196 The Environmental Debate
In the Red view, labor—not capital and not
natural resources—is the most critical factor of
production.
* * *The Greens
If Blues turn their attention to the growth of
capital and technology and Reds are especially
conscious of labor and patterns of distribution,
Greens keep their eyes on resource depletion
and pollution. They see not capital, not labor,
but materials and energy as the most critical fac-
tors of production. They are worried about the
size of the economic system relative to the size
that nature can support. Whereas both Blues
and Reds strive to make economies grow bigger,
those who see the world through Green lenses
fear that economies and population can grow
too big to be sustainable.
Progress, according to Greens, should bring
people to a state of sufficiency, not one of con-
stant material growth. The key word is enough—
enough food, clothing, shelter, education, and
health care, and also enough clean water, green
trees, and unspoiled natural beauty. The major
threats to achieving this vision are production
methods that waste resources and populations
and economies that stress ecosystems.
* * *The Whites
The White view combines some aspects of
all the previously mentioned colors... , but it
rejects their centralist, we-will-tell-you-how- to-
behave tone. Whites see any policy as worthwhile
only if it comes out of the wisdom and efforts of
the people.... They care less about what should
be done and more about who decides.
This model sees progress as local self-reli-
ance. An important concept to the Whites is
appropriate technology—technology that uses
tools that can be manufactured and maintained
at the local level, that uses nearby resources and
skills, and that yields products needed close at
hand.
* * *
The Clash of Models; The Consolidation of
Models
I have simplified each of these views greatly,
but not as much as they simplify each other.
Each side has a tendency to define itself by its
own more moderate beliefs and to see the other
sides at their extremes.
* * *
In the final analysis, if we were to admit the
relevance of all points of view, we would see that
we need to pay as close attention to the earth’s
energy and material flows as we do to our econ-
omy’s money flows. We need to keep resource
accounts, like bank accounts, and never commit
the foolishness of spending down our capital
while calling it income. If we did that, we would
discover that our planet is enormously bounti-
ful but not infinite. We would see how to achieve
or human dreams without destroying either the
resources or the natural magnificence that will
allow future generations to achieve their dreams.
The scarcest resource is not oil, metals, clean
air, capital, labor, or technology. It is our willingness
to listen to each other and learn from each other
and to seek the truth rather than seek to be right.
Because we have not done that, another resource
has become critically scarce: time. With the world
population growing now by 95 million a year, 90
percent of whom are born in poor nations; with
forests, soil, water, and ecosystems being degraded
around the world; with people to educate and fac-
tories to build and new technologies to develop,
there is no time to continue the Malthusian argu-
ment fruitlessly for another two hundred years.
Source: Donella H. Meadows, “Seeing the Population Issue
Whole,” The Economist, June 1993, in Laurie Ann Mazur,
ed., Beyond the Numbers (Washington, D.C.: Island Press,
1994), pp. 24-32.