I’ve had occasion, in the past, to disagree with George Plumb of Vermonters for Sustainable Population; but we are pretty much in agreement that the population of Vermont has no need for growth.
Focussing on the news that Vermont’s population has actually declined by 581 individuals between 2011 and 2012, VSP is reminding us that that may, in fact, be a good thing.
“Sustainability” is what defines a healthy population, and VSP recognizes that the metrics of sustainability involve many contributing factors.
Says Plumb:
“We’re writing a study on 11 different indicators, and each indicator will determine the optimal, or sustainable, population size of Vermont.” The indicators… range from a population’s ecological impact, to that population’s degree of democratic representation, to the numbers needed to support a “steady-state economy.”
It’s a pleasure to read that someone else is less concerned about the much ballyhooed “exodus” from Vermont and more about how we can ensure that the human population can be fully supported here without further compromising the state’s fragile natural resources and quality of life.
For years now, like clockwork, UVM Economics instructor Art Woolf has routinely hung crepe in the pages of the Freeps, lamenting that the population of Vermont is “aging.”
Disregarding the fact that the population of the entire country is also aging, state Republicans have taken up the cry, demanding tax “incentives” to stem the imagined flight of “job creators.” Even Governor Shumlin seems to have bought into that myth, although recent indications are that those old folks coming in and cluttering up the register have more disposable income than in most other states.
It appears to have occurred to no one in the administration that this aging demographic represents a new market to be addressed with goods, services and quality of life experiences; all of which Vermont might position itself uniquely to deliver. When that “aging” population is creatively recognized for the nascent market it represents, there will be plenty of jobs attracting young workers who will have families, reinvigorating both the economy and the gene pool at the same time. Then, the cycle will begin again.
But all that is beside the fact that a sustainable population should be the goal, not a growing one.
Why is it that we recognize the unsustainable nature of unlimited growth with regard to the body (ie. cancer), but can’t quite grasp the fact that economies and even nations “die” when population growth exceeds the loading capacity of both natural resources and human services?
The sustainable population message is not without its problems, however. In order for a sustainable population model to allow for the essential revitalizing effect of immigration, some things have got to give.
Opportunities lie in voluntary changes to our consumption patterns in order to spare resources; and in establishing easy access to birth control and full-choice family planning services for everyone.
Neither option will appeal to everyone, but sooner or later those will be the choices we all have to make. Mindlessly ramping-up population growth, were it even possible in Vermont, would just force us to make those choices that much sooner.
It’s time to look at our state as “almost full” rather than “almost empty,” and to start making some smart decisions to optimize the situation.
People will need to move inland and uphill. Most of those people are in large population centers near the coasts, such as NYC and Boston. Many of them will look to our pretty state as providing the best of both of those qualities, as well as a nice looking place to set down roots. Alas, since their urban perception of what constitutes “crowded” is very different from the definition we rural dwellers have, they will not see massive development as though it’s damaging to our environment. When you are used to an environment of pavement, bricks and glass, you’re going to think a couple of trees and a patch of grass is amazingly natural.
The state needs to do some massive planning for the growth that will occur, in order to protect as much of the essential natural landscape as possible. Flood plains, riparian buffers, water filtering wetlands, contiguous forest lands, etc. are all necessary to keep the ecological balance. Willy-nilly development based on lousy, unenforceable, or non-existent town plans, in conjunction with state planning that has little enforcement will lead to morass of devastated wildlife, decimated habitats, and polluted and/or eliminated waterways.