” moving here by thousands more.
Vermont also still
has a “growth-forever” culture,
despite the environmental consequences, and
proposals -- such
as those currently
being developed
in the Northeast
Kingdom3 -- could
add tens of thousands more people
to the state.
Purpose
This report is not proposing:
1.
Putting a moat around Vermont.
2.
Limiting the number of people who can move to Vermont each year.
3.
Forcing everyone to get “fixed” after they have replaced them-
selves once.
The broad purpose of this report is, however, to “bring the elephant in the
room,” and to bring population growth back into the discussion of what
kind of future we want for Vermont. As exemplified in the 1973 Population
Policy Report developed by the Vermont Natural Resources Council, population growth was on everyone’s mind in the early 1970’s. Vermonters
were then very concerned about this issue and the Chittenden County
The Indicators
chapter of Zero Population Growth had the highest per capita memThe indicators selected are those that we consider the most important in bership of any chapter in the country. It also held what is probably the
determining what is the optimal/sustainable population size for Vermont. most dramatic environmental action ever held in Vermont by transportSome of them are subjective, like Scenic Beauty, while others are very ob- ing hundreds of people out onto the small Sloop Island off of Charlotte
to demonstrate what the world would look like if the population kept on
jective, like Ecological Footprint. For each indicator we found a person
growing4. How avant-garde they were! Then, for a variety of reasons,
who was very knowledgeable in that field and we are pleased that we
population growth dropped off the table, and Vermont has had a surge
were able to do so.
of population growth for several decades. We have seen the result now,
with some areas of Vermont becoming very similar to overly-developed
Other potential indicators include carrying capacity, which is quite a
areas in other parts of the country. As a result, all of the fifteen indicators
complex indicator; education; and transitioning to adjust to climate
change and peak oil. These indicators have a connection to population written about in the report have been impacted, clearly demonstrating
that population growth touches all areas of our lives.
1http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0014.pdf
2http://www.coopercenter.org/demographics/national-population-projections
3
http://vtdigger.org/2013/08/12/northeast-kingdom-development-projects-change-shape/
4http://www.vspop.org/htm/HistoryPopulation.htm
Introduction
8
While the indicators and the average for an optimal/sustainable population are Vermont-oriented, this report has implications that extend globally. Vermonters presently import approximately ninety-five percent of
everything we consume, ranging from the food we eat, to the computers
we use. At the same time, we export one hundred percent of our greenhouse gas emissions, much of our water pollution, and a high percentage
of our solid waste. This has a huge impact on the environment of the
rest of the Earth. While it is true that relative to other states our impact is
smaller, it is still very significant. As just one example, how much land does
it take to grow the bananas or coffee that we eat and drink? For those
two items alone it is probably hundreds, if not thousands, of acres. Converting that land to agriculture to feed Vermonters means that biodiversity of that land in another nation is significantly diminished.
Although there is no indicator written on
land development it is land development that results in an impact on each
of the indicators. Because our cities are
already pretty well built-up, most of the
land being developed now happens in
our countryside. Besides losing much of
the biodiversity of the land where homes
are built, each home also means a chimney with some kind of pollution going up
in the air, demand for electricity generated somewhere else, often a long driveway adding to water runoff, at least a
couple of motorized vehicles with often
Although there are methods to make it more efficient, agriculture
at least one of those a gas consuming
takes a significant amount of land to grow the food we eat.
SUV or pickup truck, and a large lawn
usually requiring a riding lawn mower.
Of course businesses being built in the countryside have an even greater
impact with their large parking lots and high energy demands.
The range of the fifteen indicators is as low as 150,000 and as high as
700,000, or just below what Vermont’s current population is in 2012. If one
takes all of the fifteen different projections and averages them out, the
average is 489,078. However, for long-term reasoning, some indicators
are clearly more pivotal than others, with a responsible ecological footprint being the paramount indicator, for if we don’t stay within a sustainable ecological footprint, all of the other indicators ultimately collapse.
Nevertheless, to suggest that we should strive for a quick transition to
150,000 would be readily rejected by the bulk of Vermont’s population.
What we therefore suggest is to stabilize our current population size and
9
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
then begin to transition to a population of 500,000. That will certainly take
several decades. During those decades we are going to have to confront more extreme weather events, a decline in cheap fossil fuels which
are the basis of our entire economic and social/cultural systems, in all
likelihood more pollution of our environment both from within and without
our boundaries, rising food prices and maybe even food scarcity, and
who knows what other problems. As the years go by we can periodically
re-evaluate where we are at in terms of an optimal and sustainable population and set new goals. During that time period it is also highly likely
that the means of determining carrying capacity, ecological footprint,
quality of life, and other indicators will become much more scientific and
sophisticated, as is already happening.
We humans have a moral responsibility to the Earth and all living beings
on this planet to thoughtfully consider our choices and actions, and make
sensible changes based upon the understanding of our impact, and not
solely on economics and the bottom line, as it is often done now.
Let’s seriously discuss 500,000!
~ George Plumb, Executive Director, Vermonters for a
Sustainable Population
Biodiversity ~ James S. Andrews, MS
“The earth does not belong to us. We belong to the earth.”
Definition
A short definition of biodiversity taken from Wikipedia is: “the totality of
genes, species, and ecosystems found in a region”. Consequently my
question when fleshed out is: what human population level in Vermont is
optimal for keeping all of our ecosystems fully functioning, maintaining
healthy populations of all our native species, and maintaining the level of
genetic diversity found within all our species?
I was asked to discuss what human population is “optimal” (most favorable) for maintaining biodiversity. In most cases, the question asked of
conservation biologists is what are the minimal thresholds that need to be
achieved to maintain a species or ecosystem. Optimal conditions are
rarely, if ever, considered realistic, affordable, or politically viable.
Another critically important word in the question is “sustaining”. Sustaining requires that our population can be maintained indefinitely without
harm to biodiversity. To meet the requirements of sustainability, there can
be no net loss in the totality of genes, species, and ecosystems found
within the state. This is particularly significant since all conservation efforts
that I am aware of have, at best, lessened or minimized our damage to
biodiversity. Even if conditions for maintaining biodiversity were improved
in a limited area - for a given species or population, for a limited period of
time, or if previous damage was partially reversed - there has continued
to be a net loss of biodiversity associated with human population growth
over the long-term.
Importance
Humans often think of themselves as separate from other species, although there is no scientific evidence to support that viewpoint. In fact,
all relevant scientific evidence refutes it. We know where we fit in taxonomically and who our closest related species groups are. We are a
member of the animal kingdom. More specifically, we are a vertebrate,
a mammal, and the only primate that has colonized Vermont. Despite
our unique intelligence and abilities, we are still ruled by the same natural
laws that limit the populations of all other species. We are dependent
upon and limited by the life support services our ecosystem provides.
Those systems can only support a finite number of any species and the
~ Chief Seattle
more resources a species uses per individual, the fewer of those species
those ecosystems can support.
If we look at other similar-sized local mammals that are omnivores (eat
plants and animals) in Vermont, Black Bear is about as close as we can
come to humans. Vermont Fish and Wildlife biologists are working to
maintain a population of Black Bears that is between 4,500 and 6,000
(Vermont Fish and Wildlife, 2009). They believe that is the number that
can best be sustainably supported by the amount, distribution, and quality of the bear habitat that we have. In addition, they believe that that is
the largest number that one other species (humans) will tolerate.
Compare this number to the current number
of humans in Vermont. We currently number
over 620,000 (2012 US Census). Imagine if it
were also the responsibility of biologists to set
a sustainable target population for humans
based on the resources available in this state,
and our ability to secure those resources
without doing any damage to biodiversity.
What would that number be? For starters, it
would not be continually increasing; no species on this planet can continually increase
in number without eventually degrading its
ecosystem and dying as a result of limitations
of needed resources such as food, water,
and shelter. Not to mention other equally imPhoto credit: James Andrews
portant ecosystem services such as clean air,
clean water, flood control, pollination, and climate moderation. For the
human species, add to that list other life-support resources that we have
come to depend on such as energy and medical supplies.
Humans use a lot more resources per person than a bear does. Unlike
the bear, the average resource use of a Vermont human is many, many
times what we need just for survival. How is it then that our population
has reached 100 times that of bears when we share the same ecosystem
here in Vermont? It is because we are a clever species, and we have
learned to move resources into Vermont and at the same time we leave
or move important portions of our waste out of our state. For example,
Biodiversity ~ James S. Andrews
10
we import energy from Canada, corn from the Midwest, fish from the
oceans, and wood from the Amazon basin. Our exported wastes include
toxic computer parts ending up in Asia and the CO2 produced by our
furnaces and cars that is spread around the entire planet.
When resources are gathered or produced out of state, much of the
waste (and other impacts) reduces biodiversity at those sites rather then
here in Vermont. As a result, unlike the bear, humans in Vermont have
impacts on ecosystems and all the species that they support (including
other humans) thousands of miles away from where we live. The impact
of our human population here in Vermont reduces biodiversity worldwide.
Think of cod off the coast of Maine, exotic hardwoods in the Amazon, oil
from the Gulf of Mexico, retirement complexes in Florida built on critical habitat for Florida Panthers, or monocultures of corn that is used for
ethanol to add to the gas for our cars. Vermont’s human population has
long been reducing biodiversity around the world (including lowering the
carrying capacity for humans in other areas of the planet). As a result,
we don’t see the full impact of the reduction in biodiversity here.
son, 1998). The result was a biodiversity disaster with populations of
some native species such as Wolf, Mountain Lion, American Elk, and Pine
Marten disappearing entirely and others, such as White-tailed Deer, Wild
Turkey, Beaver, and Fisher, dropping to such low numbers that they had to
be brought in from other areas (Godin, 1977; Johnson, 1998; Thompson,
1853). In addition to these large and more observable game species,
many non-game animals, plants, and invertebrates declined or disappeared.
Some of this loss was due to unregulated hunting, fishing, and trapping;
however, most of it was the result of habitat destruction, degradation
and fragmentation. “Under the combined effects of farming and heavy
logging, 70-75% of Vermont by the 1850’s was open land” (Johnson,
1998). Much of the forest cover returned over the next century as farms
were abandoned, but during this time period and since then, the damage to biodiversity continued in other ways. For example, we continued
to ditch, drain, and fill wetlands (35% lost by 2000, Austin et al., 2000). We
fragmented habitat with roads (2,586 new miles of paved roads between
1960 and 2000, Austin et al., 2000). We developed technology that
That said, how have we reduced biodiversity here in Vermont? Most
cut and bailed grassland species ranging from Meadow Voles, Eastern
conservation biologists will tell you that the largest threat to biodiversity is Ratsnakes, and Bobolinks, to baby White-tailed Deer. We also started
the loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat (Fahrig 1997 & 2001; making and using a wide variety of new chemical products such as DDT
Groombridge 1992; Pimm & Askins 1995; Society for Conservation Biology, that eliminated Bald Eagles, Peregrine Falcons, and Ospreys (Johnson,
2013). Bear can be looked at as a renewable resource. As long as we
1998); and new materials such as lead sinkers and lead gun shot that
have the appropriate quantity, quality, and connectivity of habitat for
contributed to the near elimination of Common Loons (Sidor et al., 2003).
them to grow and breed, we can harvest a certain number and it can
be sustainable indefinitely. However, if the amount of habitat is reduced During the 1980s we consumed approximately 10 square miles of habitat
or eliminated, or the quality or connectivity is reduced to the point where every year (USEPA, 1999). More recent estimates showed that between
productivity declines, that harvest will no longer be sustainable and if it is 1997 and 2007 we developed 75 square miles of previously undeveloped
continued, the population will decline and eventually disappear. Those
land (Plumb, 2011). We lose habitat when we convert forests, fields,
species whose habitat requirements are very specialized (e.g., Jefferson
and wetlands to parking lots, houses, roads, malls, mines, and lawns. It
Salamander) or those who require the highest quality (e.g., Spring Salais estimated we that lost 200-400 acres of small wetlands per year in the
mander), or greatest connectivity (e.g., North American Racer), will begin early 1990’s (Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, 1997). These are just
their declines first. This is particularly the case for those species that are
a few examples of habitat loss in Vermont. I often refer to this process
restricted to habitat that is desired by humans (such as sand plains, shore- as habitat consumption; since the term seems to be a more accurate
line, river valleys) and altered by humans in such a way as to no longer
description. Granted that the malls, parking garages, and lawns that are
meet the needs of the native species.
created may serve as habitat for a limited new set of species. Some of
these new habitats will support House Sparrows, House Mice, Kentucky
Bluegrass, Gray Squirrels, and Raccoons, but the habitats will be altered
Trends
in such a way that the needs of many other species will no longer be met
and biodiversity will be lost.
During the early 1800s, Vermont’s human population was obtaining a
large percentage of its resources and disposing of its waste from within
our own state. In addition, they obtained those resources and disposed
of waste with very little regard for the sustainability of their actions (John-
11
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
The habitat that remains is broken into smaller and smaller parcels, fragmented by roads, developments, parking lots, and other areas of limited biodiversity that may be difficult or impossible for some species to
traverse. This process is called habitat fragmentation. To pick just one example, busy roads can’t be crossed safely by turtles snakes, frogs, or salamanders. Often, these species need to move across roads to get from
wintering habitat to breeding or summer foraging habitat. Populations of
these species near busy roads disappear as a result (Andrews, Gibbons,
and Jochimson, 2006).
Vermont. Consequently, unlike some taxonomic groups (e.g., beetles,
flies, soil microorganisms), we think we have a good idea of all the species that exist in Vermont now and those that existed in the mid-1800s.
Of our 40 species, 19 (47.5%) are classified as “species of conservation
need”. These species require our conservation attention if they are to
persist over the long term. Seven of our reptiles and amphibians (17.5%)
are listed as threatened or endangered. In addition, there are three
species that have not been seen at all in recent years. The Boreal Chorus
New chemicals are produced and put in use before their impacts on
our local ecosystems are fully known (e.g., atrazine, TFM, round-up). Our Frog was last seen in Vermont in 1999, the North American Racer in 2008,
and the Fowler’s Toad in 2007 (Andrews, 2013). A recent national study
municipal sewage systems are not designed to filter out the many drugs
has shown that even amphibian species that we did not consider at risk
we humans take, and those drugs end up in our environment and in our
wildlife (USEPA, 2012). As we move around or move our resources around, have been disappearing from ponds at the rate of 11% per year (Adams
we introduce new species and new diseases that can have catastroph- et al., 2013). We have no idea of how many of our insects or soil microorganisms have disappeared over the last few decades. We have not had
ic results on our local biodiversity. Our waste CO2 is now changing our
climate (IPCC, 2007; Hayhoe et. al, 2007), allowing new species and new the resources to survey them, let alone monitor populations.
diseases to survive in Vermont, and changing the weather patterns that
our native species evolved with and depend upon. Our interactions with Heroic efforts have been made to reduce the impacts of our waste; to
habitat often leave the habitat unable to support its original biodiversity. protect rare, threatened, or endangered species; to reduce our use of
natural resources; and to keep harmful chemicals out of our environment;
These actions, and many others, fall into the category of habitat degrabut it has not kept pace with our growing use of resources and generadation.
tion of waste whose impacts are magnified by our population growth.
We continue to lose, fragment, and degrade habitat annually. As a
If appropriate habitat is abundant, healthy, and allows the needed
result, we continue to reduce biodiversity.
movement of its resident species (not fragmented); many of those
species can be harvested (or survive other losses) without declines in
Habitat is a finite resource; no matter how little is lost, fragmented, or
biodiversity. When habitat is not abundant, healthy, or does not allow
degraded annually, any net loss is unsustainable and will eventually
movement required for adequate reproduction, even a gradual loss of
result in the loss of populations of wildlife, and over the longer term, in the
individuals over time will eventually bring about the loss of a population,
loss of entire species. Some habitat can be restored with time, but our
species, or entire ecosystem.
treatment of habitat will not be sustainable until we arrive at no net loss,
fragmentation, or degradation of habitat annually. We must learn to live
within a smaller ecological footprint (impacted land area) than we currently do. Similarly, the human population will not be sustainable, nor will
it benefit from healthy ecosystems and full biodiversity, until we recognize
the need for and implement lifestyles that result in no net loss, fragmentation, or degradation of habitat.
The Future
Photo credit: James Andrews
There are a very limited number of species of reptiles and amphibians in
The growth of our human population in Vermont and our associated
resource use are currently creating losses in biodiversity not only in Vermont, but also in all the areas that either provide our resources or take
our waste (in the case of CO2 this means the entire surface of the planet). Stabilizing the human population here and throughout the world is
a necessary first step and it can be achieved simply through education,
opportunity, and provision of basic birth control supplies. However, it is
Biodiversity ~ James S. Andrews
12
only the first step. The second step will be to stabilize our use of resources
per capita and to extract and dispose of those resources in a biodiversity-friendly way. In my view, this will require a lowering of the resource use
per capita in much of the developed world and the development and
application of informed new strategies to protect biodiversity.
•
Stabilization and gradual reduction of our human population globally,
•
Stabilization and gradual reduction of human resource use per capita globally, especially in the developed world,
•
Reduction of CO2 in our atmosphere to 350 ppm,
•
Control of the import and export of invasive species and diseases,
Optimum / Sustainable Population
•
Improved technologies and methodologies that help protect bio-
diversity,
It is fairly easy to determine the optimal size of our human population in
Updated economic systems that recognize and internalize the Vermont for sustaining biodiversity. Unfortunately, that number is 0. Even •
value of biodiversity and provide incentives for maintaining unde-
with a reduced and stable human population, we would still reduce bio
veloped land,
diversity as a result of our mobility, our level of resource consumption per
•
Improved political processes that allow sound science and the person, and our self-centered worldview. Our ability and willingness to
long-term public interest to have a larger influence on laws, and
alter our environment has exceeded our willingness to assess the impacts
•
Extensive public education that clearly communicates why we on other species (and our own) and make the needed adjustments. A
must limit our population and how it can be done in an ethically human population of zero in Vermont would allow biodiversity to renew
responsible manor.
itself as much as possible, best limit the introduction of non-native species
and wildlife pathogens, and maintain optimal conditions for the perpetOne indicator with relevance to the maintenance of biodiversity is the
uation of our state’s biodiversity over the long-term. If we all left, biodiversity in Vermont would have the best chance of healing and maintain- ecological footprint (see the related article by Howe in this publication).
Since, this indicator factors in population and resource use per capita to
ing itself. So many other species would benefit from our absence that I
arrive at an area-based footprint and the maintenance of our biodiverbelieve a human population of zero would be optimal for restoring and
sity depends on land (plus water and air) for habitat, it can be used as a
sustaining biodiversity within Vermont.
good starting point. Howe arrives at a recommended sustainable popOf course, this is an unrealistic goal. In addition, along with the substantial ulation of 150,000 people in Vermont based on our current resource use
risks involved, there are advantages to some species to human alteration per capita and our current technology, political system, and worldview.
and management of habitat. Grassland species would benefit from the It should also be noted that this model does not concern itself with threats
to biodiversity such as our introduction of invasive plants and diseases.
pastures and croplands that we create if they were managed wisely.
With informed and thoughtful management, other species could benefit This suggests an optimal human population level somewhere between
zero and 150,000. Based on our history, this is the safest approach for
as well. No matter what our population size, our impacts to biodiversity
biodiversity short of leaving entirely.
will depend on a variety of variables that can be changed, such as our
ability to control our importation of exotic species and diseases, our resource use per capita, and our ability and willingness to not only monitor However, if we could agree to dedicate ourselves to the goals and acour impacts on biodiversity, but to make the necessary changes when we tions required above, and we in the developed world would work to lower our consumption per person by 50%, I suggest that our initial Vermont
see biodiversity threatened.
population goal for sustainability could be as high as 50% of our current
population of 620,000, or 310,000 people. Reducing our population and
My recommended sustainable human population for Vermont is based
on science but assumes significant advances in our behavior. In addition, consumption level both by 50% would set a tremendously important exmy recommended population level should be viewed as an initial goal to ample for the rest of the country and the world.
work toward while making those advancements, monitoring our impacts,
When we were previously at 310,000 people here in Vermont we were
and making needed adjustments.
still doing lots of damage to biodiversity. This is the population that we
Given the movement of resources, waste, and species around the world, achieved in about 1850 and maintained (give or take) for the next cenno level of human population in Vermont will be sustainable without dam- tury. For this number of humans to be sustainable without damage to
our life support systems will require major efforts toward the goals above.
age to biodiversity unless it is combined with:
13 What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
However, working toward a 50% reduction in population number and resource use will give our existing improvements in technology, education,
and management a chance to bear fruit. And as leaders in this tremendously important movement, we would have a chance to work out many
of the issues and make many of the systemic improvements that will need
to be made. As we work toward this goal, our target human population
number could be either lowered or raised if sound scientific data showed
it was consistent with maintaining our biodiversity.
Given the caveats above, and all the changes in our behavior and systems that they require, working toward a human
population in Vermont of 310,000 would give us a significantly improved chance of being able to sustain the totality of genes, species, and ecosystems found in Vermont. It
would be a significant step toward conserving biodiversity in
Vermont and the world.
Biodiversity ~ James S. Andrews 14
Sources Cited
es 92:9343-9347.
Plumb, G. 2011. Vermont environmental trends report: the population
Adams, M., D. Miller, E. Muths, P. Corn, E. Grant, L. Bailey, G. Fellers, R.
Fisher, W. Sadinski, H. Waddle, and S. Walls. 2013. Trends in amphibian oc- connection,
cupancy in the United States. PloS One 8(5): e64347. Doi:10.1371/journal.
Sidor, I.F., M.A. Pokras, A.R. Major, R.H. Poppenga, K.M. Taylor, and R.M.
pone.0064347.
Miconi. 2003. Mortality of Common Loons in New England, 1987 to 2000.
Journal of Wildlife Diseases 39:306-315.
Andrews, J. S. 2013. The Vermont reptile and amphibian atlas. James S.
Andrews, Middlebury, Vermont.
Society for Conservation Biology. 2013. Frequently asked questions, what
Andrews, K., W. Gibbons, and D. Jochimson, 2006. Literature synthesis of are the main threats to biodiversity? http://www.conbio.org/publications/science.
the effects of roads and vehicles on amphibian and reptiles. Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation, ReThompson, Z. 1853. Natural history of Vermont, Reprinted in 1971 by
port No. FHWA-HEP-08-005. Washington, D.C.
Charles E. Tuttle Company, Rutland , Vermont.
Austin, J., E. Marshall, C. Alexander, F. Hammond, & the Habitat AssessUnited States Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. “Keeping in
ment Team. 2000. Saving our open landscape, effects of development
Touch” September 1999. Vermont State Program Unit. Boston, MA: EPA
and sprawl on Vermont’s fish and wildlife. Vermont Fish and Wildlife.
Region 1 – New England..
Fahrig, L. 1997. Relative effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on
United States Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau,
population extinction. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:603-610.
State and County QuickFacts, Last revised June 27, 2013
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html.
Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation
1000:65-74.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Pharmaceuticals
Godin, A. 1971. The mammals of New England, Johns Hopkins University and personal care products. Website http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/, last
updated 2/29/2012.
Press, Baltimore, MD.
Groombridge, B. 1992. Global biodiversity: status of the earth’s living
resources. Chapman & Hall, London, England.
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 1997. Environment 1997. An assessment of the quality of Vermont’s environment.
Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. 2009. Big game management
Hayhoe, K., C.P. Wake, T.G. Huntington, L. Luo, M. Schwartz, J. Sheffield,
plan 2010-2020: Creating a Road Map for the Future.
E. Wood, B. Anderson, J. Bradbury, A. DeGaetano, T. Tory, and D. Wolfe.
2007. Past and future changes in climate and hydrologic indicators in the
U.S. Northeast. Climate Dynamics 28:381-407.
Howe, C. 2013. What is a sustainable population for Vermont? Vermonters for a Sustainable Population.
International Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Core writing team, R.K. Pachauri, and
A. Reisinger, Eds.) IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Pimm, S.L. and R.A. Askins. 1995. Forest losses predict bird extinctions in
eastern North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Scienc-
15
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Democracy ~ Lisa Sammet
“If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they
will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.” - Aristotle
Definition
Democracy, as defined for this article is, “government by the people,
especially the rule of the majority, a government in which the supreme
power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically
held free elections.1”
In more detail, it is a:
citizens, therefore decentralizing power. Some of the prime functions of
a democracy are: to protect basic human rights such as freedom of
speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the
opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic,
and cultural life of society.
When each person has the ability to be heard and his/her views are
considered in the outcome of legislation there is more democracy.
When each person’s viewpoint is only one of many thousands, the individual’s viewpoint gets lost and there is a loss of democracy.
…form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodic free elections.
In a direct democracy, the public participates in government directly (as in some ancient Greek city-states, some New England
town meetings, and some cantons in modern Switzerland).
Most democracies today are representative. The concept of
representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages and
the Enlightenment and in the American and French Revolutions.
Democracy has come to imply universal suffrage, competition
for office, freedom of speech and the press, and the rule of law.2
Importance
One of the major tenets of our society is the belief in equality: that all
citizens should be heard, each citizen is important, and their desires
can be counted. Another concept of democratic governance is that
with majority rule, the majority are satisfied with the governance that
they live under. However, the disadvantage is that the minority who live
under majority rule often don’t have their voices heard. This can lead
to a marginalization of large segments of the population and what is
described as a “tyranny of the majority” unless laws are enacted to
constrain the majority and protect minorities.
Ideally, a democratic system allows individuals to have the opportunity to obtain the lives they desire and not be subject to the dictates
of all-powerful governments that make rules without the input of their
1
2
Merriam Webster Dictionary, 2013
Concise Encyclopedia: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
Historical Trends
The following information was
taken from the U.S. Census Bureau3:
•
1960 the estimated population of Vermont was 389,881.
•
2012 the estimated population of Vermont was 626,011.
The population of Vermont has
had a 60% increase since 1960. How
can we factor this increase into its effect upon democracy?
Source: Burlington Free Press
Dr. Alan Bartlett has given his celebrated lecture, Arithmetic, Population
and Energy over 1,600 times since September 1969 (average of once
every 8.5 days). He and other physicists from the University of Nebraska
have studied the problems of overpopulation and the increasing rate
of resource consumption. Their papers were published in a book, The
Essential Exponential! For the Future of Our Planet.
Dr. Bartlett, in an essay entitled Democracy Cannot Survive Overpopulation, states, “We can generalize and state a fundamental law: in a
political subdivision that is governed by an elected representative body
of unchanging size, the rate of decline of democracy is approximately
equal to the rate of growth of the population.”4
3
State and County QuickFacts.” US Census Bureau. Last revised 14 Mar. 2013, < http://quickfacts.census.gov/
qfd/states/50000.html
4
Bartlett, Albert. http://www.albartlett.org/articles/articles_by_al_bartlett.html
Democracy ~ Lisa Sammet 16
Applying this law to Vermont’s conditions, we see that in 1960 the population of Vermont was 389,881, while in 2012 it was 626,011. There are now
236,130 more people in Vermont. Vermont is eligible for one representative to the Federal House of Representatives and that Representative
must now represent many more people than they once did. By using Dr.
Bartlett’s calculation outlined above, we can state that there has been a
60% loss of democracy since 1960.
In the U.S. Constitution, Article I, 1790, it states, “The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand.” We have come a
long way from that. In 1790 the population of Vermont was 85,425. If we
compare the representation we had at the beginning of our country to
what we have now, we have lost a significant amount of democracy in
Vermont and, indeed, in the country as a whole. In 2000 each Representative was representing over 700,000 voters. The population of the U.S. has
been growing about 1% every year but the number of Representatives in
the House has remained at 435. So, in this way we are losing democracy
each year by 1%.
There is more potential for each person to be heard, therefore more
democracy, when there are fewer numbers of people that need to be
represented. Even if you increased the number of representatives, finally
the number of representatives would become so large that it would be
difficult to manage a representative body. This may be why the number
of representatives in our Federal House has not changed since 1910.
Source: http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
“The last increase in representation occurred after the 1910 census when
the total number of congressional districts was increased to 435. It has
remained that size ever since (except for a four-year period when it was
temporarily increased to 437 after the admission of Alaska and Hawaii).1”
Because of this increasing ratio of population to representatives, since
1http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
17 What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
1910 our democracy has dwindled significantly. As a citizen one loses actual access to the representative. There is relatively less political strength
per person and per vote. As this declines, people feel they have less
power and become less engaged politically and in their sense of personal responsibility to the community.
Looking at our direct democracy in Vermont, figures can be obtained
from the VT Secretary of State’s webpage. They show that although there
is still an opportunity for direct democracy in Vermont, few take advantage of it. Town meeting attendance can be as low as 0.33% in 2001 in
Colchester (with 12,093 registered voters and only 40 attending town
meeting) to a high from Searsburg in 2009 with 78 registered voters and 36
attending the meeting for 48.6%2.
As Vermont communities have grown, many have moved away from the
direct, deliberative democracy of traditional town meeting. Some have
chosen the representative democracy of city councils; one has chosen
a representative town meeting; and many more have moved to the
non-deliberative Australian ballot.
The city of Brattleboro has developed a unique form of a representative
town meeting:
“Brattleboro (with a population of 12,046) employs a Representa
tive Town Meeting local government, wherein its citizens are rep-
resented at-large by a Select Board of five members, and by sev-
eral dozen Town Representatives elected from three municipal districts. The Select Board is considered the ‘executive branch’ of town government; its five members are elected to fill three one-
year positions and two three-year positions. In turn, the Select Board hires and supervises a Town Manager. The town’s three dis-
tricts also each elect a representative to the Vermont State Legis-
lature.3”
The larger cities in Vermont also have differing forms of government.
Burlington, with its current population of 42,645, has a Mayor with a City
Council which has fourteen seats.4 That means there is one representative for 3046 people.
Looking at Statewide democracy in Vermont, there are 30 senators in the
VT Senate and 150 members in the Vermont House of Representatives.
With our current population there is an average of one representative for
every 4,173 constituents.
2http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/townmeetingturnout.html
3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brattleboro,_Vermont
4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_VT#Government
Trends
As there is less direct representation because the ratio of representatives
to the represented is increasing, there is a vacuum created and representatives are not able to stay in touch with all the needs and desires of
those they are representing. This vacuum is often filled by the influence of
money on campaigns and decision-making, both in Vermont and on the
national stage. As Professor Bartlett states, “Politicians like to talk to people, but because of overpopulation they can’t talk to everyone. So, they
talk to a few, self-selecting small groups of wealthy and influential people.
Because of this dilution, the old statement, ‘One person, one vote,’ is now
being replaced by ‘One dollar, one vote.”1
Optimum / Sustainable Population
There is much speculation about optimum population size in many books
and articles, which can be viewed through the lens of economics, culture, military endeavors, natural resources, ecology, etc.
In the book The Vermont Papers: Democracy on a Human Scale, authors
Frank Bryan and John McClaughry explore how to establish a government that is more democratic, where each person has more say in
running the government. They state, “Our judgment from Vermont is that
the optimal population size for direct democracy is in the 500 to 2,500
range.4” In studying town meetings from 1969-1989 they found a “reIt is not only wealthy individuals either: we have seen more and more
markable drop-off” in town meeting attendance once the town popuinfluence by corporations and groups that have formed Political Action
lation got larger than 1000. They claim, “Nevertheless, there are enough
Committees (PACs). Corporate influence in elections was greatly broad- cases of towns in the 1000-2,500 range that attain, say 20% attendance
ened by the 2010 Supreme Court Ruling in the Citizens United vs. FEC. That to warrant faith in population sizes of up to 2,500.5”
ruling considered that corporations are citizens and have a right to free
speech and therefore, can spend money on elections as any citizen can In general this can be seen in the statistics for town meetings found on
legally do. The rules for campaign finance are large and long.
the VT Secretary of State’s website. The towns with the smaller population
have the higher percentages of people attending town meeting. In 2009
This is a national trend that has entered into Vermont politics in our last
for towns that have solely a town meeting attendance was highest in
election cycle. “In the past three weeks, outside groups have spent
Maidstone with 141 registered voters, 57 voters or 40.4% of the registered
nearly $473,000 on television ads, mailers and other mass media support- voters. The lowest was in Montgomery where out of 834 voters, 58 or 7%
ing Vermont political candidates. Not surprisingly, the bulk of that came
attended town meeting.6
from the conservative super PAC Vermonters First, which has been almost
entirely bankrolled by Burlington super-donor Lenore Broughton. Since
Since per capita town meeting attendance declines in large towns,
Oct. 6, the organization has spent $322,000 on mass media. The next five many growing towns have shifted from the traditional floor meeting to
biggest-spending outside groups all support Democratic candidates, but Australian ballot; this tends to increase the number of voters. In our busy
their combined spending in the past three weeks pales in comparison:
world, democracy-on-the-run, in the voter box, is sometimes more attracjust $138,000.”2
tive then spending a whole morning or day at a town meeting. However,
though the quantity of participants may increase (especially if there if
some hot button issue), the quality of the democracy is lessened. There
The Future
is no face-to-face debate and discussion. There is no time for people to
hear each other’s viewpoints.
It is evident that democracy will only diminish as population increases
in Vermont, as well as in the United States. Between 2000 and 2010 Vermont’s population grew from 608,827 to 626,001, an increase of 2.8%3.
The trend in Vermont and in the US at-large is an increasing population.
Therefore, unless population growth halts or reverses or there is a proportional increase in the number of Representatives, there will be a continued shrinkage in actual democracy.
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_VT#Government
2
Heintz, Paul. http://7d.blogs.com/offmessage/2012/10/closing-weeks-outside-groups-spend-half-million-dollarsvermont-candidates.html
3
State and County QuickFacts.” US Census Bureau. Last revised 14 Mar. 2013,
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html
In 2009 there was a low of 11.1% turnout in Barre City, to a high of 45.8% in
Rutland Town for towns that only have Australian Ballot.7
In the following chart, the least populous towns are found on the left and
the most populous towns to the right. We can see that although there
4
Bryan, Frank and John McClaughry, The Vermont Papers: recreating democracy on a human scale. White
River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. C. 1989.
5
Frank, Ibid.p.89
6
http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/townmeetingturnout.html
7ibid.
Democracy ~ Lisa Sammet
18
is much fluctuation as we move across the chart, the general trend is
downward, with a smaller percentage of the population attending town
meeting as the population increases.
Data source: Vermont Secretary of State. http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/townmeetingturnout.html
The use of the Australian Ballot and the evolution toward representative
democracy in the towns and cities with larger populations has allowed
more people to have some voice in their government. But the question
is: Is there a critical point where we begin to lose our influence as citizens
in democracy due to population? With representative government, as
population increases, the number of representatives can also increase.
Yet, at some point, wouldn’t this become too unwieldy, with too many
representatives making it hard to get any work done.
If we take the number of 2,500 from Frank Bryan’s quote above, and apply that to all of Vermont’s 251 towns that gives a population of 627,500.
This is done with the assumption that some of the larger towns and cities
will have representative governments whose representatives represent
2,500 constituents. With our current population at 626,011 we have already arrived at the population size for democracy to work in Vermont.
For the best democratic representation, communication, and transparency, the optimal population
size of Vermont is not any greater than our current
population of 626,011.
19
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Ecological Footprint ~ Carmen Howe, MS, PMP
“A finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.” ~Garrett Hardin
Definition
An ecological footprint is used to determine the amount of natural resources of the Earth a population is using and takes into account what
humans need to sustain life, as provided by the Earth.
According to Worldcentric.org, the ecological footprint takes into
account the required needs to sustain a defined population in certain
categories including:4
•
•
•
The needs of the human population provided by the planet are converted into land and water areas that people need to sustain their lives. •
The Sustainable Scale Project defines the ecological footprint as “the
•
area of productive land and water ecosystems required to produce
the resources that the population consumes and assimilate the wastes that the population produces, wherever on Earth the land and water is •
located.”1
Arable land required to grow crops.
Pasture land required to sustain animals raised for meat, etc.
Forest resources required for fuel, housing, etc.
Ocean resources providing water for fish and other needs from the ocean.
Infrastructure needed, which is the land required for housing, factories, and transportation.
Energy costs including the land needed to absorb various types of waste and CO2 emissions.
The Footprint Network describes global overshoot as the situation that
occurs when the human population needs more from nature
than it can supply. The human
population ends up using more
An ecological footprint that is calculated for a population is described
of the Earth’s resources than the
in what are referred to as “global hectares.” A global hectare is the
existing supply and more than
equivalent of one hectare, which equates to 2.47 acres. The SustainEarth can reproduce. This leads
able Scale Project, on their website dated 2003, says that the biosphere
to depletion of natural capital
has the following:
and waste will build up. Earth’s
resources cannot build up again
•
“Approximately 11.2 billion hectares of biologically productive fast enough as the population
space” which equates to about one quarter of the planet’s is overusing them so there besurface.
comes
a
status
of
not
enough
resources
available for the population.
•
The aforementioned 11.2 billion hectares include “2.3 billion Overshoot
can
also
occur
in
a
local
area
and is called local overshoot.
hectares of ocean and inland water and 8.8 billion hectares of This
is
when
the
resources
in
a
local
area
are
used and depleted faster
land. The land space is composed of 1.5 billion hectares of crop
than
the
local
natural
resources
can
be
regenerated
and there be
land, 3.5 billion hectares of grazing land, 3.6 billion hectares of 5
comes
a
local
depletion
of
resources.
forest land, and 0.2 billion hectares of built-up land.”
•
All of the above surfaces are what are available for the popula-
Natural capital is the raw materials and natural cycles on the planet
tion to live on and what humans rely on for life.”3
that provide necessities to people on a regular basis. These include
actual products like fish, wood, and cereals; waste assimilation; and
1
“Ecological Footprint.” The Sustainable Scale Project. Santa-Barbara Family Foundation. 2003, <http://www.sustainablescale.
other functions that support life such as those that are involved with
org/ConceptualFramework/UnderstandingScale/MeasuringScale/EcologicalFootprint.aspx#one>.
The ecological footprint was first developed in 1990 at the University of
British Columbia by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees and is now
used everywhere.2
2
“Footprint Basics Overview.” Global Footprint Network. 2003-2013, <http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/
footprint_basics_overview/>.
3
“Ecological Footprint.” The Sustainable Scale Project.
4
5
Worldcentric.org. 2004-2013. http://worldcentric.org/conscious-living/expanding-eco-footprint.
“Glossary.” Global Footprint Network.
Ecological Footprint ~ Carmen Howe
20
maintaining the climate, keeping the water clean, and more.
square meters.
•
One square mile equals 259 hectares.
•
If you take the Vermont land area in square miles: 9216.66 miles2
Importance
•
Multiply it by the number of people per square miles: 67.9
•
9216.66 X 67.9 = 625811.21 This is the population of Vermont.
The concern is that populations are using more resources than the Earth
•
This value is quite close to the value that was given by the Census, can provide or regenerate. The ecological footprint is a way to measure
which is 626,011 people.
how much area each population, or person, requires, and how much the
•
1 mile2 = 259 hectares
Earth can sustain.
•
Convert 9216.66 miles2 to hectares = 2,387,115 hectares in Ver-
mont, which is the land area of Vermont.
According to the Current Population Clock from the US Census Bureau, at
•
Assume
Vermonters have the same ecological footprint as a typi-
21:29 UTC time (coordinated universal time), on April 5, 2013, the US pop
cal
American, which is 9.57 hectares.
ulation was 315,620,333 people. The world population was 7,076,897,421
•
Population
of Vermont is estimated at 626,011.
people.1
•
626,011 X 9.57 hectares = 5,990,925.27 hectares would be used.
Trends
The following population information was taken from the US Census Bureau:2
•
Between 2010 and 2012, there was a 0.043% increase in popula-
tion
•
2012 Population Estimate for the United States: 313,914,040
•
2012 Population Estimate for Vermont: 626,011
•
2012 Land Area in Square Miles for Vermont: 9,216.66
•
2012 Persons per Square Mile for Vermont: 67.9
•
The population for Vermont from 2010 to 2012 only increased by 270 people.
Vermonters need 3,603,810.27 MORE hectares or 8,906,000 more acres to
live a lifestyle with a 9.57 ecological footprint, with the same population.
Remember that Earth could only support 1.2 billion people at 9.57 hectares per person so people cannot continue to live in this manner. This
would also result in the forest cover decreasing as well as the loss of other
natural resources.
The Future
The planet’s biological productive capacity (biocapacity) is approximately 1.9 hectares (4.7 acres) per person. However, globally, we use up
to 2.2 hectares per person, which means that we are living beyond the
planet’s capacity by 15%, a deficit of .3 hectares, or 1 acre per person.
The US has the largest per capita footprint in the world with a footprint
of 9.57 hectares. If everyone on the planet lived like an American, we
would need five planets to sustain everyone and Earth could only support
1.2 billion people at 9.57 hectares per person.
Calculations
•
A hectare is a metric unit of area equal to 2.471 acres or 10,000 1
2
“Current Population Clock.” US Census Bureau. Last revised 03 Apr. 2013, <http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html>.
“State and County QuickFacts.” US Census Bureau. Last revised 14 Mar. 2013, < http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html>
Source: Global Footprint Network - www.footprintnetwork.org
21
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Optimum / Sustainable Population
Works Cited
Use 1.9 hectares (4.7 acres) as a goal for the ecological footprint for
each Vermonter. This is Earth’s biocapacity, or capacity to provide and
regenerate natural resources.
“Current Population Clock.” US Census Bureau. Last revised 03 Apr. 2013.
“Ecological Footprint.” The Sustainable Scale Project. Santa-Barbara Family Foundation. 2003.
“Expanding Eco-Footprint.” Worldcentric.org. 2004-2013.
“Footprint Basics Overview.” Global Footprint Network. 2003-2013.
“Glossary.” Global Footprint Network. 2003-2013.
“Methodology Overview.” Global Footprint Network. 2003-2013.
“State and County QuickFacts.” US Census Bureau. Last revised 14 Mar. 2013.
There are 2,387,115 hectares in Vermont and 626,011 people.
626,011 X 1.9 hectares (optimal personal ecological footprint) =
1,189,420.90 hectares would be used if all Vermonters had a very low
ecological footprint of 1.9 hectares each.
This would solve the hectare deficit problem that would happen if Vermonters had a high hectare ecological footprint of 9.57 per person.
Since Vermont has 2,387,115 hectares available, if everyone dropped to
using 1.9 hectares each for an ecological footprint, it would result in a
reserve of 1,197,694.10 hectares or 4,626 square miles! That is about half
the size of Vermont reserved.
Going back to the typical American using 9.57 hectares per person,
Vermont, the optimum population size would be approximately 150,000
people.
150,000 x 9.57 = 1,435,000 hectares
There are 2,387,000 hectares available in Vermont, which leaves 951,500
hectares in reserve for the land to replenish itself from the natural resources used.
The ideal, sustainable population size for Vermont,
with an ecological footprint of 9.57 (American typical footprint), is 150,000 people.
Ecological Footprint ~ Carmen Howe 22
Environmental Health ~ Annette Smith
“We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” ~ Aldo Leopold
Definition
Trends
There are many different understandings of environmental health, but for
the purposes of helping to implement sustainability as defined by Vermonters for Sustainable Population, the author defines it as, “The ecosystems of a given regional area sufficient in quantity and free from pollution
so that all life native to that area can live a healthy life.” A region means
an area with similar habitat like the Champlain Valley, Northeast Kingdom, Taconic Mountains, Connecticut River Valley, or Green Mountain
Range.
There is no question that Vermont’s environmental health is deteriorating
when it comes to the most important indicators. This is well documented
in environmental trend facts. Two reports published by Vermonters for
Sustainable Population show the changes in environmental health data.
Unfortunately, for most of the indicators the data wasn’t tracked until the
1980’s, when much deterioration had already happened.
Importance
Environmental health is essential to all living species. To human beings it is
of extreme importance both for our physical health and for our quality of
life. It is also important to our economy because our economy depends
upon natural resources and in the long-term particularly, renewable resources.
For other species, their lives depend not only on the quality of the habitat but on the quantity and connectivity of the habitat. It does not help
some species much if there is a large tract of protected land but it is
totally separated from other large tracts. Vermont’s economy also depends on the environmental health of preserved lands that minimize or
exclude human’s ability to extract and profit financially from the sale of
those resources.
The most recent report is the Vermont Environmental Trends Report: The
Population Connection published in 2011.1 The report states:
In summary, there are thirteen indicators of environmental health being measured. Of these, seven are showing improvement: stressed, altered and impaired rivers; toxic water releases; lake water pH; rain pH; toxic air releases; the number of unhealthy air quality index days; and harmful forest pests. Four show declining environmental trends: land use; stressed, altered and impaired
inland lakes; average annual temperature; and maple tree
canopy cover. Two trends are difficult to interpret at this point: greenhouse gas emissions, which have declined since 2004 but have not yet reached the 1990 level which was still very high;
and threatened or endangered species, because of a lack of good historical data. These indicators are not all equal in terms
of their importance. Land use and average annual temperature, for instance, will substantially impact all other indicators over time and must be watched closely.
All the indicators are certainly not equal in importance, with land development being by far the most important indicator. Vermont had 254,200
acres of developed land in 20032 and this increases annually. In 1990,
Vermont had 60.85 people per square mile, in 2000 Vermont had 65.83
people per square mile, and in 2010 Vermont had 67.9 people per square
mile.
In addition to the objective data, anyone who has lived in Vermont since
the 1950’s or 60’s can subjectively show on the ground literally tens of
Prime furbearer habitat is now a quarry for industrial mineral filler and road aggregate
Vermont’s increasing population is demanding more natural resource extraction
23
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
1
Vermonters for a Sustainable Population. (2011). The population connection. http://www.vspop.org/htm/Vermont-Trends-Report.
pdf
2
Bolduc, V. Ph.D. and Kessel, H. Ph.D.. (2008). Vermont in transition: A summary of social economic and environmental trends. Vermont Council on Rural Development: Montpelier, VT. Retrieved from: http://vtrural.org/sites/default/files/library/files/futureofvermont/documents/
VTTransitions_Ch3.pdf
thousands of places where the environment has either been totally destroyed, meaning there is no bio-capacity left, or the bio-capacity has
been diminished such as converting forests to lawns. Forest cover is now
declining for the first time in approximately 150 years due to population
growth and development1. This is despite huge efforts at public acquisition, land conservation, and current use laws. Many of our former pastures and hay fields have now been developed so people are clearing
forests and shore lands in order to build homes and businesses.
for asphalt for roads, aggregate for lining stormwater swales, rocks for
concrete, marble for industrial fillers, and slate for landscaping and other
construction uses. More neighbors are being more seriously affected by
mining operations which are generally incompatible with residences.
Vermont’s most important resource to address climate change and environmental health is water. Vermont is blessed with some of the purest
water on earth. Unfortunately, despite millions of dollars,our state’s waters
continue to be degraded.2 Protecting our water resources before they
There are rising concerns about increasing levels of various forms of pollu- are degraded makes economic sense, because trying to clean them up
tion that are affecting health. There are too many examples to cite in this
report, but following are some of paramount importance.
Virtually all Vermonters, and its’ wildlife, are now being subjected to toxic
substances that were not a factor prior to the development of the chemical warfare industry in WWII. Power line right-of-ways, railroad tracks,
lakes and streams, farm fields, and orchards all receive treatments of
lampricides, herbicides, fungicides and other chemicals that drift by air,
contaminate surface water, and leach into groundwater. Banned in
France and other European counties, many Vermonters are still exposed
to the atrazine/simazene family of chemicals that are known to impact
reproductivity.
In the last decade, technology has brought new types of environmental pollution into Vermonters’ lives and homes by way of increasing and
cumulatively unhealthy exposure to electromagnetic radiation via cell
phones, cell towers, wireless communications, and smart meters. In the
last three years, wind towers with their complex sound profiles are resulting in a new and poorly regulated assault on environmental health, both
for humans and wildlife.
Wastewater from dairy processing plants is being sprayed on fields in
more than 30 towns in Vermont. Some of the largest farmers in northern
Vermont are using a formalin compound (containing formaldehyde, a
known carcinogen) as a hoof treatment. Vermont’s laws enable the
farmers to bypass appropriate hazardous waste disposal practices and
dump the used formaldehyde-based solution into manure pits which
are spread on farm fields, around which people are getting sick with
life-threatening illnesses.
once they are degraded is both expensive and often ineffective. From
the tops of our mountains where poor logging practices are resulting in
tremendous sediment running off into streams to the receiving waters of
our lakes, and groundwater, Vermonters’ access to clean water is declining at an alarming rate. Unfortunately, the global picture is much worse
and as the climate changes, people in drought-stricken areas will be
looking to Vermont to share our abundant water resources.
A view of Vermont from 1984 to 2012, now enabled by http://world.time.
com/timelapse/, shows our changing landscape. Zero in on Rutland
County and note the changes in quarrying activities (which show up well
in aerial views), corresponding to human society’s increasing demand
Vermont’s drinking water is increasingly under threat, not just from naturally-occurring contaminants like iron, arsenic, manganese, radon, radionuclides, bacteria, etc., but also from regulators who are pushing Vermont’s
municipal water systems that rely on surface water to add ammonia
to chlorine to create chloramine for secondary disinfection (as the water goes from the treatment plant out through the distribution system).
Chloramine is far more toxic to aquatic life than chlorine: it is a stable
compound that lasts more than 30 days compared to chlorine which dissipates overnight, and chloramine is making people sick in the one water
1
http://www.forestfoundation.org/forest-cover-is-declining-in-every-new-england-sta and http://silviculture.forestry.umn.edu/prod/
groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@forestry/documents/asset/cfans_asset_241283.pdf
2http://www.vjel.org/journal/pdf/VJEL10194.pdf
Environmental Health ~ Annette Smith
24
system in Vermont that uses it, the Champlain Water District.
Vermont’s wastewater treatment plants are another contributor to ongoing degradation of Vermont’s environmental health. The Clean Water
Act envisioned “zero discharge”, which is now technologically feasible.
Policies and the lack of political will enable unnecessary pollution of our
waters.
The Future
If the Vermont population continues to grow, Vermont’s environment
will continue deteriorating. Good planning and zoning and strict environmental regulations may help lessen the impacts, but that is all they
do: there will still be environmental degradation. “Mitigation” has been
repeatedly shown to be a poor substitute for protecting and respecting
our state’s resources.
Unlike other areas (such as the recently-developed Comprehensive
Energy Plan and the recently announced development of a Comprehensive Economic Plan), the state of Vermont has no plan to address Environmental Health issues. Increasing population and new, poorly-studied
technologies are guaranteed to collide in greater numbers and wider
areas. Vermont will likely need to carve out some safe zones for people
with environmental health sensitivities to electromagnetic radiation, wind
turbine noise, water disinfection chemicals, and agricultural chemicals.
As more people are impacted by Environmental Health problems, there is
the possibility that Vermonters will unite to come up with a plan to reduce
the statewide exposure to chemicals and protect more areas from development and pollution.
Optimum / Sustainable Population
If we truly want to protect our environment for all life and future generations of people then we must stabilize our population size at a sustainable
level. How do we determine that figure?
With dramatic changes in technology, such as the change to appropriate renewable energy (primarily solar until something better comes
along) and much stronger planning, zoning, and regulation, we could
have a healthy environment of a larger size than those figures. Most important for regulators is to say “no” instead of trying to permit everything
that is proposed. Realistically, we could probably slowly go back to the
population size of approximately 1950 and have a healthy environment,
25
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
providing we strengthen environmental regulation laws and maintain our
forest cover at approximately 75%.
For a healthy environment a truly sustainable population size for Vermont is approximately 400,000.
Food Self-Sufficiency ~ Heather V. Davis, MA
“The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings.” ~ Masanobu Fukuoka
Definition
What does “food self-sufficiency” mean: especially here in Vermont,
where we have a short, and cool, growing season and cannot grow
coffee, cacao, pineapples, and bananas? It would be unrealistic, and
perhaps even downright cruel, to expect Vermonters to give up some of
the tropical pleasures we’ve grown so accustomed to. For this reason,
and for the purposes of this paper, we are going to explore the possibility
of Vermont growing 80% of its own food and what population Vermont’s
land is able to support under those circumstances.
amount of land available to grow our own food because of additional
land needs to support these energy sources.
Importance
As humanity makes its way toward the end of cheap and abundant oil,
agricultural practices will either need to change and become less dependent upon oil for
its production and
distribution; food prices will rise; or both will
There has been much debate about whether or not we can feed the
happen. In the figure
world using natural methods of production, but I will use the assumption
to the left, we can see
(which is based on much evidence1) that natural methods of agricultural
that there is a direct
production can “feed the world”. We will be looking at sustainable methcorrelation between
ods of production because if we are speaking about ideals in this paper,
oil prices and food
not only do we want a sustainable population in Vermont, but we also
prices.
want sustainable agriculture to feed that population.
According to the
By default, when we are exploring Vermont feeding itself, we are speakWorld Bank, “In the
ing of local food. There is an increasing recognition by many that sup‘new normal’ of high
porting local food is beneficial on many levels: it keeps money in the local
and volatile food priceconomy and supports small business; it promotes diversification of farms es, millions will continue to suffer from poor nutrition, whether it is hunger,
and small family farmers; it has the potential of increasing the consumpundernutrition or obesity which can cause premature death.3” Do we
tion of healthy foods, and therefore contributing to the alleviation of the need to consider this as inevitable? Or are there steps we can take to
obesity epidemic that exists in this country. According to the organization mitigate the effects and build resiliency?
Vital Communities, for every dollar spent at a local business 45¢, is reinvested locally. Whereas for every dollar spent at a corporate chain store, Trends
only 15¢ is reinvested locally2.
This paper only considers the amount of land needed to grow the food
and does not take into account the energy, and therefore land, needed to plant, fertilize, weed, harvest, store, transport, and cook that food.
Presently that energy is derived almost entirely from relatively cheap fossil
fuels. As we deplete these resources, as we are certainly going to do in
this century, other forms of energy will need to be utilized. These could
well include horsepower and bio-diesel, which would cut down on the
1
De Schutter, Olivier. (December, 2010). Agroecology and the right to food. Report presented at the 16th
Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council [A/HRC/16/49] Retrieved from: http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/
pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf
2
Vital Communities: Local First Alliance, http://www.vitalcommunities.org/
Between 1997 and 2007 there was an 18.25% decrease in the amount of
cropland in Vermont (from 617,263 to 516,924 acres ). During the same
time period, there was a 6.29% increase in the number of farms (from
6571 to 6984). This shows us a mixed bag, but ultimately, the loss of cropland is a major concern: the more cropland that is lost, the fewer people
we can feed. This cropland is likely lost to development and farms going
out of production. The significant barrier of increasing farmland prices
does not help the matter, although steps are being taken to address
these issues.
3
The World Bank. (March 27, 2013). Food Prices Decline but Still High and Close to Historical Peaks. Retrieved
from: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/03/27/food-prices-decline-still-high-close-historical-peaks
Food Self-Sufficiency ~ Heather Davis
26
Adding to this
landscape is the
fact that Americans are eating
more over time:
“The aggregate
food supply in
2000 provided
3,800 calories
per day, 500
calories above
the 1970 level
and 800 calories
above the record low in 1957
and 1958”1
to feed an individual person.
Based upon work by a team of Cornell scientists led by Christian
Peters4, Dr. Jason Bradford, who leads the farmland management program for Farmland LP, claims that it takes, on average, about one acre to
feed each individual.
Dr. Bradford’s estimation used the study cited above and based his calculation upon the average food consumption presented in the illustration
below. Of course, actual consumption varies according to age, appetite, weight, and habits. In Peters’ study, “the critical components that
varied across the diets [they calculated estimations for forty-two different
diets] were the quantity of meat consumed per day and the percent
of total energy coming from
fat.” (p. 147). This resulted in
a “nearly fivefold difference
in per capita land requirements… between the diets”
The Future
(p. 149). At the same time,
production also varies, deVermont is taking big steps in supporting local food production by legpending upon farming pracislating programs such as Farm to Plate and providing grants to farmers
tices, efficiency, and soils.
and value-added processors, and consumers are placing more value on This calculation also takes
this all the time, which can be seen in the number of farmers’ markets per into consideration food loss,
capita in Vermont in comparison to the U.S. as a whole (1.2 per 10,000
estimated by the U.S. Departvs. .2 per 10,000) This is very good news if we want to be able to feed
ment of Agriculture, on the
ourselves, but whether or not these trends continue into the future will be production, distribution, and
hard to say. Is this a short-term trend? Or, is this a paradigm shift?
consumption ends.
Calculations
As can be seen above, the
variables are many and
Total cropland in Vermont in 2007, the most recent year that data is avail- complex, but for the purposes
able, was 516,924 acres2. Cropland includes, “cropland harvested, crop- of this paper we will be using
land used only for pasture or grazing, cropland on which all crops failed
consumption averages and
or were abandoned, cropland in cultivated summer fallow, and cropland production in New York State
idle or used for cover crops or soil improvement but not harvested and
based upon Dr. Bradford’s
not pastured or grazed.3”
and Christian Peter’s work.
Thanks to the U.S. Census of Agriculture, this is the easy part. The more
challenging and complex task is to estimate how many acres it requires
1
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (March 2003). Agriculture Fact Book 2001-2002. Retrieved from: http://www.
usda.gov/factbook/2002factbook.pdf
2
United States Department of Agriculture. (2009). 2007 US Census of Agriculture: United States summary and
state data, volume 1. Washington DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from http://www.agcensus.usda.
gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf
3
United States Department of Agriculture. (2009). 2007 US Census of Agriculture: United States summary and
state data, volume 1. Washington DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Retrieved from http://www.agcensus.usda.
gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf
27
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Under the above premise that it takes one acre to feed
one person - current cropland in Vermont can support
516,924 people – in theory. If
4
Peters, C.J., Wilkins, J.L., and Fick, G.W.. (2006). Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land
resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The New York State example. Renewable
Agriculture and Food Systems: 22(2); 145-153. Cambridge University Press.
Vermont were supplying 80% of the population’s food needs, this would
translate to 646,155 individuals.
However, while we want to have a sustainable population, we also want
to be using sustainable agricultural practices, and this means following
a practice of crop rotation and putting a portion of land devoted to
production into cover crop each year. Best agricultural practices recommend allowing about 1/3 of land to remain fallow each year to allow the
soil to rest and recover.
Optimum / Sustainable Population
“Over the years Vermont agriculture has changed from self-sufficient,
diversified farming which supplied most of the food needs of the State to
a farm economy which exports almost 100% of its production. The contribution of Vermont agriculture is primarily to the State’s economy, not to
feeding its people.” ~Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, Chapter 3, p. 62.
According to the Farm to Plate Strategic Plan, Chapter 22 , Vermont
produces 2.5-2.8 billion lbs of dairy products, while Vermonters consume
“Crop rotation is one of the most effective tools for managing
394,386,930 lbs (about 15% of what is produced). At the same time,
pests and maintaining soil fertility, but there aren’t many specific
Vermont produces 83,480,106 lbs of fruits and vegetables, while consumrecommendations for how to go about it. A common approach
ing 430,695,568 lbs (19.5%). Agricultural production would need to shift
on vegetable farms is to rotate crops by families. Another stratetoward more vegetable, fruit, and grain production in order to literally
gy is to alternate vegetable crops with field or forage crops, such
feed Vermont.
as small grains, alfalfa or clovers. Some
There are, of course, a wide range of assumptions that can be made on
growers try to rotate
the issues raised above. This article, in necessarily arbitrary fashion, has sefields so they are in
lected a set of assumptions on issues relating to daily food consumption,
cash crops one year
cropland necessary per person, population growth, farming practices,
and cover crops the
and crop rotation systems that include leaving a percentage of farmland
next year. On farms
fallow each year.
with limited land
for rotation out of
cash crops, sweet
Based upon these assumptions, Vermont can
corn is a good crop
to rotate with since support a population of 432,923.
it hosts very few
insects or diseases
that affect other
vegetables.”1
As conditions, technology, innovations, and these assumptions are revised over time, the population figure will have to be adjusted accordingly.
This means that the
amount of land
that should be left fallow each year would be 170,585 acres, and when
we subtract that from the number of acres of cropland, we are left with
346,339. Again, with Vermonters consuming 80% of their food from Vermont, we come up with a number of 432,923 people.
At the same time, individuals and families throughout Vermont are growing and harvesting for themselves – data that is not included in the Census of Agriculture, and therefore is not included in this calculation.
1
Grubinger, V.. (2010). Crop rotation on vegetable farms. Brattleboro, VT: University of Vermont Extension.
Retrieved from: http://www.uvm.edu/vtvegandberry/factsheets/Crop%20Rotation.pdf
2
Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund. (2011). Farm to plate strategic plan. Montpelier, VT. Retrieved from: http://
www.vsjf.org/assets/files/Agriculture/Strat_Plan/3.3_Food%20Production_Dairy.pdf
Food Self-Sufficiency ~ Heather Davis
28
Forest Cover ~ Mark Powell
“What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another.” ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Definition
Forest cover is defined by the number of acres and percentage of land
that is covered by relatively mature trees native to a given geographical
area.
Importance
Next to greenhouse gas emissions, forest cover is probably the most important environmental indicator that there is because forest cover affects
all of the other environmental indicators, including biodiversity and water
quality. It also affects non-environmental indicators such as the economy,
renewable energy, recreation opportunities, and scenic beauty.
Trends
Prior to the beginning
of non-native human
migration to Vermont
from other New England states less than
four hundred years
ago, partially due to
population growth
elsewhere, Vermont
was approximately 95% covered by
forests. Trees at that
time were often 150
feet tall and so big
in diameter that two
people couldn’t get
their arms around the trunks. The forest cover began to decline as people cleared the land for settlements, farming, and timber. That decline
continued until the late 1800’s when forest cover reached approximately
20%, then hillside farms began to be discontinued. The forest cover then
began the gradual regeneration until approximately 19981. At that point
development, largely due to population growth, began to once again
1http://silviculture.forestry.umn.edu/prod/groups/cfans/@pub/@cfans/@forestry/documents/asset/cfans_asset_241283.pdf
29
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
take away the forest cover. Unfortunately, the destruction of the forests
due to development, rather than agriculture, means that the forest will
have a more difficult time recovering because asphalt, concrete, and
steel are much harder to reverse than the historic clearing of land for
farms and pastures.
At the same time that forest cover has been declining our forests have
also become more fragmented and posted. According to the Vermont
Natural Resources Council (VNRC):
Research by VNRC shows that the phenomenon of forest fragmentation through parcelization and the subdivision of forestland
into smaller and smaller pieces and multiple ownerships is gaining
momentum. When larger parcels are divided and sold into multiple parcels, the result can be housing infrastructure that fragments
the landscape and negatively affects plant and animal species,
wildlife habitat (called habitat fragmentation), and water quality.
It can also affect the contiguous ownership and management of
forest parcels and the viability of large tracts of forestland to contribute to Vermont’s rural economy.2
Over time, this fragmentation can severely limit the movements and
the historic population dynamics of some of our more emblematic wild
species. An effort by the Nature Conservancy called “Staying Connected,” has been working, in concert with the State government, especially
through the “Current Use” program, as well as Vermont’s land trusts and
the landowners themselves, to preserve the wildlife corridors so essential
to species such as black bears, moose and bobcats. These and many
other wild species rely on large tracts of minimally disturbed habitat, and
unless these tracts are connected to each other with significantly wide
undeveloped areas, they lose the ability to move freely between these
havens of wilderness and thereby ensure the long-term genetic health
and effective reproduction needed for them to continue to exist in Vermont. Often, protecting these corridors is especially problematic because
they tend to exist near rapidly expanding human settlements and are
subject to rising real estate values driven by the expansion of our population.
There have been tremendous efforts to protect our forests in recent
2http://vnrc.org/programs/forests-wildlife/forest-and-habitat-fragmentation-campaign/
decades, and much credit goes to the Current Use program, public
acquisition, and land trusts. Thanks to their efforts approximately 30% of
Vermont’s forest are now protected. However, many of the larger tracts
of land have been protected and future protected lands will likely be
smaller and more costly due to rising real estate prices.
This three acre once forested hillside is being totally destroyed. Route 302, East Barre.
Our forests are disappearing a few acres at a time, but it is happening all over the state
and it is the cumulative impact that matters most.
ing season important meetings were never
scheduled because so few would attend.
An abundance of hunting camps could
be found in any rural town. Now with rural
development having taken over so much of
our landscape, hunting has decreased draIf Vermont’s pop- matically. At the same time, however, the
ulation continues acreage available for hunting and fishing
to grow there is
has declined dramatically, not just through
no question that the loss of habitat to development, but also
our forest cover
through restrictions on access as more and
will continue its
more landowners decide to post their land.
decline. While
To some extent, these landowner decisions
“smart growth”
are made in response to the impacts of
and thoughtful
people abusing the privilege of unrestricted
zoning laws may access. Perhaps this is the result of a loss of
be of some help widely-held ethical concepts pertaining to
in concentratactivities on other people’s properties, but
ing population
to some extent it is also likely driven by the
More development and more posting means
loss in land available for Vermonters
growth in already increased size of the population. The causes more
to enjoy.
developed areas, and possible remedies for this discouraging
the simple truth is trend of greater restriction of land access, and the extent to which it is
that a significant driven by population growth, is a topic worthy of future evaluation.
percentage of
the population
wants to live in
Optimum / Sustainable Population
rural areas and
zoning will not prevent them from doing that.
Also, as peak oil production declines and people have to grow more of
their own food and heat their homes more with wood energy, many will
want to live in rural areas where they can be more resilient. In considering
the impacts of population growth on the forest cover, we should remember that harvesting of fuelwood will increase in response to an increase in
the cost of fossil fuels. With Peak Oil either rapidly approaching or perhaps even already occurring, this pressure on Vermont forests is likely to
increase in proportion to our population size.
According to the Vt. Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation In 2011
the overall forest cover at approximately 73%. This is already approximately 20% below the natural percentage.
To retain forest cover at the current percentage a
sustainable population for Vermont is approximately
600,000.
Forest cover is not just about keeping the cover, it is also about fragmentation and access to the forests for a variety of purposes including
recreation and spiritual connectedness. Just a few decades ago hunting
was a major part of our Vermont culture. Around a hundred thousand
Vermonters would go off hunting on the first weekend of hunting season
and because so many people were away during the first week of hunt-
Forest Cover ~ Mark Powell
30
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ~ Joan Knight, MAT, MS, CMHC
“I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing. We will be judged as a
people, and as a society, and as a country on where we go from here.” ~ Barack Obama, speaking about climate change
Definition
oceans rise in altitude because of waters’ thermal expansion, as well as
melting ice caps and glaciers, which results in lands near the sea being
inundated. All parts of the globe are affected, but some more than oth“Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ozone
(O3) are called greenhouse gasses because they prevent heat from leav- ers. Also tied in with climate change is that deaths from starvation, lack
of water, poor nutrition, diseases, and high temperatures are occurring at
ing the earth’s atmosphere. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases are determined by the balance between sources (emissions of the an increasing rate – especially in the developing countries. Additionally,
emigration of suffering populations because of these challenges creates
gas from human activities and natural systems) and sinks (the removal
tension as they immigrate to other countries, which can lead to violence
of the gas from the atmosphere by conversion to a different chemical
and even outright war.
1
compound).”
The most problematic gas is
CO2 because once the molecules rise they stay aloft for
about 500 years, thus, reducing
the rate of emissions from the
surface of our planet will not
have any cooling effect for a
very long time. The other gasses mentioned above add to
the effect, but dissipate more
quickly.
In the U.S., types and sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GGE’s) are
shown proportionally in the following
chart.
Are we ready and willing to reduce
these global warming contributors in
our lives?
Trends
Before the industrial revolution, the
atmospheric level of CO2 was about
The definition of optimal for
280 ppm – it might be said that this
greenhouse gas emissions is
is the optimal level. Now the conSource: www.landlearnnsw.org.au
the atmospheric concentracentration is, alarmingly, about 400
tions that were present before the industrial revolution added up to about ppm. Once CO2 is released into
280 parts per million (ppm) of carbon. Carbon ppm is used as a useful
the atmosphere, it stays there for
indicator of atmospheric warming.
around 500 years, which is why, over
the long term, it is the atmospheric
The generally recognized safe upper limit for carbon dioxide is 350 ppm.
concentration of CO2 that will de- Source: http://www.epa.gov/hange/ghgemissions/sources
That, they say, would allow ecosystems to nurture life as we know it. This
termine, in large part, the severity of
would include all species and life forms – plants, animals, and microbes
climate change.
that sometimes don’t fit in either category. We are currently at about 400
ppm.
Global average surface temperatures have risen at an average rate
of 0.14°F per decade since 1900, with the greatest amount of increase
being in the U.S.. The U.S. population have become alarmed recently beImportance
cause of severe drought, heat waves, and intense storms. Global Mean
Sea Level has risen by 4 to 8 inches, however, the annual rate of rise over
Warming not only changes temperatures on the planet’s surface, but is
also correlated with extremely severe weather: abnormal droughts, wind, the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches a year: roughly twice the average
speed of the preceding 80 years. Predictions are that the rate of rise will
rain, and violent storms. Another threat of global warming is that the
continue to increase.
1
Wikipedia
31
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Most of Vermont’s GGE’s result from burning fossil fuels for energy to
provide for transportation and heating. The Vermont Public Service
Department reports that gasoline and diesel account for 33.7% of all
energy consumed in Vermont, across all energy sectors.1
also currently not on track to achieving its goals of generating 90% of
our energy from renewable sources by 2050, which would lessen CO2
emissions.2
Vermont rates 50th in the U.S. in terms of CO2 emissions and per
capita. We emit an average of 9.64 metric tons of CO2 per capita.
On the whole, U.S. emissions per capita are 22.10 metric tons, which
means the average Vermonter is emitting 56% less than those in all of
the U.S..
It is not possible for this author to calculate exactly how many metric
tons of GGE’s Vermont could sustainably generate in relation to
population size and still bring our share globally down to 350 ppm.
However we can make a historical comparison that will help in that
determination.
Rank
50
Jurisdiction
Annual
CO2 Emissions
Percentage of
total emissions
Population
(2010)
Percentage of
total population
CO2 Emissions per
capita
States total
6,821,821
100%`
308,745,538
100%
22.1
0.11%
625,741
0.20%
9.64
Vermont 6,034
Optimum / Sustainable Population
Before Vermont became entirely dependent on cheap fossil fuels for
its economy and its way of life, around the end of the 18th century its
population was approximately 300,000 or about half of what it is now.
Renewable energy sources can hopefully make up much of that
difference in energy sources but not all of it. Even producing and
distributing renewable energy requires large amounts of fossil fuels.
The author predicts that we will be fortunate if Vermont can replace
two-thirds of our fossil fuel energy with renewable energy and still
There has been a recent decline in Vermont emissions caused
maintain our ecosystems and a “reasonable” quality of life. Many
in large part by reduced driving and greater engine efficiency:
other changes will matter. Progress in thermal and technological
increased use of busses and trains has been a beneficial factor.
efficiency is not predictable. Increased use of geothermal energy
Home heating and cooling energy use has lessened – due mainly to in situations where it can work is also not predictable. The rate of
better insulation, building envelope tightness, and use of geothermal carbon sequestrian by nature
heat transfer. Much of Vermont’s electricity is supplied by nuclear
and/or technology will be
power (mostly VT Yankee) and by hydropower (mostly Hydro
another factor influencing the
Quebec). Neither of those sources produces significant amounts of
equation. Financial wherewithal
GGE’s, but they have other harmful, risky, and costly externalities.
will strongly influence people’s
Renewable energy sources, such as solar power, wind power, and
lifestyle choices.
small hydropower are also generating electricity in Vermont with,
many say, less ghastly impacts.
Given all these unknowns,
establishing a sustainable
The Future
population size, is, at best,
guesswork. Two-thirds of the
If Vermont’s population continues to grow, it is going to be very
growth of 300,000 people since Source: Burlington Free Press
difficult to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to the level where
the start of the use of cheap fossil fuels is 200,000.
we are doing our share to bring the levels down to 350 ppm.
Presently each Vermont citizen adds 9.64 metric tons of CO2 annually
to the atmosphere. With an average life expectancy of 79 years,
over the course of his or her lifetime each person currently adds
approximately 762 metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. Vermont is
Source: Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Energy Data System and EIA
1
http://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/psd/files/Pubs_Plans_Reports/State_Plans/Comp_Energy_
Plan/2011/2011%20CEP_Volume%202%5B1%5D.pdf
2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/vermont-renewable-energy-goals_n_1292288.html
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ~ Joan Knight
32
Assuming other factors mentioned in the preceding
paragraph result in additional reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions per capita, a sustainable
population for Vermont is likely somewhat less than
400,000.
Other information useful in background reading was from:
~US Census Bureau
~National Geographic
~http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/usinventoryreport.
html
~http://www.anr.state.vt.us/anr/climatechange/Pubs/Vermont%20
GHG%20Emissions%20Inventory%20Update%201990-2008%20
FINAL_09272010.pdf
~World Resources Institute
33
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Happiness of Vermont’s Citizens ~ Tom Barefoot
“There is a long tradition in America dating back at least to Thomas Jefferson that suggests people will be happier in more pastoral, less congested setting with their own space. There is also a long line of thinking that sees crowded, dense urban centers as
the source of anxiety, agitation, unhappiness and even pathology. But that is not at all what we find. Instead, happiness levels are
modestly associated with density that is more concentrated at the center of the city.” ~ Richard Florida, Atlantic, Nov. 28, 2012
Definition
Subjective wellbeing is sometimes defined in three areas – Evaluative
measures, life satisfaction in general and in domains; Experience measures, happiness yesterday; and Purpose in life measures, associated with
specific activities and overall.1 Measures may be overall, or for specific
domains – like Time Use, Health, and Cultural Vitality.
Importance
In the U.S. Declaration of Independence there is a recognition of the
“right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Many cultures around
the world recognize happiness as a primary goal for individuals, families,
communities, and even countries. Everyone seeks happiness. It seems
useful and important to measure wellbeing in communities to determine
the effectiveness of programs and policies on turning the curve toward
improving the lives of the people and the health of the planet.
might live more sustainably in urban settings where more people can
share the same infrastructure with less resource use per capita. There
are further suggestions that such densities may create clusters of highly
creative people and the synergy of these people create vibrant businesses and increase economic development and build social capital. We
do see some evidence of these clusters in Vermont. The Mad River Valley
contains a very high proportion of architects and Hardwick contains a
cluster of local food farms and businesses. Other areas note clusters of
artists or equestrians. If creative clusters work in rural areas, it may be that
increasing population density
may improve quality of life.
How might we research happiness in a population to see how
levels of happiness change with
population density?
When we think about happiness
are we looking at biomarkers
Trends
such as dopamine levels in the
brain? Are we looking for sig2012 U.S. Census data places the population of Vermont at 626,011.
natures in functional Magnetic
Growth between 2010 and 2012 was negligible – only 2.8%: Vermont’s
Resonance Imagery that show
population growth is nearly stable and is much lower than the prior 4
activation of altruism or pleasure
decades. While average population density in 2010 was 67.9 persons per
centers in the brain. Are we tracking the number of “real” smiles on peosquare mile, since Vermont is mostly rural, most of Vermont has much lowple’s faces as they walk down the street? Are we mining the emotionally
er densities. Most of the research on population density has been done
loaded words in Tweets to measure happiness levels in a population?
looking at urban areas. One researcher at Harvard School of Business is
suggesting that by comparing excellent cities he finds a density of 3800
We are also asking people how they feel –with subjective well-being
people/km2 is an optimum.2 I do not have numbers for Vermont or commeasures such as the Gross National Happiness Model, or the UK Wellbeparable rural areas at this time.
ing Index.
Recent articles by Richard Florida and others have suggested that we
1
Dolan, P., Layard, R., Metcalfe, R. (February 2011). Measuring subjective well-being for public policy. Office of
National Statistics, London. Retrieved from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35420/1/measuring-subjective-wellbeing-for-public-policy.pdf
2
John Macomber Harvard Business School/Harvard Design School , http://sustainablecitiesfinance.wordpress.
com/2013/02/12/on-density-desirability-and-happiness/
Much of biology operates on acceptable ranges and levels of inputs. We
are all familiar with 98.6 degrees F as the average body temperature for
humans. In or around that level we usually feel good. As we move away
Happiness ~ Tom Barefoot
34
from that value, either higher or lower we are likely to feel less well and to
show clinical signs of hypo or hyperthermia. If you go too high or too low
the body will die.
Some researchers suggest that individuals have a “set point” and their
reported happiness will tend to stay close to that set point, varying slightly
with changes in their environment, employment, etc..
If we think about the not too hot, not too cold, just right levels for things
like Cultural Vitality, Good Governance, Health, Environment, Community
Vitality, Psychological wellbeing, Standard of Living, Time Balance and
Education we get another way to look at these nine domains of well-being in our population. Let’s consider Cultural Vitality. Often in rural areas
such as Vermont, the initial problem is low populations that can’t support
an orchestra or an Opera House. Community efforts are made to restore
an old music hall, and over time support is built, the venue is refurbished,
and regular supporting customers are developed. All of this connects into
webs of community organizations such as the ballet school for 4 year olds
that builds interest in music and dance.
“The scientific impetus for the systematic study of SWB can be
traced to the two extraordinary publications of Andrews and
Withey 19761 and Campbell et al. 1976.2 While there had been
sporadic prior reports on population SWB, usually measured as
life satisfaction or happiness mood, these two substantial works
launched the idea that SWB could be reliably measured. Moreover, and very importantly, they reported such measures to be
remarkably stable and reliable. The reason for this stability has
been attributed to stable personality characteristics and genetics (Lyubomirsky et al. 2005; Lucas 2007) which provide each person with a ‘set-point’ for their SWB (Headey and Wearing 1989).
These set-points are positive. The normal range of set-points has
been proposed to lie within the range of about 60-90 points
(see Cummins et al. 2002). A considerable body of research has
demonstrated that most people are satisfied with their own life.
In Western nations, the average SWB value for population samples is about 75 percentage points of satisfaction.
“It is also proposed that SWB normally sit close to its set-point,
and that this stability is achieved by an active homeostatic process. The theory of Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis proposes
that, in a manner analogous to the homeostatic maintenance
1
Social Indicators of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality. Frank Andrews and Stephen Withey,
Plenum Press (New York) 1976
2
Campbell, A et al The quality of American Life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfaction. Sage Foundation
(New York) 1976
35
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
of body temperature, SWB is actively controlled and maintained
(see Cummins 2010 for an extended description). The single purpose of this system is to hold SWB constant even as the person
encounters fluctuating experiences with their environment. As an
example of the degree of stability that can be achieved, across
22 populations surveys conducted to measure SWB in Australia
to the end of 2009, the maximum variation in survey mean scores
was just 3.3 percentage points (Cummins et al. 2009). Happiness
versus the environment – a case study of Australian lifestyles.”
“So, I wanted to explore if there is such thing as an “ideal” density. In other words, is there a correlation between the density and
the perceived desirability of the city? How does it change with
economical
and growth
differences?”3
If we look at
the chart to
the left - the
rankings of the
“most livable
cities” and
their density - we can
observe the
correlation.
Twentieth
century design
Source: John Macomber Harvard Business School/Harvard Design School, http://sustainableci- scientist, Bucktiesfinance.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/on-density-desirability-and-happiness/
minster Fuller
liked to use the examples of vitamin regimens that started by defining
a minimum daily requirement, enough to avoid scurvy or other disease.
Over time this was expanded to a recommended daily allowance and
more recently toward what Dr. Fuller called bare max –or the optimum
level that will help promote an optimum level of health and well-being.
This mirrors the development of Psychology from studying pathology to
studying “normal” or average humans to looking for very creative, happy
individuals to understand what they were doing and to guide us towards
creating exceptionally happy and healthy societies.
There have been efforts to define carrying-capacity for bio-physical resources such as drinkable water in a particular watershed. That could be
3
Lenzen, M. and Cummins, R. (2010). Happiness vs. the environment: A case study of Australian lifestyles. University of Sydney, Australia.
fairly quantified and you could model sharing that resource at various lev- ing happiness in immaterial rewards. “The best things in life aren’t things”
says a bumper sticker. Bucky Fuller used to say, “If I have a dollar and you
els of depletion or sustainability. You could then see how happy people
might be at different levels.
Plato reminded us that for two people standing in a breeze—one might
say the wind blows cool and the other says warm. So while there are
some biophysical markers that we can expect to show positive or negative impacts on populations, there is also a range for individual preferences. For example, some people like a lot of social or personal space and
are most comfortable in the wide-open spaces of Idaho and others are
most comfortable in a Manhattan cocktail party. Many Americans find
the crowd densities in India to be very uncomfortable until they get used
to the limited personal space that is normal there.
The Future
The measurement of happiness in communities is a developing science
and much work remains to be done to understand what domains of
happiness will show effects at different levels. I believe that most of us
would agree that happiness or well-being is what we all want for ourselves, our families and our Source: http://www.well-beingindex.com/files/2013WBIrankings/VT_2012StateReport.pdf
communities and that as
have a dollar and I give you my dollar and you give me your dollar we
economist Joseph Stiglitz
each have a dollar. If I have an idea and you have an idea and I give
likes to say, “What you
measure is what you get”. you my idea and you give me your idea, we each have two ideas.”
I believe that we can learn
to measure well-being and I Ibelieve that we are just learning what contributes to happier lives and
happiness in communities communities and that as we measure what matters and create feedback loops in complex systems that we will increase wellbeing and that
and that can help us to
even as we find increasing pressures around ecosystem services, that we
attain increased levels of
may find increasing happiness. Because of the human capability to exhappiness.
pand our enjoyment and sources of satisfaction to non-material arenas,
we may find that wellbeing can increase without the hard limits typical of
Having experienced the
happy peasants in Kolkata ecosystem services and without the zero sum effect of someone increasand the miserable million- ing their wellbeing at the expense of the wellbeing of others.
aires in New York, I suspect
Happy at Bread and Puppet Theater in Glover, VT: the opportunity to
participate in the arts increases human happiness!
Would those people who prefer wide-open spaces like increasing poputhat humans will adapt
lation density? Probably not. Could they adapt to Manhattan densities?
across a wide range of
Probably yes. We may find that we hit other limits to carrying capacity
population pressures to choose happiness. In a high mobility society,
of the land before we hit limits to population density and happiness. We
people might choose to migrate to high happiness states like Hawaii or
may find that by focusing on increasing happiness that we no longer
Vermont. If there are circumstantial pressures in the future, we may find
that we are choosing to stay where we are to take advantage of our per- need as much physical stuff to fill our desires and we can lighten our footprints while becoming happier.
sonal support systems and that we will adapt to find levels of happiness
near our “set point” and that while our material or external circumstances
may change, our internal wellbeing may well increase as we find increas-
Happiness ~ Tom Barefoot
36
Poverty ~ Eben Fodor
“The greatest measure of a society is the way it treats its weakest members.” – Aristotle
Definition
While we have seen significant growth in our economy, we have not seen
an equitable distribution of the growth. The rich have gotten much richer,
while the poor have remained poor and the middle class has experienced stagnant income levels.
Poverty is the inability to provide one’s basic needs. It means not having enough to feed, clothe, or house a family and not having access to
adequate health care. It reflects the lack of basic capacity to participate
A major component of this growth culture is that we also have to grow
effectively in society.
the population because that creates more consumers, new home starts,
and more demand for resources. In Vermont, a large part of that culture
The US Census defines poverty based on total income and the number
is promoted by the construction industry, which advocates for more housof individuals supported. For example, the poverty threshold for a single
es, more commercial development, and more ski area development as a
person is a gross annual income of less than $12,119. For a family of four
means for growing the economy. A related question needs to be asked,
with two children, the threshold is $23,624, gross.
“Should income indicators be the sole measures for the quality of life?”
Importance
Little mention is made of the fact that construction jobs tend to be
temporary. The environmental and social consequences of continued
Helping people get out of poverty is one of the most important things
that a society can do because living in poverty affects both the physical land development keep adding up – air pollution, loss of habitat, loss of
farmland, increase of impervious surfaces and pollution from runoff, traffic
and social well-being of an individual, as well as society as a whole. It
congestion, loss of scenic beauty, the dimming of the night sky, and loss
is essential that we have compassion for one another because due to
circumstances beyond our control, anyone of us could end up in poverty, of our unique quality of life in a rural state.
as happens to people all around us. Additionally, poverty breeds many
Trends and Indicators
of society’s ills, including, but not limited to, drug abuse and addiction,
crime, dependency, and desperation.
The graph below shows that the “war on poverty,” which began in 1964,
had achieved results by 1970, dropping the poverty rate in Vermont from
Historically in Vermont, communities were so concerned about their
23.5 to 9.1 percent. 50,000 people were raised from poverty in less than
neighbors living in poverty that they established “poor farms” in almost
every town that operated for many decades, with the last community to a decade. Since then, however, the numbers of people in poverty have
steadily increased.
use them being Sheldon in 1968. President Lyndon Johnson was so concerned about poverty that he developed legislation calling for a “War on
Poverty” which was passed by Congress in 1964.
A common approach toward improving the economic well-being of
individuals and families is to “grow the economy.” This approach has
become ingrained in our culture, although it hasn’t always been this way.
Developers, politicians, and the business community have convinced the
public that this continued growth is essential. Even many environmentalists say that “we can grow the economy while protecting the environment”, although the data for environmental trends over the past fifty
years clearly shows that this is not true.
Figure 1: Vermont’s totals for population and poverty. Data source: http://factfinder2.
37
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
During the period for which poverty data is available (1960 to 2012),
Vermont’s population increased by 60%. Could this population growth
be responsible for keeping the state’s poverty rate down? Not according
to a recent study that examined the relationship between population
growth and prosperity indicators for metropolitan areas in the US. The
study looked at income, unemployment, and poverty in the nation’s 100
largest metro areas. The study found that, while growth may commonly
be associated with economic development success, it is not the cause of
that success. In fact the
slowest-growing metro
areas significantly outperformed the faster-growing areas in every category (see chart). And the
slowest-growing group
actually had a stable
population over the
9-year study period, indicating that non-growing
areas can be relatively
prosperous.
Vermont has had one
of the lowest unemployFigure 2: Generalized prosperity indicators of U.S. cities relative to population ment rates in the country
growth.
at around 4.4% and its
population has been fairly stable the last few years. Could there be a
connection?
Clearly growth is not providing the benefits that are commonly attributed
to it. This may be because indicators like gross domestic product (GDP)
are used to measure success, rather than using measures of individual
well-being. GDP has been shown to be a very poor indicator of economic
conditions and performance, since it merely adds together all economic
transactions regardless of whether they are harmful or beneficial.
Other signs that our economic security and well-being is declining are the
following1:
•
Real disposable income in the United States just experi
enced the largest year-over-year drop that we have seen since 1974.
•
According to the latest data from the Census Bureau, me-
dian household income fell for the fifth straight year in 2012 to $51,017, the lowest inflation-adjusted income since 1995.
1
www.theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/28-signs-that-the-middle-class-is-heading-toward-extinction
•
The rate of homeownership in the United States has fallen for eight years in a row.
•
In 2008, 53 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be “middle class”. In 2014, only 44 percent of all Ameri-
cans consider themselves to be “middle class”.
•
In 2008, 25 percent of all Americans in the 18 to 29-year-
old age bracket considered themselves to be “lower class”. In 2014, an astounding 49 percent of them do.
•
56 percent of all Americans now have “subprime credit”.
•
The average credit card debt in the United States is $15,279.
•
The average student loan debt in the United States is $32,250.
•
The average mortgage debt in the United States is $149,925.
•
Overall, U.S. consumers are $11,360,000,000,000 in debt.
•
More Americans than ever find themselves forced to turn to the government for help with health care. At this point, 82.4 million Americans live in a home where at least one person is enrolled in the Medicaid program.
•
There are 46.5 million Americans that are living in poverty, and the poverty rate in America has been at 15 per-
cent or above for 3 consecutive years. That is the first time that has happened since 1965.
•
During the last six years, the number of Americans on food stamps has gone from 32 million to 47 million.
•
During the last six years, the average duration of unem
ployment in the United States has risen from 19.8 weeks to 37.1 weeks.
•
53 percent of all American workers make less than $30,000 a year in wages.
•
Approximately one out of every four part-time workers in America is living below the poverty line.
•
According to the most recent numbers from the U.S. Cen
sus Bureau, an all-time record 49.2 percent of all Ameri-
cans are receiving benefits from at least one government program each month.
•
The U.S. government has spent 3.7 trillion dollars on wel
fare programs over the past five years.
•
This is despite the fact that the U.S. population has been growing between 2-3 million people per year. In 2013, it was 2.3 million.
Poverty ~ Eben Fodor
38
The Future
It is difficult to predict what the future will bring economically. Many
experts acknowledge that past economic growth was largely made
possible by cheap fossil fuels. The era of cheap and abundant energy
appears to be over and this may significantly weaken our economy.
Certainly we have been very slow to recover from the recent recession,
which began in 2007.
Optimum/Sustainable Population
Because there are so many variables, it
is very difficult to predict what an optimum/sustainable population would be to
minimize or eliminate poverty. If we were
to go by the historical fact that Vermont’s
lowest recorded poverty rate was in 1970,
when the population was 444,330,
then the optimum population might be
lower than it is today.
A stable population level has been
shown to have higher levels of individual
prosperity, so maintaining a stable and
sustainable population appears to be
the best approach to minimizing poverty.
Therefore, we conclude that growth is
not correlated to prosperity, but it can be
associated with a reduction in quality of life measures.
The optimum/sustainable population estimate for
the steady state economy indicator is a population
of 500,000. We concur that this type of economy
and this projection would also be the best population size for reducing poverty to a minimal level.
39
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Quality of Life ~ Valerie Esposito, Ph.D.
“If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase
of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger, but
not a better or a happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will be content to be
stationary, long before necessity compels them to it.” ~ John Stuart Mills, Principles of Political Economy,1848
Definition
sub-indexes1:
The term Quality of Life (QOL) is often elusive to define, as it incorporates both qualitative and quantitative measurements. For purposes of
this paper, “Quality of Life is defined
as the general well-being of individuals and communities.”
“Health Index (20%):
Measures the health of the average person, access to and quality of health care (using measurements such as life expectancy at birth and access to health care.
Defining what constitutes well-being is very subjective and includes
numerous variables. Since World
War II, most countries began using Vermont’s unique quality of life is very much dependent on
undeveloped forest and enjoying the views of and from
Gross Domestic Product (GDP - the our
our Mountains like Camel’s Hump.
measure of goods and services produced by a country annually) to measure the health of the economy as
a proxy for the primary measurement for QOL. However, much research
in economics, psychology and sociology, among others, demonstrates
that focusing on purely material consumption does not correlate well
with health, happiness or environmental sustainability, all of which are
important components of QOL. The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) has
been emerging as a more complete tool to measure the health of the
economy by incorporating environmental and social factors (ie. poverty).
In 2012 Vermont legislators passed a bill to establish a GPI for the state, in
order to make policy decisions that promote both economic and quality of life sustainability. This will go far in insuring Vermont’s well-being is
determined by more than economics (see the section on Steady State
Economy for further discussion).
Wealth Index (20%):
Considers the wealth of the average person, looking at GDP and income distribution.
QOL measurements should necessarily include several criterion to provide a robust analysis. Nation Ranking, an organization that publishes a
QLI (Quality of Life Index) provides national-level measurements using six
Education Index (20%):
Looks at overall quality of education and access.
Democracy Index (15%):
Evaluates individual rights and liberties and opportunities for civic engagement.
Peace Index (15%)
Looks at security from crime.
Environment Index: (10%)
Gauges quality and preservation of the environment”
Importance
It can be argued that humans have been endeavoring for happiness
and well-being since the inception of life on earth, first through survival
and more recently through psychological stability. The ability for humans
to flourish on the planet inherently requires a symbiotic relationship with
its physical environment, which necessarily includes limits. Utilizing criteria
that promotes human QOL while acknowledging biophysical limits can
more accurately portray what a sustainable QOL is for Vermont.
1
2011. Nation Ranking: Quantifying The World’s Sovereign States: https://nationranking.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/2011-qli/
Quality of Life ~ Valerie Esposito
40
Current Trends
Vermont consistently ranks
high on various QOL measurements and is often ranked
one of the best places to live.
In fact, in July 2013, CNBC
released a comprehensive
QOL report that ranked Vermont the second-best state to
live in the US, behind Hawaii1.
In Gallop’s 2012 Well-Being
Index, Vermont ranked the 5th
highest for Happiest State2.
These trends are promising andVermont’s numerous farmer’s markets add to our quality of life. Montpelier, Vt.
indicate that Vermont has intentionally invested in affordable health care, quality education, environmental protection and enjoys high levels of civic engagement through
Town Meetings and active local governance.
~ Health
In the area of health, Vermont ranked #1 in the
United Health Foundation’s 2012 America’s Health
Ranking . This ranking demonstrates a steady improve-
ment in the last 14 years, indicating that investments in health care, particularly Green Mountain Health Care, have paid off. The Health Benefit Exchange that is going to be enacted in 2014 will also play a crucial role in ensur-
ing that all Vermonters have access to affordable, quality care. Indeed, Vermont often ranks in the top 5 states for healthy living. ~ Education
Vermont also consistently ranks very high in education-
al performance. In 2010 The American Legislative
Exchange Council ranked Vermont highest for student performance in State Educational Ranking3 and StateMas-
ter awarded Vermont #1 ranking for the Best Educated Students4. Yet the picture isn’t always perfect, as in other rankings, such as the Quality Counts 2013, an index on school performance and policy by Education Week and 1
2013. America’s Top States for Quality of Life: Take a Bow. http://www.cnbc.com/id/100807421.
2
2012. Gallup-Healthways Well-being Index. http://www.well-beingindex.com/
3
2010. American Legislative Exchange Council, 16th Edition of Report Card on Education: http://www.alec.org/state-education-ranking-shows-vermont-1-south-carolina-last/
4
2012. State Master, Best Educated Index: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes_edu_ind-education-best-educated-index.
41
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Editorial Projects in Education Reach Center, Vermont ranked 11th overall for education5.
~ Wealth
Vermont ranks 30th out of 50 in terms of GDP per capita and 19th for income equality distribution. The state’s lack of significant industry has led to historically moderate employment opportunities (particularly high-level) and relatively modest salaries may be primary influences in low GDP.
~ Democracy
Vermont is one of the only states in the country that still holds Town Meeting Day annually, and has a reasonably high voter turnout rate (60.4% for the 2012 election)6. There are ample opportunities for civic engagement in the state, from direct democracy (Town Meeting), to volun-
teering.
~ Peace
In 2012 the Institute for Economics and Peace ranked Vermont the 2nd highest state for peace, citing both Vermont’s low crime statistics and innovative ways to
promote restorative justice7.
~ Environment
Vermont consistently ranks very high on environmental indexes: In 2007 Forbes magazine ranked it #1 in the
country for their “Greenest State Index” (measuring
carbon footprint, policies to promote energy efficiency and high air quality)8. Vermont also earned a #1
ranking in Greenopia’s Green States Guide9 and 24/7 Wall St. Greenest States Report10.
Other criteria that are important to include but is difficult to find statistics
on include cultural considerations - determining the cultural assets of a
community and leisure time – and the amount of recreational/non-working hours spent with family, friends, pursuing hobbies and engaging in
pleasure-deriving activities.
5
2013. Education Week and Editorial Projects in Education Research Center, Quality Counts 2013.
6
2012. Unites States Election Project, 2012 General Election Turnout Rates: http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.html.
7
2012. Institute for Economics and Peace, 2012 United States Peace Index.
8
2007. Forbes, America’s Greenest States: http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/16/environment-energy-vermont-biz-beltway-cx_bw_
mm_1017greenstates.html.
9
2011. Greenopia, Green State Guide: http://www.greenopia.com/usa/state_listing.aspx?ID=2&input=Name+or+product&Listpage=0.
10
2011. 24/7 Wall St., Green States: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/22/top-earth-day-10-most-and-least-green-u-s-states/.
The Future
The fact that Vermont consistently ranks high (often first) on many of
the above indicators suggests that QOL is high in the Green Mountain
State. Interestingly, preserving some of the high-ranking indices could
be in direct conflict with attempts to improve others. For example, it is
reasonable to expect that further investment in education would lead
to improved outcomes, but more money for education would most likely
be generated from a rise in state wealth, which would most likely come
from growth in industry, which may lead to stresses on the environment
and weakening civic engagement and democracy (see the section
on Democracy for further discussion). It is reasonable to project that as
the population grows, there will be greater stresses on our educational
system, the environment, peace (crime rates tend to rise in more densely
populated areas) and democracy. Conversely, as population grows,
wealth may increase, depending on the demographics (increase in certain types of industry could bring high-paying jobs and skilled workers).
Optimum / Sustainable Population
Similar to the discussion in the Steady State Economy section, given there
are so many variables in determining QOL, including some subjective
ones, perhaps a better question is: does the current population promote
a high QOL? Considering the measures above, Vermonters overall do
enjoy a high Quality of Life.
It seems likely that continued investments in the areas of education, health, the economy, culture and
the environment would go far in ensuring this QOL
continues to improve. It seems reasonable, then,
that a population of up to 700,000 would support
the high QOL that Vermonters enjoy.
Quality of Life ~ Valerie Esposito
42
Renewable Energy Production ~ Lukas Snelling
Definition
Current Trends
Energy production that is “renewable” utilizes natural resources that can
be continually replenished as fuel. Examples include producing electricity from the sun, wind, the earth’s heat, or rivers and tides. Renewable
energy contrasts with other energy sources that rely on depleting a finite
resource such as coal, oil, or other fossil fuels. In Vermont, energy use falls
into several categories – electricity, heating/cooling, and transportation.
Renewable options exist, at least in part, for all three categories. If developed sustainably, renewable energy offers a way to produce electricity
without negatively impacting the long-term survivability of a region.
At present, Vermont’s total energy demand is trending flat and may actually decrease in the foreseeable future. (See chart below) This change
from years of annual increases is largely driven by increases in efficiency
and a slower economy. However, the portion of Vermont’s energy use
produced by renewable energy is growing. In 2009, renewable resources
powered 50% of Vermont’s electricity portfolio, when imports from Hydro-Quebec were included. Percentages of renewables in transportation
and heating sectors were substantially smaller, and will largely rely on their
electrification in the future.
Importance
Developing renewable energy generation is essential for a region to
become sustainable. In Vermont, much of our current economy is tied
to ongoing use of fossil fuels, all of which come from outside the state. As
these resources are depleted and their cost increases, Vermonters will be
forced to seek alternative means of energy production.
The use of fossil fuels is directly tied to climate change concerns: burning
fossil fuels releases greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. At
present, the planet’s temperature has raised over 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit
since 1880, with much that that increase coming in the last two decades.
Climate scientists suggest that should this warming continue, the planet
would increasingly be subjected to wide ranging impacts, including sea
level rise, extreme weather, agricultural displacement, food shortages
and human relocations. Particularly in Vermont, we could see impacts
not limited to greater rain events, longer droughts, increased invasive
species and the possibility of an influx of climate refugees. Some believe
these impacts may be so severe that they challenge the survivability
of our kind. Best-case scenario for Vermont, they represent a significant
challenge to creating a sustainable region.
43 What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Over the last decade the Vermont legislature has passed several pieces
of legislation that encourage the development of renewables. These
initiatives have had modest success in increasing local electricity generation, but have not yet spurred the kind of large expansion of locally-sourced electricity generation needed for Vermont to be truly self-sus-
sustainable in this area.
The Future
The 2011 State Comprehensive Energy Plan set the goal that 90% of
the state’s energy should come from renewable resources by 2050. This
ambitious goal would require extensive efficiency measures (to reduce
overall consumption) and substantial development of new renewable
energy generation (to replace existing fossil fuel sources). In the absence
of a significant technological advance, reaching this goal will only be
possible by building new renewable generation to replace at least half
of Vermont’s existing electricity portfolio, new energy storage facilities to
combat the intermittency of renewables, and even more additional generation to power the transportation and home heating sectors.
In numeric terms, just to replace
the existing fossil fuel and nuclear powered electricity generation, and not to compensate for
transportation and heating, this
represents generation sources
that could produce between
~3,000GWhs to ~4,000GWhs of
electricity annually. In development terms, if you had to choose
one of today’s existing renewable
technologies to generate those
4,000GWhs of in-state generation, it
would be:
•
•
•
•
can come from smaller, community based, distributed generation projects, rather than large, centralized projects like those described above.
However, this example illustrates that even though renewable energy
harvests replenishable resources as fuel, impacts from the sheer scale of
the required development can quickly become unsustainable.
All renewable technologies bring impacts on natural resources and
communities. For wind, the noise from operating turbines creates health
problems and causes individuals to move from their homes. For solar,
many Vermonters are concerned about trading agricultural land for
inefficient power production. Most agree new hydro facilities are hard to
locate without substantial stream impacts, and existing facilities only offer
a modest growth potential. And lastly, biomass facilities are only renewable if their fuel sources are harvested in a sustainable manner, which at
present is difficult to determine and enforce. None are possible without
utilizing construction materials that most would say are not in themselves
“sustainable.”
And for all technologies, many in Vermont are concerned about their impact on our state’s scenic beauty; we are after all the, “Green Mountain
State.” To meet Vermont’s current goals for renewable energy production
would mean supporting large amount of new development in previously
undeveloped areas.
Renewable energy production is only truly sustainable if it is implemented
in a sustainable manner. At present Vermont does not have permitting
restrictions or criteria in place to ensure for-profit developers mitigate or
avoid impacts on surrounding communities and natural resources.
At present, achieving Vermont’s current renewable energy goals will be
difficult or impossible to do without impacting other criteria that would
allow our region to achieve sustainability.
1,800MW of wind turbines or 600 x 3MW, 480ft tall turbines (at 30%
capacity factor) [30 projects the size of the Lowell wind project]
3,600MW of solar panels or about 6,000 acres of solar (at 15% ca-
pacity factor) [160 projects the size of the solar “orchards” in Sha- Optimum / Sustainable Population
ron and Williamstown]
900MW of new hydro power or 5 of the largest hydro plants on the For Vermont to achieve an optimal and sustainable population powered
by renewable energy several variables would need to change:
CT River (at 50% capacity factor)
530MW of new biomass facilities or 21 x 25MW plants like McNeil in •
Technology: Current technology is inefficient at converting natu-
Burlington (at 85% capacity factor)
ral resources into energy. Advances in technology could greatly reduce the amount and impact of new generation required to These estimates do not include additional generation to compensate for
power the state’s needs and achieve the CEP goals.
the electrification of the transportation and heating sectors. Obviously it
•
Demand: Although Vermont leads the nation in efficiency, more is unlikely we’d pick just one technology to do the full job, and far more
needs to be done, and better methods of demand control could likely our future represents a mix of technologies. Some of the generation
be employed to drastically reduce demand. This is especially true Renewable Energy ~ Lukas Snelling
44
•
for the home heating and transportation sectors.
Regulations, Process, & Siting Criteria: Currently the state is grapl-
pling with updating the criteria and process for siting renewable energy development. It is conceivable the state could set
criteria to protect humans and natural resources from the impacts of renewable energy development.
Although demand may change as the economy adapts in the future, the
wildcard in determining any precise number of a sustainable population
hinges on improved technology. With present technology, Vermont’s
best path to renewable growth is to use already disturbed lands for solar
development. Solar has limited noise impacts, is a plentiful resource, and
if sited carefully in already developed areas can have limited aesthetic
and natural resource impacts. This path is not yet maximized, and it offers
Vermont greater renewable energy production while limiting the most
substantial impacts.
This path could likely be achieved with Vermont’s
existing population of around 600,000 (and their
current energy demand).
Developing renewable energy with today’s technology to serve a population beyond 600,000 would mean developing beyond already disturbed areas. Many communities are already concerned about utility-scale renewable energy development in Vermont and therefore this
type of development is likely to reach an an unacceptable limit. This limit
will ultimately be informed and imposed by the people of Vermont, their
views, their comfort with substantial development, and their needs. As
technology becomes more efficient, demand is reduced, and proper
regulatory protections are put in place, further development may be
possible. However, at present it is difficult to determine a higher range
given the variables in this outlook. It can be said with certainty though a
growing population will only make it more difficult to achieve our current
renewable energy goals and to live sustainably in the future.
45
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Rural Living / Working Landscape ~ George Webb, Ph.D.
“Whose woods these are I think I know… The woods are lovely, dark and deep…” ~ Robert Frost
Definition
Importance
For the purpose of this report rural living/working landscape is definted as
the land where homes, farms, forestry operations, and camps are developed in rural areas to allow the owners to live, work and/or to enjoy the
surrounding “open” (including forested) landscape. In
1999 the U.S Office of Financial Management revised
RCW 82.14.370 to include a
rural county definition based
on population density. In this
legislation, “a rural county”
was defined as “a county
with a population density
less than 100 persons per
square mile.” The U.S. Census
Bureau defines rural areas as
all areas that are not urban,
This is what Vermont’s working landscape should look like.
and they define urban areas
Photo credit: George Plumb
as consisting of two types: Urbanized Areas (50,000 or more people) and Urban Clusters (2,500-49,999
people). Working landscape means farms, orchards, solar “orchards”,
commercial forests, gravel pits, quarries, hunting camps, etc.
The value of rural living/working landscape is that it provides beautiful
views from the homes, provides more privacy, is quieter, and can provide
sunny areas for flower and/or vegetable gardens, fruit trees, or solar panels (stationary or on trackers). Dairy farms add to the economy, culture,
and scenic value: the sight of cows grazing in a lush green pasture is
beautiful, as seen in the photo at the left.
Pertinent data from the 2010 census:
Vermont
USA
Land area in square miles
Population
Persons per square mile
% of land that is rural
% of population that is rural
Persons living in rural areas
Number of dairy farms 9,217
625,741
68
98
61
381,700
1037
3,531,905
308,745,538
87
95
19
To quote from the 2009 report of the Council on the Future of Vermont,
“In 1947 over 11,000 dairies blanketed the fields and hills. That figure
dropped to 2,370 in 1990, and by 2007 only 1,097 survive, over 200 of
them having converted to organic production”, which is usually less
polluting to Vermont’s streams, rivers, and lakes. The smaller farms have
dropped out primarily for economic reasons. To quote again from the
Council on the Future of Vermont report, “Many Vermonters, including
farmers, believe that the future will be either for those large dairies that
mirror the growth and efficiency of such large farms or for those that find
small-scale or specialty niches.”1
Vermonters strongly
value the abundance of rural
landscape. Rural
land also includes
forested land which
can be managed
for wildlife and/or
for sustainable harvesting of logs for
saw mills, firewood
for stoves, chips for
wood-fired power plants, pulp for
paper mills or sap Logging for heating fuel will become an increasingly important part of our working
landscape. Photo credit: George Plumb
for making maple
syrup. As the Council on the Future of Vermont report says, “Vermonters
1
Vermont Council on Rural Development. (2009). Imagining Vermont: Values and vision for the future. Montpelier, VT. Retrieved from: http://vtrural.org/sites/default/files/library/files/futureofvermont/documents/Imagining_Vermont_
FULL_Report1.pdf
Rural Living / Working Landscape ~ George Webb
46
love the woods, and Vermont is fortunate to rank third in the nation in the Vermont because they want to live in the countryside and not in a city.
proportion (75%) of forested land.1 The disadvantages of rural living are
that it may require a commute to work which might add to global warm- Optimum / Sustainable Population
ing and consume nonrenewable fuel, as well as potentially detracting
from the beauty of the view seen by neighbors or travelers.
A high percentage of working landscape is essential to allow Vermont to
be as self-sufficient as possible, and to produce products that can be sold
out-of-state so Vermonters have income with which to buy products that
Vermont can’t produce. In addition, most farms are a beautiful part of
the landscape, as are commercial forests (except when they are clearcut).
Using the rural living/working landscape indicator,
the optimal population is 450,000.
When the author of this section moved to Vermont in 1966 at age 32, the
population was 423,000. Now, 47 years later, the population has risen to
more than 625,000. As a result, rural character has degraded and the
hiking trails and roads are more crowded. Although Vermont is still a wonderful place to live, it was even better with a population of about 450,000.
The rural living/working landscape should also be preserved in Vermont
so that people may have the choice now and in the future to live and
work in this type of environment. People should not have to live only in
an urban or suburban area. They should also have the choice of owning
a home or a camp or cottage in a rural area.
Trends
The quality (beauty, peacefulness, biodiversity, etc.) and quantity of rural
areas in Vermont is decreasing as urban areas expand and as more houses are built in rural areas. We should probably zone against too many
housing developments in rural areas, which can destroy the character
and beauty of the rural landscape, as illustrated in the before and after
photos to the right.
Another trend is that the number of organic farms is increasing, which
may be less polluting but which sometimes require extra labor costs. At
present some are willing to pay more for organically grown food, but it
is a limited market, at least until conventional food prices rise due to the
rising cost of fossil fuels.
The Future
It is very encouraging that Vermont’s population growth has slowed. But
this may be only temporary, as the U.S. population is still growing and
climate change may well result in large numbers of “environmental refugees” migrating from other states to Vermont. Thus we should work toward decreasing the growth of both the U.S. and the world population. If
Vermont’s population does grow more there will certainly be a decrease
in the acreage of our rural/working landscape, as many people come to
1
Vermont Council on Rural Development. (2009). Imagining Vermont: Values and vision for the future. Montpelier, VT. Retrieved from: http://vtrural.org/sites/default/files/library/files/futureofvermont/documents/Imagining_Vermont_
FULL_Report1.pdf
47
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
George Webb took these 2 photos from the same spot, looking the in
same direction, about 400 feet from his house in Burlington in the new
north end. Upper one in 1987, lower one in 2013.
Scenic Beauty ~ George Plumb
“The landscape belongs to the person who looks at it.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Definition
While there are many definitions of scenic beauty, for the purposes of this
report scenic beauty is defined as, “The quality of the view of a primarily
undeveloped or natural landscape that gives pleasure to the senses or
pleasurably exalts the mind or spirit.”
Scenic beauty is, of course, a subjective matter with many variables.
However, most people would likely agree that certain views are beautiful,
such as an undeveloped mountainside or lakeshore. In a report by The
Council on the Future of Vermont (2009), entitled Imagining Vermont: Values and Vision for the Future, Vermonters were clear about this value:
“Join a public forum [done by the Council in its research] anywhere across the state, and
citizens will eloquently and
passionately expound upon
the value of Vermont’s natural
environment. Vermonters love
the fields and forests, mountains
and waters of their state. They
readily express their appreciation for the physical beauty
of the state and feelings of
tranquility inspired by its natural
environment, especially when
they compare Vermont to other places and states (p. 50).”1
Importance
Scenic beauty is extremely
important to Vermont for two
primary reasons:
Photo credit: George Plumb, retrieved from “Disappearing Vermont” Report, 2008.
• As illustrated above, natural scenic beauty is a fac-
1
Vermont Council on Rural Development. (2009). Imagining Vermont: Values and Vision for the Future. Montpelier, VT. Retrieved from: http://vtrural.org/sites/default/files/library/files/futureofvermont/documents/Imagining_Vermont_
FULL_Report1.pdf
et of living in Vermont that is among one of the most cherished.
Whether it is appreciating the Green
Mountain range from
the University Heights
in Burlington, or walking along the edge of
the Connecticut River
in Guilford: the scenic
beauty of the State
adds daily to the quality of our life.
• Vermont’s rural
landscape is economically critical as a main component of our tourism industry. In a survey
done by the University of Vermont, “visitors rate natural attractions
(mountains, wildlife, state parks, lakes, etc.) as the most important
type of attraction.”2
For both groups, there is also a deeper aspect; scenic beauty adds a
spiritual dimension to our lives. Whether looking at a nearby greening
pasture in the spring or gazing off to a distant view of the snow covered
mountains in the winter, we feel a closer connection to the great mystery
of the world. This gives us a sense of peace, calmness, and connectivity
with the wider world and universe.
One of the risks of a growing population is the potential for development
to degrade the scenic beauty resource that is so important to Vermont
and Vermonters.
Trends
Since the population growth in Vermont began to climb in the 1960’s due
to the construction of the interstate highway system, the influx of people
during the back-to-the-land movement, and people wanting to escape
from overpopulated areas in other states, there has been a significant de2
Valliere, W., Chase, L., and Manning, R.. (January 2013). Interim Report: Vermont Tourism and Recreation Survey. University of
Vermont , Vermont Tourism Data Center, Park Studies Laboratory: Burlington, VT. Retrieved from: http://www.uvm.edu/~snrvtdc/publications/
visitor_survey_report_january2013.pdf
Scenic Beauty ~ George Plumb
48
decline in scenic natural beauty. One local example of this deterioration
is the five-mile stretch of highway along State Route 110 between the villages of East Barre and Washington. In the 1960’s, there were twenty-two
distinct undeveloped pastures or hay fields with beautiful views. Now
there are only seven remaining fields that are undeveloped.
The back roads and hillsides have also become dotted with homes, and
one previously forested hillside that could be seen from miles away has a
home and a camp positioned at a high elevation, which diminishes the
ton. In the 1960’s, there were twenty-two distinct undeveloped pastures
or hay fields with beautiful views. Now there are only seven remaining
fields that are undeveloped.
The same could be said of most all of our lakes, ponds, and river shorelines: where once there were miles of undeveloped shorelines with a few
scattered summer cottages usually set back a distance, there are now
large year-round homes with manicured lawns and large docks.
Forested Ecosystems from the Vermont Monitoring Cooperative (2009) –
a collaborative project by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, the
University of Vermont, and the United States Forest Service – confirms the
increased urbanization and transformation of Vermont’s landscape:
The population boom in the United States following the Second
World War did not reach Vermont until later, with a 14 percent
population growth in the 1960s and a 15 percent growth in the
1970s, and rates slowing to 10 percent or less in more recent
decades. With this population growth, came a change in urbanized land, which has grown by roughly 20 percent since 1960.
Nearly one-third of urbanized land has come from conversion of
agricultural land and nearly two-thirds from conversion of forestland (p. 6).1
The night sky should also be considered part of our scenic beauty: not
too many years ago the stars were visible in all of the sky. Now light pollution from the malls surrounding our major cities shows a large, red glow
instead of stars.
As noted environmental writer Terry Tempest Williams, author of the book
Finding Beauty in a Broken World, says, our natural scenic views have become like a “checkerboard” instead of continuously beautiful. How long
will it be before even the checkerboard becomes filled in?
The Future
If Vermont’s population continues to grow, resulting in the persisting development of the state, our scenic natural beauty will continue to deteriorate, affecting both our quality of life and our tourism industry. Except
Optimum / Sustainable Population
for some of the Green Mountain Range, which is in public ownership,
much of the land will likely become just like any other state, and one of
the primary qualities that makes Vermont a unique and special place, will Because scenic natural beauty is such a subjective matter, it is very difficult to make sweeping claims about what is an ideal population size that
disappear.
would preserve the landscape as we cherish it. We can’t, on the basis
This is already happening with the massive sprawl that has surrounded our of this factor alone, say that we should go back to the population size of
the 1960’s when Vermont’s population was about two-thirds of what it is
cities and interstate exchanges. For the first time in well over a century,
now. However, we can say that we don’t want Vermont’s natural scenic
Vermont is losing forest cover due to population growth and related debeauty to deteriorate any further and we should stabilize our population
velopment. Beyond simply the loss of beauty, this can also damage our
at its current size in order to protect this important resource.
biodiversity, hunting, and the connection we have with nature.
The report, Vermont’s Changing Forests: Key Findings on the Health of
49
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
1
Vermont Monitoring Cooperative. (2009). Vermont’s Changing Forests: Key Findings on the Health of Forested
Ecosystems from the Vermont Monitoring Cooperative. University of Vermont, and the United States Forest Service. Retrieved from: http://www.uvm.edu/vmc/documents/synthesisReport.pdf
Some may claim that we can grow our population and preserve our
scenic beauty by concentrating growth in already developed areas,
such as cities and villages. However, many people want to live in the
country and we can’t deny them that opportunity. Additionally, this
belief is based on an assumption that people in cities and villages do
not mind being surrounded by more development, sprawl, or high-rise
buildings, which would affect the scenery and character of our unique
cities and villages, as well.
Based upon the above-stated considerations, the
optimum population size for natural scenic beauty
is approximately 600,000 people.
Would this hillside be more scenic without the house sitting at the high elevation? Unfortunately first time
viewers will never know the difference. Route 110, Washington.
Scenic Beauty ~ George Plumb
50
Spiritual Connectedness ~ Gregory and Helen Wilson
“Because of our population growth and technological power, we have become a
deleterious presence throughout the planet...” ~Thomas Berry, Priest and Eco-theologian
Definitions and Importance
We define a Sustainable Population as in the introduction to this publication, “A sustainable human population is one where the people ...will
thereby be living in a manner that present and future generations of people and all other life native to that area, will be able to enjoy a healthy
habitat over the long term.” For us, a healthy habitat is central to the
definition of a healthy human.
universe predates the human, and the mystery and wonder of human
spirituality is a response to what already existed when we entered the
scene.
The spirituality of living in human community can be seen in daily life
in Vermont. Living in small communities, where people get together to
make music, dance, help out in a crisis, share resources, make decisions
about their political lives, create local theater - all these enable connections of care and gratitude that are by nature spiritual. Where people
live in an over-crowded environment,
Defining Spiritual Connectedness begins with the definition of “spirit.” One
there tends to be more isolation, a
dictionary definition is “the nonphysical part of a person that is the seat of
dependence on hypnotic mass-media
emotions and character; the soul.” We believe this definition is too limitfor entertainment and information, and
ed, and reveals a human-centered thinking that has allowed us to live so
that intensifies social fragmentation,
destructively. We define spirit as that within each of us that enables us to
which is a discouragement to spiritual
connect with every other being, living and non-living. Further, that which
connectedness.
brings forth life is spiritual; the universe brought forth our life, therefore the
movement of the universe is spiritual. Our personal religious heritage, UniSpiritual connectedness is also our most
tarian Universalism, draws from a spiritual tradition of “Direct experience
intimate way to relate to non-human
of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which
creatures. When I (Gregory) walked
moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which
into a clearing in the woods above our
create and uphold life.” The spirit in us enables us to experience mystery
house, and looked up and found myand wonder. For other creatures, spirit moves within their own unique patself looking into the eyes of a doe not
terns of existence. The spirituality of a deer, or of the earth or the universe,
20 feet away, the distance between us
is different from that of a human, but it exists.
vanished, and we were, for a few precious seconds, one. When I (Helen)
paused under a bridge in my kayak and suddenly found myself in the
Thomas Berry, Catholic priest and self-described “geologian” expands
middle of several feeding, leaping, twisting dolphins, with no fear that
the definition of spirituality to include the whole Earth: “The Spirituality of
the Earth refers to a quality of the Earth itself, not a human spirituality with they would upset my little boat, we were all, the water, the fish, the dolphins and myself, one. When we are on our knees, hands feeling through
special reference to the planet Earth. Earth is the maternal principle out
warm, rich earth for potatoes for our dinner, and we see earthworm, and
of which we are born and from which we derive all that we are and all
snake, and toad, and feel gratitude for the years of rains that brought
that we have. We come into being in and through the Earth. Simply put,
this beautiful soil down to our little valley from the hill sides, it is a deeply
we are Earthlings. The Earth is our origin, our nourishment, our educator,
our healer, our fulfillment. At its core, even our spirituality is Earth-derived. spiritual experience, as gratitude always is. It is also an invitation to ponder the wonder of the unfolding story of the universe and the formation of
The human and the Earth are totally implicated, each in the other. If
the mountains, which adds the fourth dimension of time to our spirituality.
there is no spirituality in the Earth, then there is no spirituality in ourselves.
Not to recognize the spirit dimension of the Earth reveals a radical lack of It is the spirit in each of us that enables our sense of connectedness, and
Vermont offers endless opportunities for meaningful connection.
spiritual perception.1 Berry has said that the mystery and wonder of the
1
51
Thomas Berry (2009-10-19). The Sacred Universe: Earth, Spirituality, and Religion in the Twenty-first Century.
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
So, care for our human spiritual condition must include care for the earth,
with a healthy habitat for all. And care for the earth must include a sensitivity to the effects of our being here, i.e. the inevitable consequences
of an expanding population on both the quality of human life, including
opportunities for spiritual connectedness, and the lives of all other beings.
And as Thomas Berry said, “Because of our population growth and technological power, ... we were devastating human life along with all the
other components of the Earth community.”1
Trends
As other indicators reveal, Vermont has many features, some unique to
her, that add to the spiritual dimension of life. The beauty, as George
Plumb describes, comes
to mind first – from the tall,
broad mountains; to the clear
skies, free of light pollution,
that give a stunning view into
the Milky Way; to the amazing colors of every season,
month, and day; down to the
tiniest creatures of earth, like
the miniscule mushroom trembling on a stem the thickness
of a thread. Surrounded by
such beauty, one can hardly
fail to feel a stirring of the spirit
that becomes an every-day,
but never ordinary, event.
Other indicators – Rural Living,
Quality of Life, a commitment
to Renewable Energy, Forest Cover, Happiness, Environmental Health,
Ecological Footprint, Biodiversity, Carbon Emissions – all clearly interconnect to make Vermont the spiritually-fulfilling home that it is. Democracy
plays a role, as in Vermont it has traditionally been based on a small
number of immediately connected people making basic decisions about
their lives. When every person feels they can be heard, and can participate in basic decision-making about things that matter in their lives, the
result is a spiritually healthy community.
A trend we have been seeing in Vermont is the movement of the people
to re-assert their will to maintain a healthy environment, as seen in the
legislature’s voting to close Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, and
the vote to keep “fracking” out of Vermont. There is a move by large cor1
Thomas Berry, 2009. The Sacred Universe: Earth, Spirituality, and Religion in the Twenty-first Century.
porations to continue on the path of destruction for profit, but Vermonters continue
to gather to express their wish to keep Vermont clean and move in the direction of
renewable energy (cf. Rising Tide Vermont,
which is building grassroots opposition to
the proposed pipeline to carry fracked gas
into Vermont). Being directly involved in
working to keep Vermont environmentally
healthy fosters a healthy spirituality.
Another trend in Vermont is the move
away from attendance in organized
religious settings. Vermont has the lowest
percentage of people attending church,
which implies that people’s spiritual needs
are being met in other ways. We believe
the beauty, environmental and social
health of Vermont is meeting those needs.
The Buddha attained enlightenment while sitting
under a tree.
What does is look like to live in an overcrowded, dis-connected world?
There are numerous signs of spiritual malaise. We can see the results in
the statistics about the prevalence of addictions and the over-use of
supportive medications (anti-depressants, anti-anxiety meds) becoming
epidemic in the United States.2 Americans are in general not content,
and shopping is a common coping mechanism. Our economy is based
on endless growth (an oxymoron) so the world is filled with advertising
designed to fuel our discontent and keep us buying. One thing visitors to
Vermont often comment on is the lack of billboards. How sad that most
people live in a world where moving from place to place includes being
under pressure to buy more stuff!
The Future
As pointed out in the Ecological Footprint section, humans have by far
exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth. If this trend is not reversed,
population pressures will inevitably create a world where the struggle
for survival will create conditions of separateness, competition, and the
destruction of habitat and the lives of other species. Our spirituality will
be diminished and we will “lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the
grave with the song still in [us].”3 Thoreau also said, “If a plant cannot live
according to its nature, it dies; and so a man.” We need to be intentional
about developing rituals, through our religious sensibilities, that keep us
2
3
See Anatomy of an Epidemic, by Robert Whitaker
Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience and Other Essays.
Spiritual Connectedness ~ Gregory and Helen Wilson 52
connected to the earth and to one another, because overpopulation
and living past the carrying capacity diminishes those connections. If we
cannot live according to our nature, which includes having a healthy
habitat and being connected spiritually, we will die
Optimum/Sustainable Population
Our personal perspective on an optimum population for Vermont: As sixmonth residents of Vershire, Vermont
(population 577), we sleep in a one
room cabin on 32 acres of woods and
fields; we spend the other six-months
in Port Saint Lucie, Florida (population
168,716 (100% urban, 0% rural) and live
on 1/4 of an acre surrounded by other
homes. We definitely feel much more
connected to the spiritual aspects of
nature in Vermont, and find it easier to
make spiritually fulfilling relationships
with the people there. We feel so fortunate to be able to enjoy Vermont at
least part of the year and are working
to extend our time there. The density
of the population and its impact on
development, traffic, pollution, and
social structures clearly makes the big
difference. From our personal perspective, living in a rural part of Vermont, we would like to see the population of Vermont not increase.
The pointing hands of Jesus mean, ‘Love God -- and
love thy neighbor as thyself.’ Matthew 22:37-39 /
“Love the Lord your God & Love your neighbor!”
Because a spiritually
healthy habitat includes one that is biodiverse, environmentally healthy, with a strong democracy, and
an ecological footprint that allows the flourishing of
all other native species, we estimate an optimum
population for Vermont would consider these indicators: between 400,000 and 500,000 people.
53
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Works cited and Resources
Berry, Thomas and Mary Evelyn Tucker. 2009. The Sacred Universe: Earth,
Spirituality, and Religion in the Twenty-first Century. Columbia University
Press.
Quinn, Daniel. 1996. The Story of B: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit.
Bantam Books, New York, NY.
Thoreau, Henry David. 1854. Walden.
Thoreau, Henry David. 1849. Civil Disobedience and Other Essays.
Whitaker, Robert. 2010. Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America. Broadway
Paperbacks.
Rising Tide Vermont: http://www.risingtidevermont.org/
Steady State Economy ~ Eric Zencey, Ph.D.
“A steady-state economy is not a failed growth economy.” ~ Herman Daly
Definition
Traditionally, economic theory has focused on two factors of production,
labor and capital, which work together to produce economic value.
But it’s also possible to make our conceptual slices along a different set
Most economists define an economy as “a system of production by
of cleavages and say that all economic value is produced by energy
humans for exchange and consumption to increase their standard of
operating on matter according to some form of design intelligence. The
living.” Defined this way, the economy sets no upward limit on human
population; the more humans there are, the larger the economy can be. design intelligence currently brought to bear in human production is con(Indeed, the more people the better, as infinite-growth theorists like Julian siderable—it includes all the accumulated inventions that lie behind our
technologies—but it isn’t infinite: no amount of human designing will ever
Simon were fond of arguing. To them more people means more confind a way around the laws of thermodynamics, which tell us that matter
sumers, more entrepreneurs, more inventiveness.) But an economy is a
system of production for exchange and consumption that draws raw ma- and energy can neither be created nor destroyed and that energy cannot be reused. These physical laws set limits to what humans can accomterials—matter and energy--from nature, and it has to discharge wastes
back into nature. Once we add this physical grounding to the definition, plish economically.
it’s easier to see that an ecologically sustainable economy has a maximum size. For an economy to be sustainable, its two footprints—uptake When we think about the economy in these terms the challenge of susand discharge—can’t exceed its host ecosystems’ ability to provide raw tainability becomes much clearer. To be sustainable, an economy must
function on a flow of renewable energy, meaning it must draw its energy
materials and absorb waste products without being damaged.
input from the planet’s daily solar income rather than operate on fossil
fuels or nuclear power. (Nuclear power isn’t sustainable: fissionable uranium is finite in supply, and even if breeder reactors can produce more fuel
than they consume, they also produce radioactive waste, which accumulates, and which therefore must, sooner rather than later, exceed the
planet’s very limited capacity to store it where it can do no harm to life.)
Work is work, whether it’s done by muscle power or diesel fuel. There’s a finite amount of
energy available to an economy, which means there’s a finite amount of work that can
be done--and a finite number of people the economy can support.
A sustainable economy draws no more matter and energy from its environment than the environment can give without diminishing its capacity
to give the same amount forever into the future. Nor does a sustainable
economy discard more waste into the environment than the environment can absorb and recycle without diminishing its capacity to provide
this “sink” service indefinitely into the future. This is what is meant by a
“steady state” economy: not that nothing changes economically (there
would still be plenty of opportunity to change the mix of products produced and services provided, with companies coming into being and
passing away), but that the economy operates on a steady, sustainably
sized flow of matter and energy.
Steady State Economy ~ Eric Zencey
54
Thus, for any region, the size of the sustainable economy the land can
support is determined by the source and sink services at its disposal—and
by what human ingenuity can do within those limits. How many people
could such an economy support? The answer depends, of course, on
how much of the sustainably sized matter-and-energy flow is assigned to
the benefit of each individual; which is to say, it depends on the average
material standard of living. The more of the economy’s matter and energy flow the average individual commands, the fewer people a sustainable economy will support.
Importance
As our civilization grapples with ecological limits that have had no place
in standard economic thinking, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that
the standard economic thinking is wrong. The human economy can’t
grow forever. In a finite space (like the thin inhabitable layer of our
planet), growth in any physical thing has to come at the cost of diminishment of something else. That “something else”—the ecosystems of the
planet—turns out to be crucial to the continuance of human civilization,
for nature provides ecosystem services (the economically valuable but
generally unpriced goods and services we receive directly from nature,
including such things as water purification and delivery; soil fecundity;
climate moderation; and almost a dozen others). Any extraction of raw
materials or discharge of wastes that degrades ecosystems denies humans the benefit of ecosystem services. When ecosystem services were
plentiful, this loss did not loom large, for that loss left “enough and as
good” ecosystem services in its wake. But with a globalized economy
built out beyond ecological limits, any process that diminishes ecosystem
services is not sustainable, for even a small loss, repeated frequently, will
lead to collapse—of the ecosystems, and of the civilization that depends
on them.
ber of humans has increased even as the scale of each individual’s environmental impact has been amplified: one worker with a diesel bulldozer
can now accomplish in an afternoon what a hundred eighteenth-century laborers with shovels would have taken months to do.
Vermont, with its strong tradition of conservation and its strong environmental laws, has managed to avoid the degree of ecological degradation that other parts of the North American continent have endured,
although Vermont is not immune to the trend and cannot hold itself
harmless as climate change transforms its ecosystems, diminishing the
amount of quality of ecosystem services they provide.
The Future
The ongoing diminishment of global ecosystem services is, ultimately and
also, a diminishment of the planet’s carrying capacity for humans. We
are living through the era of peak oil, peak water, peak agriculture, peak
Trends
A graph of the amount and quality of ecosystem services available to humans would show a geometrically accelerating decline that very nearly
mirrors the geometrically accelerating increase in the matter-and-energy
throughput of the human economy: ecological degradation and human
energy use are rather obviously inversely related. Two hundred years ago
humans were far fewer in number, because the agricultural systems that
feed them had not yet been made over in the image of machine production and humans had not yet learned the trick of turning oil--fossilized
sunlight--into food and wealth in the present. Nor had human ambitions
in the world been amplified by the possibilities offered by the systematic
exploitation of coal and oil. Over the past two hundred years the num-
55
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
extinction—“peak everything,” as Richard Heinberg has said . It’s likely
that, because of these many and varied limiting factors, the world is also
at peak economic production. If so, then in the future—in a generation,
or a decade, or a year, or even in some cases in a month or a week—
humans will not be able to achieve, on average, the level of material
consumption to which humans are on average accustomed today. We
are, some futurists say, in for a period of “degrowth” as both our economy and our population are resized to the limits of the planet.
As the globalized economy undergoes this degrowth, some regions may
remain fairly stable in terms of their overall levels of economic activity
and wellbeing. Because Vermont’s ecosystems have been protected
from many kinds of development, their source-and-sink services remain
fairly robust, and that bodes well for the future of the Vermont economy.
The state is also embarking on a major investment in the development of
renewable energy. Each installed megawatt of renewable energy capacity increases the size of the population that a sustainable economy in
Vermont will be able to support, at least until there is so much energy per
capita that some other factor—access to fresh water, access to sustainably grown food--becomes the limiting factor.
The Population Supported by a Sustainable Economy
How many people could a sustainable economy support in Vermont?
Because so many variables and human choices go into determining
the size of that population, it makes sense to reverse the question and
ask: could Vermont achieve a sustainable economy that could support
its current population at something close to their current collective standard of wellbeing? As of 2010, Vermont held 608,827 people on its 9,620
square miles, for a population density of 65.8 people per square mile,
considerably less than the 84 per square mile that is the US national average. Because the population density of Vermont is low, it seems likely
that a state economy in sustainable balance with its host ecosystems
could support the current population of the state at something close to its
current standard of wellbeing--especially if “wellbeing” is redefined, away
from consumption and toward enjoyment of aspects of life that come to
us with little, no or even a negative ecological cost, like increased recreational and leisure time and more (and more satisfactory) civic, social
and familial engagement. Also necessary would be sufficient investment
in renewable energy; the ongoing maintenance of the fecundity of
Vermont’s ecosystems, soils and forests (a goal that will be made more
difficult given the uncertainties brought by climate change); and the
continued application of design intelligence to both economic production and governmental policy-making so that more human wellbeing can
be created from a smaller, sustainably-sized throughput of matter and
energy in the economy.
Under these conditions, it’s likely that a sustainable
economy in Vermont could support a population in
the range of 500,000 to 700,000.
Steady State Economy ~ Eric Zencey 56
Water Quality ~ Geoffrey Goll, PE
“When the well’s dry, we know the worth of water.”
~ Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Poor Richard’s Almanac, 1746
Definition
will hold more precipitation in the Northeastern United States, albeit in
higher intensities than in the past. Hurricane Irene is the modern benchWater quality is defined as the chemical, biological and physical makeup mark for such expected change. So, it is not the quantity, but the quality,
of such water which could limit its use.
of a natural water body, whether it be a lake, wetland, stream, river, or
aquifer. An acceptable state of water quality is often defined relative to
specific and regulatory standards. For example, Vermont has the “VerImportance
mont Water Quality Standards” (VWQS), which were developed in order
to comply with the Federal Clean Water Act.
Anthropogenic impacts to water quality, while being affected to an
extent by what we do directly in the water, are predominantly affected
The VWQS identify various states of water quality throughout Vermont,
by our use of the land. Of course, the more land we use for our purposes,
further defined as “uses” and specify the means by which these resources the larger the effect on water quality in our wetlands, lakes, rivers and
must be protected. “Uses” are those functions
groundwater. Land-based uses that have the largest impact on water
and values that have been identified as approquality in Vermont, and throughout the United States for that matter, are
priate for a specific water body, or similar water
agriculture and urban sprawl. Land-based impacts are caused by our
body types, based on their geographic location.
exposing the soil, such as through construction and agriculture, and what
Additionally, “Water Quality Policy” of the VWQS
we place on the ground, such as pesticides and discharges of oils and
are general approaches by which the State is
heavy metals to impervious surfaces.
required to protect its waters. Most important for
us humans, the top two policy statements are to
Water is the most important compound on Earth for human survival. The
1) “protect and enhance the quality, character
need to maintain it for clean and safe drinking without significant enand usefulness of its surface waters to assure
ergy expenditure to process and clean it, and its ability to provide us
the public health”, and 2) “maintain the purity
with food, is vital for our own survival. As population trends go, Vermont,
of drinking water.” For organisms that do not
relative to other states, is in a very good position at this time in terms of
include humans, the policy requires the public to
population versus water quality.
“assure the maintenance of water quality nec- Headwater stream on Northfield Ridge
Headwater areas are the
essary to sustain existing aquatic communities.” Vermont.
Trends
primary source of all water in stream,
Of course, this latter-stated policy is also import- river and lake systems. Once impacted by development, the cumulative
ant for humans, as the maintenance of aquatic effects on water quality due to road
Water quality throughout Vermont varies significantly, from the purest of
construction and development can
communities provides the basis of the aquatic
the pure water that is captured by its forested mountains and wetlands,
be devastating. At this time, both the
VT Stormwater Management Manual
food web, which ultimately provides our food
to the largest concern to Vermonters, Lake Champlain. By far, the largest
and the Act 250 Regulations provide
sources and assimilates the pollutants generated little protections for these sources of all threat to Lake Champlain’s future is the continuing impact of agriculture,
water. Burgeoning populations
and discharged into waterways or the ground. surface
and to a lesser extent (but still significant), urbanization and wastewater
and demand for infrastructure are the
primary threat to these sensitive areas.
(c) Princeton Hydro, LLC.
It is noted that water supply or quantity is not
specifically addressed in this article. At this point
in time, the quantity of water in Vermont is not an issue due to relatively
abundant precipitation in the form of rain in the warmer seasons and
snow in the cooler times. While climate change is expected to impact the
amount of water available, it is generally acknowledged that the future
57
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
discharges. High levels of phosphorus, the controlling nutrient for biological production in lakes, can escalate algae blooms to the point where
dissolved oxygen becomes depleted, leaving less to breath for other organisms. Phosphorus comes from various sources, including manure, soil
erosion, sewage, and atmospheric deposition. But there are also
other threats to water quality resulting from various urban and industrial
uses. According to the list of
impaired waters that Vermont
must track to maintain compliance with the Clean Water
Act, there are currently 86
waterbodies that have been
listed as in need of discharge
controls and standards (otherwise known as “Total Maximum
Daily Loads” or TMDL) in order
to restore the attainment of the
designated use for that system.
ed to man-made impervious cover. Impervious cover includes, but is not
limited to roads, parking lots, sidewalks, and buildings. Even manicured
lawns in urban and suburban settings can be as impervious as a paved
road. This is due to a lawn’s generally compacted subsoil and shallow
root systems. Impervious surfaces have two detrimental impacts on water
quality. One is that the surfaces cannot absorb and treat pollution, which
is then picked up by runoff and goes right into the streams and wetlands.
The other impact is that it accelerates the speed and quantity of runoff,
leading to stream erosion and exacerbating flooding.
In addition, imperviousness of Vermont’s roads is not limited to those
paved with asphalt or concrete; it also extends to gravel roads. The
vast majority of local roads in Vermont are comprised of gravel, and the
Algae harvesting from a pond severely impacted by urban runoff,
including nutrients such as phosphorus. Algae blooms compete for The population density in VerVermont Agency of Natural Resources, as well as the U.S. Department of
oxygen during cyclical dieoffs, physically take up habitat while alive,
mont
is
67.9
persons
per
square
Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) recogand accelerate infilling of lakes and ponds with past generations of
blooms. (c) Princeton Hydro, LLC.
mile, one of the lowest densities nizes gravel roads as just as impervious.
in the U.S..1 This is due to its
It is not, however,
large tracts of National Forest and its slow history of settlement and immisimply urban develgration. The spine of the Appalachian and Green Mountain ranges in the
opment and agriculState also preclude vast agricultural practices, other than in river valleys
ture that can have
and floodplains. However, localized increases in population and inapdramatic impacts on
propriate land use practices can threaten individual watersheds, which
water quality. As a
in turn, can cumulatively degrade entire aquatic ecosystems (i.e. Lake
result of population
Champlain). For example, the City of Burlington, the largest urban area
increases, there are
in the State, has a population density of 4,115.8 persons per square mile,
by-products of develwhile Essex County in the Northeast Kingdom has 9.5 persons per square
opment, including the
mile.2 It is not surprising, therefore, to correlate that the highest density of
construction of recrepopulation to the highest number of stormwater impaired waters in the
ational lands, water
Burlington Metro area of Chittenden County.3
diversion, and energy
There is good news for the state of water quality in Vermont, as the
generation facilities to
number of impaired waters listed has been reduced from 107 in 2010 to
support these urban
86 in the 2012 report.4 There are, however, those waters, such as Lake
and agricultural activChamplain and its tributaries in Chittenden County, that will require
ities. It is interesting to
many decades to reverse the effects of poor agricultural practices and
note that water quality
uncontrolled urban development. To attain an effective and lasting
is also directly linked to the other indicators in this report. How Renewable
improvement to water quality in Vermont, it is not only important to con- Energy Production, Food Self-Sufficiency, and Rural Living/Working Landtrol new development in terms of intensity, patterns, and management
scape practices are managed will dictate the future of water quality staapproaches, but existing urban and agriculture environments must also
tus in Vermont. This can be observed specifically in Energy Development,
be addressed.
for example.
One measure of water quality in relation to population can be correlat1
2
3
4
US Census, 2012
US Census, 2012
Vermont, 2012B
Vermont, 2012B
In the late 1960’s, Vermont recognized the importance of protecting its
natural resources, and enacted Act 250. Act 250 is the State-wide land
use review process which works to ensure an orderly development process that protects the “environmental, social and fiscal consequences
Water Quality ~ Geoffrey Goll
58
of major subdivisions and developments in Vermont.”1 However, this
changed as a result of concern for climate change, and the availability
of significant federal financial incentives2 for renewable energy development. For its part, the State of Vermont’s legislature made the decision to
remove Act 250 direct review by the District Environmental Commissions
to expedite the review and approval of these projects through the Public
Service Department (PSB). Unlike Act 250, the PSB adds a balance of
“public good” for energy need, in the balance with impacts of the other
Act 250 considerations. As a result, development of renewable energy
projects was now facilitated on landscapes such as mountain peaks and
ridges, and on agricultural lands which add new land use impacts that
must be considered in the protection of water quality and its designated
uses. But, it is not simply energy that must be considered, as agriculture
is the “elephant in the room” that is by far causing the largest impacts to
water quality in the State, although there are management solutions.
The USDA, NRCS promotes the use of “conservation practice standards”
for agriculture for the protection of water quality of aquatic resources.
Practices such as contour farming (plowing parallel with elevation contours to capture water), filter strips (vegetative buffers between plowed or
grazed lands and water resources), and nutrient management are just a
few management measures that can be used to significantly reduce and
reverse the degradation
of water quality. Silviculture, forest agriculture
such as timber harvesting and “sugaring”,
can also create erosion
and loss of precipitation
filtration, if not managed
appropriately. Although
not directly managed
under the Federal Clean
Water Act, the Agency
of Natural Resources under the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks
and Recreation has deBioretention swale, designed to treat pollutant laden runoff from impervious
veloped “Acceptable
surfaces and recharge groundwater aquifers. (c) Princeton Hydro,
Management Practices”
for the appropriate practice of logging to protect water quality. 3
1
2
3
59
Natural Resources Board, 2012
Lipton & Krauss, 2011
ANR, 2006
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
The Future
As a relatively low population density state, Vermont has the ability to
manage its development going forward, however, trends and rates of
population growth will surely impact the state of water quality. The balance for water quality will be measured in terms of the careful management of the other population indicators in this report, and must go handin-hand with their recommendations.
Of specific concern is the ability to manage water quality protection
within the current state of Vermont’s population. With increases in population comes increased pressure on surface and ground water resources;
the political and financial complexities of their management; and the
need to set a framework of additional legal and regulatory protections.
While such statutes and regulations to protect water quality for human
consumption and use are admirable (in addition to ensuring compliance
with federal law), they are only as effective as the ability to monitor and
enforce implementation and practices.
Such monitoring/enforcement programs require financial expenditures of
public funds, and with increases in population (and subsequent increases
in urban development, agriculture, recreation, and energy development)
there is also a corresponding need to increase expenditures. According
to the Conservation Law Foundation of Vermont (CLF) and the Vermont
Law School Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic (ENRLC),
Vermont does not currently have the wherewithal to enforce its environmental regulations specific to water quality protection.4 Recently, however, an agreement has been reached between US EPA and Vermont
which includes additional enacted laws to increase the ability to enforce
waste discharges to reduce nutrient runoff from agricultural activities.5
However, such an agreement will only be as effective as the availability
of public funds or its management, and the private funds (i.e. non-governmental environmental organizations or NGOs) to periodically monitor
the pattern of public enforcement. Time will tell whether or not these
new agreements will reverse the damage already done.
Another recent development in national news is with the petition of
American Rivers, Conservation Law Foundation, and the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC) to require US EPA to enforce the management of runoff from existing developed areas, such as urban centers
and industrial sites.6 It has yet to be determined if this petition will succeed, however, the improvement of existing development around Lake
Champlain, in addition to the control of agricultural runoff will be vital in
4
5
6
CLF, 2008
Vermont Law School, 2013
American Rivers et. al, 2013
its restoration of water quality. If this petition is successful, the costs for such
retrofits and installation of green infrastructure will undoubtedly cost in the
tens of millions of dollars and require many decades to achieve.
Conservation Law Foundation (CLF, 2008), “Petition for Withdrawal of the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program Delegation from
the State of Vermont”, Conservation Law Foundation.
Optimum/Sustainable Population
Lipton, E., and Krauss, C. (2011), “A Gold Rush of Subsidies in Clean Energy
Search”, New York Times, Energy and Environment, published November
11, 2011, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/business/energy-environment/a-cornucopia-of-help-for-renewable-energy.html?pagewanted=all
(July 1, 2012)
While a specific calculation of an optimal population for Vermont in relation to maintaining or restoring water quality cannot be globally applied,
the existence of impaired waterbodies as listed by the State of Vermont
does show that there is overpopulation, or at least less than adequate
water protection controls, in specific watersheds. While some critics to
population control may state that engineering controls can always be
developed to ensure water quality protection, it has been documented
that just a 7-10% cover of imperviousness in watersheds is enough to create
a measurable impairment to water quality.1 Even with the incorporation
of stormwater treatment practices, at 20% imperviousness water quality
impairment cannot be mitigated.2 This means that in the major, highly
developed urban centers, other more extensive, costly and unsustainable
treatment measures for stormwater runoff will be required. Such extreme
measures could include runoff treatment plants similar to that for sewage.
In conclusion, it would be prudent from a population
perspective to look to maintain the population status
quo of about 600,000 until such time that the cost,
energy, and resources required to improve water
quality will be better understood. Any maintenance
of water quality must be considered within the context of the other population indicators cited.
References cited
Maxted, J. R., and Shaver, E. (1998), “The use of retention basins to mitigate
stormwater impacts to aquatic life.” Urban retrofit opportunities for water
resource protection in urban areas, USEPA, Chicago.
McDonald, R.I., Fargione, J., Kiesecker, J., Miller, W.M., and Powell, J. (2009),
“Energy Sprawl or Energy Efficiency: Climate Policy Impacts on Natural
Habitat for the United States of America”, PLOS One, Public Library of Science, 4 (8), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0006802.
State of Vermont, Natural Resources Board (2012), “Act 250”, http://www.
nrb.state.vt.us/lup/ (September 22, 2013).
State of Vermont, Natural Resources Board (2011), “Vermont Water Quality
Standards”, http://www.nrb.state.vt.us/wrp/publications/wqs.pdf (September 22, 2013).
US Census Bureau (2012), “State and County QuickFacts”, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html (September 22, 2013).
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR, 2006), “Acceptable Management Practices for Maintaining Water Quality on Logging Jobs in Vermont
9h Printing”, http://www.vtfpr.org/watershed/documents/Amp2006.pdf
(September 22, 2013).
American Rivers, Conservation Law Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Council (2013), “Petition for a Determination that Stormwater
Discharges from Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Sites Contribute to
Water Quality Standards Violations and Require Clean Water Act Permits”,
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/rhammer/RDA%20Petition%20-%20
WQS%20Violations%20-%20REGION%20IX%20-%20FINAL%20-%207-10-13.pdf
(September 22, 2013).
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (2012A), “State of
Vermont 2012 303(d) List of Waters” http://www.vtwaterquality.org/mapp/
docs/mp_2012_303d_Final.pdf (September 22, 2013).
Booth, D. B., and Reinelt, L. E. (1993), “Consequences of urbanization on
aquatic systems—Measured effects, degradation thresholds, and corrective strategies.” Watershed 93, Tetra Tech., Alexandria, Va.
Vermont Law School (2013), “Vermont Law School’s Environmental Law
Clinic Helps to Ensure Clean Water in Vermont”, http://www.vermontlaw.
edu/News_and_Events/News_Releases/Vermont_Law_School%E2%80%99s_
Environmental_Law_Clinic_Helps_Ensure_Clean_Water_in_Vermont.htm
(September 22, 2013).
1
2
Booth and Reinelt, 1993
Maxted and Shaver, 1998
Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (2012B), “Stormwater
Impaired Waters”, http://www.vtwaterquality.org/stormwater/htm/sw_impairedwaters.htm (September 22, 2013).
Water Quality ~ Geoffrey Goll 60
Recommendations
The recommendations for Vermont to achieve an optimal/sustainable
population were approved through consensus by the VSP Board and
Advisory Board and the indicator authors. Members of VSP also had an
opportunity to comment on the recommendations.
1. Individual Level
A.
Become an outspoken advocate for socially and eco-
logically responsible childbearing, advancing the argu-
ment that “One or None” represents the necessary re-
productive response to an overpopulated world where humans have surpassed the planet’s ecological limits.1 (VSP interprets this to mean that each individual, whether male or female, replaces him or herself no more than once.)
B.
Form a community coalition focused on stopping sprawl within your community.2 VSP believes that Vermont can have a vibrant economy that does not depend on contin-
ual growth or destruction of our remaining open spaces.
because other buildings exist already, or the permanent, inviolate space is there already, and so growth in the city stops.3
B.
Conduct a survey, hold hearings, and otherwise seek input on what the citizens of the village, city, or town feel is an optimum population size. Then develop policies/zoning by-
laws to be sure the population growth does not exceed that population size, such as a cap on permits for new housing development per year.
3. State Level
A.
Create a Vermont Population Commission that would
be concerned with long-term planning. Its functions would be
(1) to estimate the maximum population and the optimum population of Vermont;
(2) to determine an estimated timetable to
follow in order to arrive at the optimum C.
Support organizations that work on achieving a sustain-
population, with minimal economic,
able population, including family planning, a new form of social and ecological disruption;
economy such as a steady-state economy, sustainable population, and limits on growth.
(3) to recommend where industries and
residential growth should occur throughout the
state;
2. Municipal Level
A.
Develop a commitment to permanent open spaces
in towns and cities. Maintain abundant public open
lands, parks and gardens so people will want to live
there and not find it necessary to move into rural areas. More clustering should occur in urban areas to minimize encroachment onto existing open land and to produce more open lands in the future. As an urban population increases, the amount of open land in that city should increase accordingly. As a result, a final state of equilibri-
um should be reached where no more building can occur 1
Taken directly or adapted from the book, The No-Growth Imperative: Creating Sustainable Communities under Ecological Limits to
Growth by Gabor Zovanyi.
2Ibid.
61
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
(4) to recommend and initiate educational programs in schools relative to population growth and its related subjects;
(5) to recommend legislation that relates to
the future balance of population and
carrying capacity;
(6) to obtain public opinion by public
hearings; 3
Taken directly or adapted from the Population Policy Report published in 1973 by the Vermont Natural Resources Council. Only a
few of the recommendations were transferred to this report. To read all of the recommendations you will find the report on the VSP website at www.
vspop.org.
(7) to study, research and examine the effects and changes of population growth on the attainment of state goals in the areas of health care, education, urban planning, transportation, housing, welfare and recre-
ation;
E.
Limit the number of income-tax exemptions to two
children.5
(8) to cooperate and work with other popu-
lation, environmental and planning
agencies within the state; and
4. National Level
F.
Adopt the Genuine Progress Indicator and implement policies so that Vermonter’s quality of life becomes more important than growing the economy by measuring only GDP.
Recognizing that Vermont cannot significantly influence national policies,
the report does recommend that we urge our congressional delegation
(9) to stimulate regional planning commissions to support the following.
to formulate and accept population plans.1
A.
Strongly support national and international family planning including free contraception to all women of the world B.
Maintain a balance between number of jobs and number who want and need it.
of job-seekers. We should attempt, within constitution
al bounds, to work toward a no-growth situation - so
B.
Strongly support international women’s rights including population growth would eventually be zero percent
improved educational opportunities for young women per year. State employment policy should be designed worldwide.
to accommodate that figure as soon as is feasible.2
Vermont’s population growth appears to have stabilized C.
The national government should also adopt policies similar somewhat in recent years and we should be celebrating to those suggested for Vermont.
that fact and not creating more jobs than are needed to meet the needs of our current population.
C.
Develop population education programs in the public schools, the media and community organizations (Lions, Rotary, etc.) to teach people of all ages the role of pop-
ulation growth in Vermont’s social and economic future. Develop family-life education programs in schools to teach how to be effective spouses and parents.3
D.
Establish family planning programs which ensure that
all voluntary fertility-control services are available to
everyone. In an effort to minimize unplanned pregnancies and unwanted births, such services would emphasize
contraception and sterilization.4
1
Taken directly or adapted from the Population Policy Report published in 1973 by the Vermont Natural Resources Council. Only a
few of the recommendations were transferred to this report. To read all of the recommendations you will find the report on the VSP website at www.
vspop.org.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
4Ibid.
5Ibid.
Recommendations
62
Special thanks...
Our gratitude is extended to all of the authors of the indicators. It took a considerable amount of time for each one to research and write their indicator. A special thanks is extended to Carmen Howe who was the first one to write an indicator
and she did this working evenings and weekends and in just a couple of weeks. She set a good example for others in writing
their indicators.
Special thanks is also extended to the Vt. Chapter of the Sierra Club which donated a major amount of money to pay for
the consultant to pull together and edit the submissions as well as write much of the general content.
And of course we are grateful to the consultant, Heather Davis, who showed much skill and creativity in developing the final
version, including the clever cover.
Much appreciation is also offered to all of those individuals who made a donation to help fund this report and extended
their moral support in this project. It was not an easy study to complete but we hope that it will have a meaningful impact
on Vermont citizens, and in particular our environmental and political leaders.
~ George Plumb
Executive Director, Vermonters for a Sustainable Population
63
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
About the Authors
Vermonters for Sustainable Population is deeply grateful to the following authors who contributed their time and knowledge to the research and writing of this report. While each person is passionate about the field that they write about, there is something equally important, for which VSP is grateful: the courage they have in making the estimate of an optimal/sustainable size, despite the possibility of criticism driven by the dominant paradigm
that we can and must grow forever. Many thanks to our authors for helping to start this very important discussion.
James S. Andrews graduated from UVM with a BS in Environmental Studies. He later received his masters in Biology from Middlebury College where he continued as a grant-funded herpetological researcher through 2008 when he left his position there as a research scholar and moved his office to his home in Salisbury. He began part-time herpetological fieldwork in Vermont in 1984 and began working
full time as a herpetologist in 1990. He currently serves as chair of the Vermont Reptile and Amphibian Scientific Advisory Group to the
Endangered Species Committee. He also coordinates the Vermont Reptile and Amphibian Atlas Project and serves as a research associate with Vermont Family Forests in Bristol, Vt. In addition, he teaches Vermont Field Herpetology at the University of Vermont where he
holds the position of adjunct assistant professor. He also runs herpetological research and education projects, and provides independent consulting
and herpetological survey. Conservation of Vermont’s native reptiles and amphibians is a common theme running through all his activities. He has
field experience with all of Vermont’s reptiles and amphibians and has worked closely with state, federal, and private agencies on herptile conservation throughout Vermont.
Tom Barefoot is a founder and Co-Coordinator of Gross National Happiness USA. GNHUSA seeks to educate and encourage the use of
alternative indicators to measure what matters. Tom has been working to develop context, framing and language for GNH and cooperative ideas, and helping people build happiness in their lives and their communities. Tom has been President of Universal Micro Systems,
Inc. for 32 years and served 12 years on VPIRG’s Board, 5 years as President. Tom holds a masters in Human Services Administration and
studied comprehensive anticipatory design science with Buckminster Fuller in the mid 1970’s.
Heather Davis has worked in the agricultural/food security sector for the past seventeen years and spent the past four years developing
and implementing multiple monitoring systems for food systems, food security, and program evaluation. She also serves as an adjunct
faculty member at the Community College of Vermont, where her course, Research Methods, is currently offered. She holds a Master of
Arts in Sustainable Development from the SIT Graduate Institute and a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology from the University of Pittsburgh.
Heather is dedicated to performing effective research and developing systems of program monitoring and evaluation for domestic
non-profit organizations and international NGO’s to assist them in providing the best possible services and improving performance.
Valerie Esposito lives with her husband and daughter in Burlington, Vermont where she has been the Director for the Environmental
Policy program at Champlain College since July 2010. She teaches courses on Ecological Economics, Environmental Issues, Sustainability and Environmental Policy, Policy and Globalization, and Place-based Environmental Study. She is also active in Vermont’s Localvore food movement, is a Board Member of the Vermont Ibutwa Initiative and is on the Advisory Boards of Vermonters for Sustainable Population and the Vermont Caribbean Institute. Valerie enjoys spending time with family and friends and taking advantage of
Vermont’s playground, through skiing, hiking, biking, canoeing, camping, theater visits, ultimate frisbee and seeing live music. Sustainable travel, gardening, reading, photography and cultivating her inner yogini also keep her busy.
About the Authors
64
Eben Fodor is a national land use expert. His consulting firm, Fodor & Associates, in Eugene, Oregon specializes in growth management, development impact analysis, and sustainable community planning. He is the author of the popular book on managing growth,
Better, Not Bigger – How To Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community. He has degrees in Mechanical Engineering,
Environmental Studies, and Urban Planning.
Geoffrey Goll, P.E., is a founding partner with Princeton Hydro, LLC, a water resource and geotechnical engineering consulting firm.
He obtained a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from Rutgers University and a Master of Engineering from the University of Wisconsin, Madison. He has been a practicing engineer for the past 23 years and has Professional Engineering licenses in 7 states, including Vermont. His areas of expertise include stormwater and floodplain management, water quality assessment and modeling, river
restoration, and geotechnical engineering.
Carmen Howe is a technical writer and Systems Analyst who lives in Montpelier, VT with her husband and corgi. She has lived in central
Vermont for the past 30 years after moving from Pennsylvania as a child. Carmen and her husband have chosen to remain childfree
and Carmen is very active in the online childfree community. She plays the viola in her spare time and enjoys spending time with her
extended family.
Joan Knight, 74 years old, has been a New Englander and an environmental activist for almost all of her life. She has taught high
school biology and nature studies in various forms to people of all ages; has helped inner city folks stop an urban interstate highway
spur; written about transportation activism before the first Earth Day; has been a leader in fighting suburban sprawl; has authored
many articles about greening our consumerist culture that were published in local newspapers; founded a social center (coffeehouse) to build social connections in a suburban town; and co-founded an urban cohousing community. Currently, Joan lives in Burlington with no car and bikes year round and volunteers with 350-VT and with Bike Recycle VT.
George Plumb is the Executive Director of Vermonters for Sustainable Population. He moved to Essex Town in 1963 when the population was only about 7,100 and it is now in excess of 19,600. He moved to Washington Town in 1968 when the population was about 600
and it is now in excess of 1,050. As a result he has personally witnessed the major degradation in scenic beauty of both communities
and their neighboring towns. He is also a long time environmental activist, leader, the founder of the Vt. Trails and Greenways Council,
and co-founder of the Vt. Bicycle and Pedestrian Coalition and Vermonters for Sustainable Population.
Mark Powell has been researching and writing about the politics of population growth for over two decades. Since 2003, he has
also served as a volunteer herpetologist in consultation with the Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program, studying turtle
populations in Central Vermont and working to preserve vital forest and wetlands habitat.
63
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
Lisa Sammet is the Library Director of the Jeudevine Memorial Library in Hardwick. She has degrees in Library Science and in International Agriculture Development. She has served twice as a Peace Corps volunteer in Cote d’Ivoire and in Senegal. She was a founding member of Massachusetts NOFA (Natural Organic Farming Association). She’s worked with many groups on peace and energy
issues. She is secretary of the Craftsbury Town Energy Committee. She is President of Vermonters For a Sustainable Population.
Annette Smith is Executive Director of Vermonters for a Clean Environment, a statewide non-profit that has been working to bring environmental justice to Vermont’s communities and raise the voices of Vermonters since 1999. She lives off-grid with solar electricity and
hot water, grows a big garden and hand milks a cow every day.
Lukas B. Snelling is the Executive Director of Energize Vermont. Energize Vermont is a non-profit organization that advocates for renewable energy solutions that are in harmony with the irreplaceable character of Vermont and contribute to the people’s well-being. Mr.
Snelling is passionate about finding solutions to environmental challenges that protect natural resources, communities, and create a
thriving economy.
George Webb has lived on the shore of Lake Champlain in Burlington since 1966. During that time he has seen the shore land intensely
developed to the extent that much of rural character has greatly diminished. He used to find complete silence, except for the birds,
on the lake when he kayaked out on a calm evening. Now he almost always has to put up with the roar of motor boats. He has also
observed the land development in the Champlain basin where once there was a strong rural life even in communities immediately
surrounding Burlington, and now that has largely disappeared.
Dr. Gregory V. Wilson is an ordained minister and Fellow with the American Association of Pastoral Counselors. Gregory has had a
counseling practice for 25 years, and has been minister for the past 10 years at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Brevard in Melbourne, Florida. During the summer, he enjoys speaking occasionally at several UU and UCC churches in Vermont. Gregory grew up
exploring the woods and fields of rural Maryland, and enjoys fishing, kayaking, bicycling, hiking and reading. In recent years Dr. Wilson’s attention has moved from the therapy office to focusing on the social justice and environmental issues of our current age. Along
with his wife, Helen, he plans and participates in workshops and seminars, including “Healing Our World and Ourselves” in Florida and
“Our Children Climate, Faith” in Vermont. He considers population pressures to be the underlying cause of the social, religious, and
environmental problems of the past 10,000 years.
Helen Wilson grew up on a 10-acre mini-farm, with 5 generations of extended family, on the “100-mile ridge” (an endless forested
playground) in southeastern Pennsylvania. Natural settings provided spiritual grounding, complemented by varied religious experiences -- Quaker meetings, Lutheran, Episcopal and Unitarian-Universalist churches. Work experience was in environmental labs and
mega-churches, with avocations in Stephen Ministry and Spiritual Direction. Currently a church musician, technical writer, mother and
grand-mother, and enthusiastic gardener and outdoors-woman.
Eric Zencey is a Fellow at the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont, where he is Adjunct Professor of
Political Science. A resident of Montpelier, for part of the year he is also a Visiting Lecturer in the Architecture and Urban Planning programs of the Sam Fox School of Visual Design and Art at Washington University in St. Louis. He is the author, most recently, of The Other
Road to Serfdom and the Path to Sustainable Democracy and Greening Vermont: the Search for a Sustainable State.
About the Authors
66
Resources
While there are many resources for more information about each of the
HAPPINESS OF VERMONT CITIZENS
indicators and the authors have in some cases listed a few for quick refer- ~Gross National Happiness, USA – www.gnhusa.org
ence we list below what we think are the most important state of Vermont and national government and organizational resources. This is not a QUALITY OF LIFE
listing of reports, books, etc.
~ Genuine Progress - www.genuineprogress.net
~ Nation Ranking - www.nationranking.wordpress.com/
BIODIVERSITY
~ Redefinig Progress - www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genu~ Center for Biologic Diversity - www.biologicaldiversity.org
ine_progress_indicator.htm
DEMOCRACY
~ The Coffee Party - www.coffeepartyusa.com
~ Vermont Secretary of State - www.sec.state.vt.us/
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
~ Global Footprint Network - www.footprintnetwork.org
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
~ Vermont Agency of Natural Resources - www.anr.state.vt.us/
~ Vermonters for a Clean Environment - www.vce.org
~ Vermont Natural Resources Council - www.vnrc.org
FOOD SELF-SUFFICIENCY
~ Center for an Agricultural Economy - www.hardwickagriculture.org/
~ Northeast Organic Farming Association, Vermont (NOFA-VT) - www.
nofavt.org/
~ Rural Vermont - www.ruralvermont.org/
~ USDA Census of Agriculture - www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.php
~ UVM Center for Sustainable Agriculture - www.uvm.edu/~susagctr/
~ Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets - www.agriculture.
vermont.gov/
~ Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund Farm to Plate Initiative - www.vsjf.org/
project-details/5/farm-to-plate-initiative
FOREST COVER
~ Vermont Division of Forestry - www.vtfpr.org/util/for_utilize_stats.cfm
~ Vermont Natural Resources Council - www.vnrc.org
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
~ 350.org - www.350vt.org
~ Vermont Department of Public Service - www.publicservice.vermont.
gov/publications/energy_plan/2011_plan
65
What is an Optimum / Sustainable Population for Vermont?
RENEWABLE ENERGY PRODUCTION
~ Energize Vermont – www.energizevermont.org
~ Renewable Energy Vermont - www.revermont.org/main/
RURAL LIVING / WORKING LANDSCAPE
~ Vermont Council on Rural Development – www.vtrural.org
SCENIC BEAUTY
~ There are no governmental agencies or organizations that focus on this
indicator.
SPIRITUAL CONNECTION
~ Pachamama Alliance - www.pachamama.org
~ The Forum on Religion and Ecology at Yale - www.fore.research.yale.
edu
STEADY STATE ECONOMY
~ Center for a Sustainable Economy - www.sustainable-economy.org/
index.html
~ Center for the Advancement of a Steady State Economy – www.
steadystate.org
~ Gund Institute for Ecological Economics - www.uvm.edu/giee/
~ New Economics Institute – www.neweconomicsinstitute.org
WATER QUALITY
~ Connecticut River Watershed Council - www.ctriver.org
~ Lake Champlain Basin Program - www.lcbp.org
~ Lake Champlain Committee - www.lakechamplaincommittee.org
~ Lake Champlain International - www.mychamplain.net
~ Vermont Natural Resources Council - www.vnrc.org
~ Vermont Watershed Management Division - www.vtwaterquality.org/
P.O. Box 1163
Montpelier, VT 05601
[email protected]
www.vspop.org