||| FROM ELISABETH ROBSON |||
Part 1:theorcasonian.com/guest-opinion-why-is-san-juan-county-not-talking-about-ecological-overshoot/
Part 2: theorcasonian.com/guest-opinion-why-is-san-juan-county-not-talking-about-ecological-overshoot-part-2/
What should we do?
That is the question we ask ourselves when we think about wicked problems like ecological overshoot. The three speakers who presented in recent weeks at the Ecological Overshoot Speaker Series talked about what ecological overshoot is, how it is more than just climate change, how it threatens life-as-we-know-it, and how we might respond.
Bill Rees suggested that we face the reality of overshoot and talk about it, regularly. He said, get politically engaged and don’t be afraid to ask embarrassing questions. And he recommended working as a community to prepare for the kind of future that is likely to unfold (perhaps sooner than any of us might like to imagine).
Jeremy Jiménez noted that 85% of the world’s biodiversity is found in the 5% of lands where people are living indigenously. He reminded us that we have a lot to learn from these communities, and asked us to think about the stories we can share with each other to create a culture that values protecting the land. These stories will be specific to where we live and the kind of culture we want to foster.
Max Wilbert identified two important responses to ecological overshoot. First, to construct alternative ways to live, through community organizing and relocalizing our food systems, and to prepare our communities (as well as our governments and broader society) for rapid, widespread degrowth. And second, to build effective resistance movements to push back against business-as-usual—that is, the way of life that is destroying the life support systems of the planet—with massive public mobilizations to pressure governments and build new political parties and alternative institutions.
There are three common threads weaving through the ideas presented by all three speakers: facing the reality of ecological overshoot, talking about it, and preparing our communities for degrowth; loving and protecting the natural world; and understanding that personal change does not equal social change. I’ll expand briefly on these ideas below.
Facing the reality of ecological overshoot
The physicist Albert Bartlett is famous for his quip, “The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” We’ve seen the graphs showing exponential rises in population, materials use, development, and pollution, and it’s obvious this exponential rise cannot continue.
We’ve seen the graphs Bill Rees presented showing all species in exponential growth and overshoot eventually collapse. We’ve seen the modeling graphs produced by Limits To Growth in 1972, and then reproduced in 2005, and then reproduced again in 2023, showing the exponential rise and then dramatic fall (likely, by the middle of this century) of non-renewable natural resources, food production, industrial output, and population. We’ve heard the multiple warnings from concerned scientists that humans are on a collision course with the natural world caused by our activities depleting ozone, reducing freshwater availability, depleting marine life, creating ocean dead zones, cutting old growth forests, destroying biodiversity, exacerbating climate change, and polluting the entire planet with toxins—all caused by continued human population growth and industrial development.
We struggle to engage with these realities because Albert Bartlett is right; this inability to truly understand exponential growth is one of the many ways we are not “cognitively equipped,” as Bill Rees put it, to deal with ecological overshoot. It’s not because we are “stupid” as one commenter on my previous article claimed we are suggesting; but rather because we humans don’t easily think that way.
Back in 2017, the group Islands Climate Resilience (ICR) created a report to “encourage preparedness for climate-related impacts in the San Juan Islands.” The report takes an in-depth look at one symptom of ecological overshoot—climate change—and makes concrete recommendations about what we might do in the islands to mitigate and adapt to climate change, including supporting habitat diversity, and limiting human impacts on ecosystems and habitats.
While climate change is projected to be a significant factor in the biodiversity and extinction crises in future decades, what’s destroying ecosystems and species today is habitat fragmentation and loss, overexploitation, and expanding industrial agriculture, pollution, and development. A more comprehensive report must take this into account.
If we are ready to seriously engage with the reality of ecological overshoot, we might begin by forming a group inspired by ICR, perhaps named Islands Ecological Overshoot Resilience, with a mandate to take an in-depth look at ecological overshoot in San Juan County, and create a report that will encourage preparedness for overshoot-related impacts in the county. This would of course be a much bigger project than ICR’s report, but it would provide a more accurate picture of what to expect incoming decades and a more comprehensive plan for how we as a county can prepare.
Loving and protecting the natural world
It was obvious from their presentations that all three speakers in the ecological overshoot series love the natural world. Bill Rees said, take care of the land and live locally. Jeremy Jiménez said, understand that other species are our kin; that it’s not all about just humans and that we must recognize that nature has rights too. And Max Wilbert said, resist
business-as-usual and defend the land we love with everything we have, and reminded us that flourishing natural communities are what enable us humans to flourish too.
Every one of us living here in the San Juan Islands has something we love about this land, these waters. What do you love? Perhaps you love orcas. Orcas and whales here in the Salish Sea and the world over are under assault. They are struck by ships, entangled in fishing gear, killed by seismic testing and radar, and poisoned. Necropsies of orcas show they have astronomical levels of PCBs and other flame retardants, plastic, PFAS “forever chemicals”, and mercury in their systems.
Perhaps you love a dear old tree near where you live, or the birds who live in and rely on that tree. Old growth forests around the world are under assault. 90% of the old growth forests that once covered much of the lower 48 U.S. states have been logged. Most of the remaining old-growth forests are on public lands, and here in the Pacific Northwest about 80% of this forestland is slated for logging. Industrial agriculture, deforestation, pollution, and industrial development has decimated one third of the world’s bird populations in just the past 50 years.
Perhaps you love something else. Whatever it is that you love, it’s under assault. So defend it. Fight for it. Work as hard as you can to protect it. I recently saw videos of indigenous Indonesian people putting their bodies in the way of the massive machines tearing up their land, streams, and forests to mine nickel for EV batteries. “Even if we are killed, all chopped up, we persist,” they shouted at the machines. Are we willing to fight with such ferocity for the land in San Juan County? For the Salish Sea? For the fate of the biosphere? We may not face devastating nickel mining here, but that nickel from Indonesia ends up in the batteries of the cars we drive. Will we look away from the atrocities committed to supply us with our luxury goods?
We all have unique capabilities to offer the world. The problems we face are so huge, so complex, I believe we need an all-of-the-above strategy. Whatever it is each of us does well—researching, writing, organizing, mobilizing—we must do it in service of loving and protecting the natural world.
Personal change does not equal social change
A third common thread among the three presentations in this series is that personal change does not equal social change. While it’s perfectly fine for each of us to show by example how to live more lightly on the land, that will not solve the massive, complex, global ecological crises we face; nor will it solve ecological overshoot here in the county or anywhere else in the world.
Most people who understand the natural world is primary and who work to protect it also try hard to live more lightly on the land, because that’s what feels good to us. Each person has to decide for themselves what they can do to protect what and who they love, and how to live in a way that feels right to them. There are already many people and organizations in the county working to live more lightly on the land and to protect the natural world, so we can build on what’s already happening.
A commenter on my previous article suggested that I am trying to force my “progressive agenda,” my vision of the future on others.” While I certainly have my own imaginings of the kind of future I’d like to see rather than the horrific one that is rapidly approaching, the last thing on Earth I’d want to do is force my vision on anyone else. The reality is that ecological overshoot will eventually force us all into one-planet living, as Bill Rees calls it, no matter whose vision we most resonate with.
I think about things like how helpful it would be if we had maximum house sizes instead of minimum; if we capped electricity use per household and implemented an energy rationing plan; if we could plan our communities to make walking to each other and to services easy, and leave the rural, undeveloped areas to wild nature and to supporting good food and clean water; if we could create jobs solely devoted to restoring ecosystems here in the county; if we could create a local economy not based in perpetual growth; if we could eliminate tourism and still have everyone in the county able to support themselves within the community and on the land; and if we could work more effectively together to fight the ongoing destruction of the Salish Sea bioregion.
These kinds of actions go beyond personal change.
But I don’t want to impose proscriptive regulations on people—I want us to want one-planet living for ourselves and for our communities because we value wild nature, healthy ecosystems, vibrant communities, and simple but fulfilling lifestyles.
That’s why talking about ecological overshoot is so important. We can’t inspire each other to create a vision for one-planet living in San Juan County if we don’t talk about it.
Our task
Cultures that survive and thrive are cultures that protect the ecosystems and natural communities of their environment. This should be obvious, yet it needs saying, again and again. Ecological overshoot is caused by our culture’s ongoing destruction of the life support systems of planet Earth. We can choose to let this continue without resistance, or we can
choose to do everything we can to stop the destruction.
In his recent paper The Human Ecology of Overshoot: Why a Major ‘Population Correction’ Is Inevitable, Bill Rees wrote, “In the best of all possible worlds, the whole transition [to one-planet living] might actually be managed in ways that prevent unnecessary suffering of millions (billions?) of people, but this is not happening—and cannot happen—in a world blind to its own predicament.”
If we take ecological overshoot seriously, this is our task: to open our eyes to our own predicament and talk about it. We here in San Juan County are but a tiny blip on the world stage. But if we really care about the future of life on planet Earth—for ourselves, for future generations, and for all the natural communities we cherish—we must take part in
this conversation. I look forward to hearing from you.
Ecological Overshoot Series Videos
Further reading and viewing on ecological overshoot:
- A summary of the Limits to Growth book in this 1977 video, Systems: Overshoot and Collapse.
- Overshoot, by William Catton (1980) []
- The Human Ecology of Overshoot: Why a Major ‘Population Correction’ Is Inevitable, by Bill Rees (2023)
- The Great Simplification, by Nate Hagens (2022)
- Bright Green Lies, by Max Wilbert et al (2021)
- An introduction to the Meta Crisis, by Daniel Schmachtenberger (2023)
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Not sure how this happened but the line that reads “I suggested that I am trying to force my “progressive agenda,” my vision of the future on others” should instead read “A commenter on my previous article suggested that I am trying to force my “progressive agenda,” my vision of the future on others.”
And two missing links:
In “We’ve seen the graphs showing exponential rises…” the link should be https://image.slidesharecdn.com/greatacceleration2015-150115075518-conversion-gate02/75/great-acceleration-2015-1-2048.jpg?cb=1664979693
In “reproduced in 2005” the link has an extra “]” at the end, it should be https://donellameadows.org/archives/a-synopsis-limits-to-growth-the-30-year-update/
I agree that there will need to be a different shared viewpoint for humans to be satisfied with what today would be seen as “less.” What was disappointing about the third in the series was the lack of constructive solutions other than changes in perspective, and the following six remedies:
1. Challenge false solutions and greenwashing
2. Emergency degrowth programs to rapidly reduce consumption and “power down” society while preserving human rights
3. Re-localize sustainable food systems and other necessities
4. Address overpopulation humanely
5. Stop destructive projects & industries my any means necessary
6. Support the land in healing
1 is a good suggestion. Go for it, everybody!
2.This involves generalities that feel good, but the devil (many devils) is in the details. It’s a little like “Square the circle but make sure the corners stay round.” This one desperately needs specifics, not grand concepts that conflict in both execution and operation. Nothing is said about how degrowth is to be attained, though in the periods of human patience, this has never happened peacefully or humanely. Those hoping for Medieval simplicity should read what life was like then besides short.
3. At anything like our standard of health and safety, imports will be necessary. Details, please. Romantic thought is not a solution, it is an escape. Speaking of which, EVERYONE whether sympathetic or not to this cause, should carefully review and comment on the county’s recently released Community Food Assessment. Go to , closely review and comment. This is your opportunity to be part of the solution.
4. China tried “humanely” limiting population and discovered that it had dealt a serious blow to its economy, just now being felt, the repercussions of which we will feel. Population control is a meat-ax solution that ignores our economic reality that those who do not understand economic systems are doomed to trip over. China did. And those hoping for Social Security after 2036 are going to learn that that program was a Ponzi scheme from its start, and relies on an ever expanding population and not too many years of retirement.
5. “By any means possible.” This is simply an invitation by people who don’t wish to think things through to engage in civil disorder risking the lives and livelihoods of others to attain their romantic image of how the world should be. Those of us above a certain age remember “Students for a Democratic Society.” Name your cause: the cost is the same.
6. This is a good suggestion, but remember, something of a magnitude we never could imagine is underway, and will not return to conditions we now experience in many lifetimes if at all. We will need to care for the land and the creatures surviving on it, and our waters and the creatures surviving in them in different ways because their “natural” conditions have changed and will change with altered weather patterns.
There is grief and anger over present and forecast conditions, but this is not the time to adopt ill-thought-out “solutions” that themselves will only hasten the worst of all possible outcomes. We have a job to do, but it isn’t in grand statements about what others and society at large “should” (in your or my) opinion do. It’s what we do that matters. If you believe in how to live in the future, do it now, for the present is the parent of the future. If you don’t, well, there is no reason to get mad at other people, big corporations and allegedly crooked politicians, is there?
I am delighted that this topic is FINALLY getting some general attention! I recommend adding another book to the reading list: Notes on Complexity by Neil Theise https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/neil-theise/notes-on-complexity/
A key point to complexity theory is the spontaneous ’emergence’ of new patterns in complex systems as they hit the “edge of chaos”. In other words, when an existing system (whether as relatively simple as a pendulum swinging or as complex as an ecosystem) is perturbed out of it’s current ‘pattern of behaviors’, as it approaches chaotic behavior (meaning NO pattern) there is a phase transition area between the two system behaviors that can and does generate unpredictable new patterns. If the force that perturbs the system in question continues (climate change for example) unabated the system will either fall into chaotic behavior, out of which a new stable pattern will eventually appear OR, if the system spends enough time in the phase transition area in-between pattern and chaos, it is possible for new, complex patterns to emerge spontaneously, without going through the chaotic period. My point being: IF we can avoid slipping all the way into social and ecological chaos, new, potentially stable patterns will emerge from the “edge of chaos”. [Theise does a much better job explaining this, so read his book!]
I do not take this to mean that we should not exert ourselves to try to shape the change that we each believe is necessary, but rather that we must stay open to the unforeseeable while we are in this global phase transition. We also must accept that everything is continuously changing. There is no going backward to some “ideal” ecological or social state. The best we can do is to try and guide the inevitable changes that will occur in all the systems that make up Life on Earth.
Hominid species have lived and evolved through millions of years of changing climate and wildly divergent ecosystems; we are very good at adapting. I expect we will continue to adapt. The real question is will we be adapting to a diverse, vibrantly complex biosphere? Or to an desperately impoverished, depleted one?
To that question, I would respond with hope that the emergence of the Great Re-Wilding, currently being proposed as “30 by 30” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_by_30 (A worldwide initiative for governments to designate 30% of Earth’s land and ocean area as protected areas by 2030) will continue to expand and we will have “50 by 50” in the coming decades. Setting aside half of the planet for diversity, re-charge and renewal may be our last, best hope for a vibrant future.
I congratulate Elisabeth for her courage in bringing this critical and uncomfortable issue to our attention. It is the conversation we try to avoid. And even as ecological overshoot threatens to disrupt every aspect of our futures, it is very unlikely that we citizens of San Juan County can alter the course of human history on earth. It can seem fruitless to try. But what we can do is to recognize the reality of the situation and it’s potential effects on our lives and adapt in whatever ways we can as individuals and as a community. Individually we can certainly live more lightly if we choose, but for the community to adapt it will require cooperation and that will require conversation. So if there is anything we can do together, it will begin first with acknowledging the threat and then by engaging in that conversation. Only then can we discover how to adapt to these changing times as a community. Think ferries, food, electricity, emergency services, communication, pot lucks and trust.
Thank you George.
Ecological Overshoot—Dr. Susanne Becken, professor of sustainable tourism at Griffith University in Australia, made this statement in the Guardian yesterday: “Finally, discussions on how to increase tourism value without large volumes of visitors should be given more oxygen. Research to identify what types of tourists leave more benefit behind than others could inform nuanced marketing strategies. Benefits could come in the form of financial return, but they might also be measured as the contribution to conservation or the community, or indeed a lower-than-average carbon footprint.” Such a great suggestion!
The tourism/environmental deterioration issue is one that New Zealand (a much expanded San Juan County) also struggles with, trying like San Juan Couty to balance its needed foreign exchange with the viability of its unique and precious ecology. They have come up with similar ideas, but the hole in the fabric is in how to do it. We all know that creating a sense of exclusivity only increases the public’s desire to share in a rare experience. San Juan County’s tourist marketing reflects that.
Imbuing a sense of responsibility that doesn’t apply only to tourists seems to me to be the answer. We are the caretakers on these islands, and setting an example in all of our behaviors might improve our own quality of life benefit as well as benefit of our already compromised environment. Those practices and examples could turn out to be our most valuable export.
Re: population – a much better model than China is Iran during the 1990s. Thanks to free family planning and health and education programs, the average population growth rate fell from 3.9% (1981-1991) to less than 2% (1995). Unfortunately Iran has now abandoned those programs, but the old programs are a clear and obvious model for how humane population reduction could humanely take place. I do not view China’s approach as humane in any way.
I don’t think any one of the speakers has a “romantic notion of how the world should be” other than the very obvious notion that we shouldn’t destroy the very life support systems on Earth that make life possible on the one and only planet in the entire universe we know supports life.
As long as everyone’s avoiding facing the reality of ecological overshoot, we can never create a vision for how to navigate the predicament we’re in. Bill, you say it’s what we do that matters. Well right now, what we are doing is moving exponentially faster into ecological overshoot with every day that this way of life continues. How will we change that path without creating a new vision? Not a “should” but a “here’s how things could be better” that’s so compelling everyone wants it.
I, for one, plan to continue resisting the path of destruction with everything I have, which as one person isn’t much, but with a whole bunch of other people could perhaps make a difference. But we can’t get a whole bunch of other people to understand the situation we’re in if we don’t talk about it. Personal purity, while it might feel good to the person doing it, won’t do squat to change the path of destruction we’re on.
I make no argument about “overshoot,” Lisa. Things are not headed in a good direction and changes will be made by choice or by necessity.
I think our disagreement is the means employed “to continue resisting the path of destruction.” I suggest that whether it achieves squat or not, we must start with ourselves rather than seeking others to do or not do what we ourselves will not personally initiate until others will. Teaching by example is powerful, and moreover legitimate compared with destructive moves that impair the rights of and endanger others. Instead, it seems that we are the exceptions to the rules we make for others, continuing to drive fossil fueled vehicles instead of EVs because we have reasons that uniquely apply to us … but not to others. This is simply absolution from responsibility, the trait we are accusing others of having.
Surely there are constructive options? That’s what I had hoped for from the third program, and am open to continuing this discussion directly.
It is more than time for there to be a community coming together on these issues. The changes that will affect us as the climate worsens and as the ramifications of our constant need to buy and use things will show in many ways in the coming years; we need to prepare ourselves out here for some kind of self-sufficiency. Please someone step up and lead us in a discussion of how to proceed to prepare so the children of the island do not suffer needlessly. We, as adults, need to form a committee to come up with a list of problems we foresee and possible steps towards local, island-based solutions. The time for study is over. We know what is going to happen in large degree and the time is here for cooperative discussion and formation of some kind of plan for the future. I would be happy to join in these meetings when they take place. Thank you all for starting this most important conversation.
Kathleen Collister makes a compelling point: “It is more than time for there to be a community coming together on these issues.”
I would suggest that an opportunity for Public participation is coming. Recent legislation in WA State requires Counties to add GHG Reduction and Climate Resiliency elements to the Comprehensive Plan. San Juan County’s update is due in July of 2025. The current Comp Plan is relatively weak on addressing the issues brought up in this thread. The opportunity now is to help the County craft a Public Participation process that encourages thoughtful and practical responses to the expected effects of Climate change on the life of current and future citizens of San Juan County. Share your perspective and voice around environmental issues with the County Council .
Visit the Environmental Stewardship webpage: https://www.sanjuancountywa.gov/839/Environmental-Stewardship
I can’t help but wonder if the model we used on Orcas in 2011 to address the contentious issue of funding for essential capital improvements to our schools might be a step toward having the community conversation for which George Post advocates in his previous comment…?… In that instance, about 40 persons committed 12 hours spread over a week’s time to address the question, “How can we meet our collective responsibility for the education of our community’s children?” Janet Brownell, then Chair of OISD, credited that gathering with the breakthrough which led to today’s school campus.
What would be the question sufficient to attract (say, as many as 60 persons) who would be willing to commit 12 to 15 hours spread over a week’s time, in order to engage in a conversation about transitioning to a sustainable future?
Here are a couple of good articles by others who are thinking about the root causes of the ecological crisis and overshoot predicament we find ourselves in, for those interested in further reading on this topic.
On Being Reasonable By Brian Lloyd: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2023-10-02/on-being-reasonable/
Human Exceptionalism: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/02/human-exceptionalism/
“We do not prioritize nature above ourselves, and are likely to pay the ultimate price for our selfishness as we compromise the very substrate on which we—and other species—ultimately depend.” — Tom Murphy