There has been much hand-wringing in the media about the results of the U.S. census that show Vermont’s population growth slowing.  Some, like Douglas spokesman Jim Coriell, choose to receive the statistics as validation of Jim Douglas’ doom and gloom prognostication for “business unfriendly” Vermont:

Coriell pointed to Vermont’s relatively high taxes and cost of living as key factors in limiting growth. “The numbers do reflect the need for a continued focus on these issues,” he said.

We know that whole song and dance pretty well at this point, as it has largely driven the out-going administration’s arguments for gutting environmental regulation as well. But at least one group of Vermonters is not embracing the census results as representative of a half-empty cup for the state.

George Plumb, director of a group called Vermonters for a Sustainable Population, saw some hope in the state’s slow population growth. He said ultimately, a steady population would help the state avoid over-using resources and help Vermont plan for future problems, such as the effects of global warming or environmental damage due to expanding land use.

Well finally!  Given the lack of media interest in this extremely valid viewpoint, I was pleasantly surprised to see at least a nodding recognition of its existence in the Free Press.

What Vermonters for a Sustainable Population have hit upon is the rational argument that “growth,” as the generally accepted model for success, carries a huge and erroneous assumption about the world we live in and the extent of its ability to support perpetual enlargement.  It is this model that drives American business, and makes her success dependent on ever greater consumption by ever greater numbers of people.  We have only to look at other places in the world where population growth has already outpaced the ability of resource renewal to accommodate it, to see where this model will inevitably lead if left unchecked or accelerated.

As Plumb points out, Vermont doesn’t need to have a continually growing population to ensure economic prosperity; and he cites, as an example, the fact that the state’s unemployment rate is significantly less than the national average.  What is needed is a fresh, positive perspective on what the demands of the current population are and will be; and how those can best be served by a Vermont workforce.  If the population is demographically older, healthcare supplies and services should join energy efficiency products, green technology and local foods as high on our “to do” list. Coupled with the stimulus provided by “green” enterprises, high quality jobs and education in healthcare and related services to the elderly will inevitably attract enough younger workers to replenish and rebalance the population without overtaxing our resources.

One can only hope that the Shumlin administration will not be seduced by the same faulty arguments of the “growth lobby” (read: big business) that compelled Jim Douglas to overlook the opportunities inherent in a stable population of local consumers, no matter what its median age.