The "jobs versus the environment" question, while real for many individuals and communities, belies the complex truth behind both economic and environmental trends
by Nadia Stainzor
eturning home at dawn from fishing, Bob Brown was frustrated
by his steadily declining catches. He didn't want to abandon a generations-old
family business, but knew something had to change. So when the state passed
laws to protect and restore degraded fish stocks, Bob took a job educating
local residents in ocean ecology.
Nationwide, population growth, environmental
degradation and economic fluctuations have lead to the decline of key resource-based
industries, such as timber, mining and fishing. The communities that depend
on these industries have been confronted with enormous upheaval and a loss
of jobs. In turn, businesses, economists and policy makers have become engaged
in a heated debate over the relationship between environmental protection
and employment. Changes in markets and systems of production contribute
to unemployment, and as population growth strains the Earth, the very resources
required for economic expansion are degraded. Fortunately, both sides of
the debate are coming together to develop strategies that can help make
jobs and the environment possible to maintain, at a time when doing so has
become imperative.
"For centuries, the world's economies
have depended on the ability to deplete one non-renewable source after another,"
writes Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute. "But the day of
reckoning has arrived, and major structural adjustments are needed."
More than 12 million jobs were lost during
the economic recession of the 1970s. While many were recreated during the
1980s, it has become harder for even working families to make ends meet.
Most job expansion has occurred in low-paying sectors, while salaries have
not kept up with inflation and, until very recently, the minimum wage was
at a standstill. In addition, the shift from an industrial to a service-oriented
economy has left many Americans behind.
With the US population growing by nearly 3
million people every year, the labor market has become increasingly competitive.
Disparities between the classes have also grown, with the top 1 percent
of Americans controlling approximately 40 percent of the nation's wealth.
The past two decades have also seen the adoption
of key environmental legislation, most notably the Clean Air, Clean Water
and Endangered Species Acts. These laws have been effective in enhancing
public health and environmental stability, but have collided with economic
forces that view natural resources primarily as commodities.
During hard times, the protection of land and
resources has been labeled as a hindrance to economic development and job
creation. While plant and worksite closures have certainly occurred due
to restrictions on resource use and the cost of adhering to environmental
protection, other factors play a significant role.
The increased use of machines to extract natural
resources boosts efficiency and productivity, but requires fewer workers
to get the job done. Harvesting one million cubic feet of timber required
nine workers in 1950, but only four in 1993. According to the General Accounting
Office, increasing timber cutting by 55 percent over the next several decades
would not be sufficient to offset the 27 percent decline in timber employment
resulting from technological improvements.
Domestic unemployment is exacerbated by the
global expansion of markets and heightened competition over increasingly
limited supplies of natural resources. Several studies show that environmental
protections do not affect businesses' decisions to relocate abroad as much
as market size, wages and tax rates. In addition, the lion's share of US
foreign investment is in other industrialized countries, such as Japan and
Germany, which have stringent environmental regulations.
"The environment is an easy target for
economic problems," says Carolyn Alkire of the Wilderness Society,
"because the values associated with its quality, such as a diversity
of wildlife and opportunities for recreation, are not directly reflected
in the market. We're much less apt to blame market factors themselves."
While local impacts may occur, no direct correlation
exists between unemployment and environmental protection when viewed in
terms of the US economy as a whole. A recent study by Eban Goodstein of
the Economic Policy Institute found that, based on statistics from the US
Department of Labor, only 0.1 percent of layoffs between 1987-1990 could
be attributed to environmental regulations, with failing product demand,
changes in ownership and the prevalence of seasonal work accounting for
a much larger share.
In 1992, a study by the National Federation
of Independent Business found that environmental regulation ranked 18th
in the problems afflicting small businesses, far below health care, federal
taxation, liability insurance costs and workers' compensation. And in a
1992 nationwide review, Stephen Meyer of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology concluded that the states with the most developed environmental
programs also had the highest levels of economic growth and job creation.
These findings were confirmed in the "Gold and Green" report issued
by the Institute for Southern Studies in 1994.
"Lax environmental standards do not increase
jobs and profits," writes Roger Bezdek of Management Information Services,
Inc., "but just temporarily insulate inefficient, wasteful, polluting
firms from the need to innovate and invest in new equipment."
Many businesses have found that, in the wake
of severe environmental problems and growing public concern with their effects,
adhering to regulations is often in their best interest. As a result, entire
new industries have emerged in areas such as pollution control, waste management,
wind and solar power, electric vehicles and "clean" industrial
technologies. The advantages of such up-and-coming sectors include the reduction
of dependence on foreign energy sources, opportunities for US exports, demand
for domestic labor, and the creation of new jobs.
Management Information Services, Inc. estimates
that in 1992, environmental protection spending created 4 million jobs nationwide
and generated $355 billion in industry sales. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
predicts that environmental jobs will grow at 2.4 percent annually, almost
twice as fast as overall employment. Nonetheless, the United States lags
behind other industrialized nations, such as Japan, Germany and Sweden,
in its level of innovation and expenditure in the environmental sector.
A Congressional backlash against the environment
has also hampered progress. For example, the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands
Bill contained numerous provisions that would open up protected lands to
development, including oil and gas drilling in Alaska, real estate ventures
along Florida's fragile coastline, and the building of a hydroelectric dam
in Montana's Glacier Bay National Park.
Both federal and state governments have offered
tax breaks, free land and wage subsidies to resource-extracting industries
as an incentive to locate in a particular area and create jobs. The consequences
of such investments can easily backfire, since economic decisions involve
much more than monetary profit and efficiency. Public health, quality of
life, environmental stability and the viability of local economies are at
stake.
The overuse of forests, agricultural land and
oceans has already severely depleted resource supplies, resulting in the
loss of not only precious ecosystems, but millions of jobs worldwide. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association is spending $88 million in
response to the collapse of New England's fishing industry, including compensation
to unemployed fishermen and the buying back of boats and permits.
The goal of such a policy is to prevent the
continued devastation of ocean resources, and to ultimately restimulate
employment through sustainable fishing. According to the Marine Fish Conservation
Network, government estimates show that restoring the nation's degraded
fisheries could create 300,000 jobs, as well as improve the social and economic
health of coastal communities.
"The answer to job loss is not to step
up the process of resource extraction," says Alkire. "As with
any investment, it's important to retain natural capital for the future,
rather than selling it for a quick profit. Local economies need to diversify
and minimize the risks associated with dependency on a single resource."
Fortunately, communities nationwide have begun
to focus on the creation of new sectors and the conversion of old ones.
Recycling plants have been established on the site of paper mills, boat-building
is expanding in coastal towns and a range of cottage industries employ local
craftspeople.
Environmentally-friendly industries also tend
to be more labor intensive than the mechanized, large-scale production methods
that currently dominate the economy, a crucial factor as the population
grows. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance estimates that recycling 150,000
tons of solid waste creates nine jobs, while incinerating it creates only
two and landfilling only one. And while the petroleum and electric industries
generate about five jobs per 81 million invested, the weatherization of
buildings to enhance energy efficiency produces 50 jobs for the same amount
of money.
Whether or not industrial conversion is successful
depends in part on the retraining of workers to develop new abilities, as
well as on their overall level of education. Three-quarters of the American
work force lack any form of higher education, such as a college or technical
degree, leaving them unprepared for employment that increasingly requires
specialized skills. In addition, the United States currently spends only
0.08 percent of its Gross Domestic Product on job training and placement,
less than many industrialized countries, including Sweden (0.99 percent),
Canada (0.42 percent), and France (0.35 percent).
Some efforts have, however, proven successful.
The US Department of the Interior helps retrain workers in declining resource-based
industries. President Clinton's "Jobs in the Woods" program has
expanded the job descriptions of loggers to include forest restoration and
management. In 1993, the state of Washington launched a project to retrain
laid-off loggers in watershed restoration and to help save the state's fishing
industry, which had been slated for massive closures due to overharvesting
and environmental degradation.
A natural fit exists between environmentally-focused
economic development and the retraining of workers in resource-dependent
industries. Because their livelihoods, families and communities are inextricably
bound to natural resources, these people have a strong stake in the fate
of the land.
"Our workers are fishermen and hunters
who have watched their streams and forests become degraded," says Jim
Wilcox of the Plumas Corporation in California, which retrains former timber
industry employees in forest and watershed restoration. "They welcome
the opportunity to learn new skills and come away from projects with an
understanding that the environment is about more than cutting a tree to
cut a paycheck."
The preservation of natural beauties and amenities,
such as lakes, mountains, forests and beaches, can also reap economic benefits
by encouraging individuals and businesses to stay in, relocate to, or visit
a particular area. Consequently, much of the new income generated in some
regions of the country is no longer based on resource extraction, but on
a range of investments and services.
Recreational fishers contributed $467 million
to Maryland's economy in 1991, providing an incentive to clean up lakes,
streams and the Chesapeake Bay. While Oregon lost 15,000 jobs in forest
products in five years, it gained nearly 20,000 in high technology due to
the relocation of computer and communications companies. And the Chamber
of Commerce in Dubois, Wyoming, recently rejected oil and gas development
plans in favor of preserving a mountain range, which has made the town more
attractive to tourists and small businesses.
Even as rural areas step up efforts to both
enhance employment and protect their resources, they are greeted by a large
influx of people leaving crowded cities in search of a better quality of
life. This migration paradoxically stimulates local economies but threatens
their most valuable assets. Consequently, growth management is becoming
part of both economic development and environmental protection plans.
With the population of the United States projected
to reach 335 million by 2025, many of the nation's natural areas are quickly
being overrun and degraded. In addition, by then, 21 million more people
will be in the labor force than in 1990. Creating more and better jobs in
a rapidly growing world is an enormous challenge that will occupy communities,
economists, environmentalists and policy makers for years to come.
Significant shifts in economic systems and
employment patterns are part of human history, from the agricultural and
industrial revolutions to the high-tech world of today. Over the course
of time, a basic fact remains: human beings need natural resources to survive
and develop, but resource supplies are finite. Jobs can either be created
to accommodate immediate needs, or our economic base can be transformed
to last for generations. In the final analysis, it is clear that jobs rely
on what the Earth has to offer, and that the environment needs a lot of
work.
"Too often, the government and industry
jump in with disaster relief, after people have lost their jobs," says
Suzanne Iudicello of the Center for Marine Conservation. "We need to
start accepting that solutions to our problems may cost some money and cause
some pain in the short-term, but will prevent a total shutdown of our economy
in the future."
Reprinted from The ZPG Reporter, September/October 1996. Zero Population Growth is a national nonprofit membership organization working to slow population growth and achieve a sustainable balance between the Earth's people and its resources. 1400 Sixteenth St. NW Washington D.C. 20036, (202)332-2200, www.zpg.org/zpg
