No, I don't want to kill kids; wake up and smell the environment!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

This is an Oregon organization, but it has implications for everyone, I think.

www.agoregon.net (alternatives to growth oregon)

MISSION STATEMENT

Alternatives to Growth Oregon (AGO) is a new organization dedicated to ending population and consumption growth, and to promoting true economic, personal, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual growth by supporting policies that move Oregon toward sustainability. AGO supports economic progress based on appropriate technologic growth, increased realization of human potentials, and efficiency. AGO's mission is:

To leave succeeding generations of Oregonians a more economically prosperous, environmentally healthy, and socially just State by encouraging progress toward a sustainable society, and discouraging growth focused on increased population and consumption.

AGO's GOALS

1. Define and achieve a stable level of human population and consumption in Oregon that is in balance with the natural environment.

2. Meet the economic needs of all Oregonians, regardless of socio-economic status.

3. Achieve a healthy economy that grows because of the expanding knowledge and skills of its citizens, instead of increasing either population or consumption.

Prior to the founding of AGO, there was no group in Oregon advocating the end of population and consumption growth in the state and nation.

The economic, social and environmental benefits of ending such growth would be immense. AGO recognizes that increasing population and consumption are ultimate causes of both environmental degradation and social injustice. Many organizations do admirable jobs of addressing the symptoms of over-population and excessive consumption. AGO addresses the causes.

Just as the Alternatives to Growth Conference speakers provided both facts and rational arguments for ending population and consumption growth, Alternatives to Growth Oregon will do so on an ongoing basis. The most common response of attendees was this: "I'm so glad someone finally did this. I've long thought that growth must end, but didn't know so many others did, too. What are you going to do next? Start a new group? I hope you do." We heard you.

IT'S GETTING WORSE

Population and consumption growth in Oregon are unsustainable:

• Population doubled in the last 40 years and is projected to double again in another 40 years.

• Oregon has some of the world's most productive farmland which is being lost to development.

• Our forests are being consumed at unsustainable rates.

• Native Willamette Valley prairie has been virtually eliminated.

• Water and air quality continue to deteriorate.

• Traffic congestion is increasing and is going to be out of control.

The overall quality of life and the environment is getting worse. This trend will continue if population and consumption continue to rise, despite our best efforts to manage such growth.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT NOT ENOUGH

A quarter century ago, Governor Tom McCall was worried about growth and led the state to adopt a critically acclaimed land use planning program. McCall hoped that planning could adequately mitigate the impacts of growth. But a recent losing battle to maintain the Metro Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was a debate on how, not whether, to grow. The choice was reduced to two options: sprawl like Los Angeles or densify like Los Angeles (yes, LA is more densely populated than Portland). In the end, the course chosen by the Metro Council was to do both. The option of not growing (or even slowing growth) was never considered.

Two-thirds of Oregon's population growth is attributable to migration, primarily from elsewhere in the United States. A third of the state's population growth is due to natural increase (births exceeding deaths).

Our increasing per capita rate of consumption is straining our economic, social and environmental infrastructures. The cost of new development exceeds our ability to pay for it. Growth is a race one loses the faster one runs. Increasing taxes and consuming resources will not replace or improve infrastructure for existing residents. Rather they are used to provide ever more costly new infrastructure for new residents.

Oregonians are not only losing the Oregon we know and love, but we're paying to do so. The taxpayers of Oregon are heavily subsidizing corporations and people to move here. Large families are also subsidized through tax policies.

Oregon would be in far worse shape without planning. But planning alone will not stop the growth of population and consumption. The planning and zoning ("growth management") that Oregon has done has been essential and must continue. Nonetheless, additional strategies and actions are necessary.

IT'S TIME TO END GROWTH

Oregon is now entering a new phase. It is time to advocate for an end to population and consumption growth in administrative, judicial, legislative, educational, and community arenas. There are compelling economic, social and ecological arguments to slow and eventually end this growth. To date, these arguments have not been effectively injected into the debate.

Oregon is now experiencing the same damages that excessive growth (call it "Jerseyfication," "Californication" or what have you) has already caused throughout the country. While planning can mitigate some of the worst impacts of growth, it is not a panacea that can cure the problems of growth.

Oregonians should not be misled into believing that planning is all we must—or can—do to maintain livability. Because we have only planned for growth, but have not also worked to end it, a political backlash to growth management is escalating. An increasing number of Oregonians see planning simply as the vehicle that allows growth. Citizens are feeling restrictions without benefits.

In the Portland suburb of Milwaukie, several elected officials were recently recalled because voters felt they weren't fighting Metro (the Portland-area regional government) directives to increase population density. Rezoning is currently underway to allow five-story apartment buildings in two-story, single-family dwelling neighborhoods. These voters are increasingly seeing the UGB as harmful to their neighborhood quality of life. Lawn signs are sprouting in urban neighborhoods that say "Rethink Zoning."

Starting in Philomath, the Citizens For a Voice in Annexations movement is spreading to numerous other Oregon communities and has been quite successful in limiting the extension of government services to undeveloped areas by requiring a vote on proposed annexations.

In response to these backlashes—and to the message sent by the strong attendance at the Alternatives to Growth Conference—Governor John Kitzhaber created a Task Force on Growth. (Jeff Rogers, conference steering committee member and AGO board member was appointed to the task force.). The purpose of the body is to "develop reliable information on the cost, distribution and impacts of growth, as well as tools to deal with it" (see AGO in the news).

The appointment of the task force is a clear indication that the debate is broadening. AGO's challenge will be to further expand and deepen such a debate. If the land use issue continues to be limited to "how to grow," and not expanded to "whether to grow," the disadvantaged, the prosperous, the community, and nature will all lose.

IS THE PROBLEM POPULATION OR CONSUMPTION?

Environmental and social activists tend to polarize around this question. Some argue that the absolute level of population is out of control and must be limited. Others argue that the real issue is consumption, especially in the United States and to a lesser degree, the rest of the industrialized world. They note that in a lifetime an American consumes 10-15 times the resources that a Bangladeshi consumes.

The average American consumes way too much and the average Bangladeshi not enough. The issue is partly—but not entirely—a matter of equity. If the amount of consumption of resources and resultant pollution continues to rise, it won't make enough difference that population is stabilized. Similarly, if recycling is doubled, nothing is gained if population also doubles.

Technology can help, but not solve problems in the face of increasing population and/or consumption. Emissions from cars, for example, are an order of magnitude cleaner than they were a generation ago. However, the air is not an order of magnitude cleaner. Why? Because we have many more cars.

The problem is not population alone, or consumption alone. It is both together.

THE NEED FOR A NEW ORGANIZATION

*

You don't have a conservation policy if you don't have a population policy. David Brower

The growth debate has been controlled by an establishment that sees growth as (1) unquestionably good, or (2) generally good, if planned. Many others who question growth nonetheless believe it to be inevitable, fearing to take on the powerful "pro-growth" establishment. Much of this establishment (developers, suppliers, many government officials, media empires, etc.) are profiting handsomely from population (and consumption) growth. Most Oregonians are not.

All Oregon environmental and social justice organizations have failed to effectively address the underlying causes of the problems they are seeking to correct: population and consumption growth.

A majority of Oregonians today want to end growth in Oregon. The Oregon Values & Belief Survey (Oregon Business Council, May 1993) revealed that overpopulation is Oregonians' greatest fear. Approximately 62% believe the state's growth is undesirable. This potentially major political force is not being utilized because no organization is systematically focusing on ending population and consumption growth. Until now.

THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A NEW ORGANIZATION

Not only is there a great need for a statewide organization that focuses on ending population and consumption growth, there is also a great opportunity for AGO to be successful.

Ending growth is a mainstream political issue looking for an organization to lead the effort. AGO will work to:

• Eliminate tax policies that encourage growth.

• Make sustainability and community the goals of Oregon government.

• Eliminate government policies that encourage excessive consumption.

• Work to reduce the birth rate.

• Work for social justice.

We'll do it by:

• Educating the public

• Lobbying elected officials

• Conducting research

• Sponsoring workshops and conferences

• Building a coalition in support of alternatives to growth.

Alternatives to Growth Oregon will not duplicate the efforts of other organizations. AGO proposes to go where no organization has gone before. AGO will:

• Use and advance the work of national and international organizations by adapting their work to the Oregon situation.

• Consult with existing think tanks for policy recommendations.

• Work to bring together environmental, social justice, and community interests for the purposes of education, understanding, cooperation, and coordination.

• Serve to expand the boundaries of the debate, which help to improve the political climate to enable other organizations to take stronger political and policy positions.

• Endeavor to make population and consumption election issues.

The purpose of AGO will be to attack Oregon's growth problems at their roots: increasing population and consumption. AGO's challenge will be to avoid entanglement in existing—however worthy—battles over the symptoms and manifestations of population and consumption growth.

Any good cause is a lost cause if we don't address population and consumption.

For every thousand striking at the branches of evil, only one is striking at the roots. Henry David Thoreau

COMMUNICATING THE MESSAGES

In conjunction with our policy work, AGO will disseminate information through a quarterly newsletter to members and this web page, as well as through both earned and paid media.

• Develop relationships with the news media.

Critical to getting our message out is to have a good relationship with the news media. AGO will be taking on highly controversial subjects and powerful opponents. While we may well have strong majority support for our policies, our opponents will nonetheless seek to isolate us as being extreme. It is vital to define ourselves first, rather than letting our opponents define us.

• Conduct research on Oregonians' attitudes toward growth.

We need to learn where the public's and AGO's values intersect and how to best talk about our issues.

• Develop White Papers

AGO will develop a series of position papers on various topics. These white papers are critical so our opponents cannot define AGO before we do.

As a group dedicated to striking at the root of problems, AGO must have its positions defined and available up front. For example, if AGO calls for a decreasing population, it must be able to explain how the goal can be achieved without Chinese-style birth control, or by requiring anyone to leave the state or their body early. Below is a list of possible position papers:

• Two Children Is An Appropriate Voluntary Limit

• Shortening the Work Week

• Achieving Optimum Population in Oregon

• Addressing Poverty: A Living Wage

• What Is Oregon's Optimum Population?

• The Financial Costs of a Child

• The Economic Costs of Growth

• Green, Clean, Sustainable and Fair Taxes

• The Environmental Costs of Growth

• Thinking Beyond GDP: Quality of Life Indicators

• The Social Costs of Growth

• The Importance and Limitations of Planning

• The Fiscal Costs of Growth

• Make Oregon Government Growth Neutral

• Taxpayer Subsidies to Growth

• Estimating Impacts By Growth Rates (Rule of 72)

• Immigration (International)

• Maintaining and Improving Our Quality of Life

• Immigration (Domestic)

• A Meaningful Life For All

• Unwanted and Unplanned Births

• Not a Minimum Wage, But a Living Wage

In researching issues, AGO will first look at the existing literature and the work of other groups around the nation and the world. AGO will evaluate what has worked and what has not.

Both the newsletter and the web page will tell about issues and campaigns in and out of state, and have articles that address the basic attitude changes that are needed.

Initially, AGO will spend a significant amount of time explaining our issues before existing environmental, social, ethnic, religious, senior and similar organizations. The cost of growth is an issue of great interest, though rarely discussed or understood.

AGO is organized as a non-profit and tax-exempt organization under Oregon non-profit corporation law and is seeking §501(c)(3) status from the Internal Revenue Service (a decision is expected by early 1999). If granted (very likely), contributions from individuals and charitable foundations are not subject to federal and state income tax. AGO should have its determination soon after the beginning of 1999.

Alternatives to Growth Oregon first will identify what needs to be done, not what can be done. After that, we'll do what we have to do to get the job done.

Is stopping growth radical?

Is stopping growth rational?

Is stopping growth possible?

All YES, without question.

The polls show that most people are accepting of growth because they believe it to be inevitable. It is not.

 

 

Alternatives to Growth Oregon (AGO) 520 SW 6th Ave., Suite 930 Portland, OR 97204-1513 503-222-0282 (voice) 503-222-0180 (fax) E-mail: info@agoregon.org



-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweeb.net), February 13, 2001

Answers

Hope that's really your email addy, JOJ -- it looks weird.

I admire your persistence. Good luck changing anyone's mind though.

There was an interesting letter in the latest issue (just out) of Countryside, on page 22. Quote from it: "A smaller human population has a smaller impact on the planet. This is simple logic, not subject to research or opinion." Bet even that get someone attempting to refute it. :-(

-- Joy F in so.central Wisconsin (CatFlunky@excite.com), February 14, 2001.


"A smaller human population has a smaller impact on the planet. This is simple logic, not subject to research or opinion."

I can't deny that people have an impact on the planet. Just think how much less of an impact there'd be if there weren't any plants or animals! The moon has very little of anything making an impact on it. Pretty boring if you ask me. I guess the question is how can we try to make ours a positive impact, rather than a negative, exploitative one?

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), February 14, 2001.


JOJ, I love think tanks, especially if they stay open minded. I hope you keep us informed of how this one works out. Lots of very difficult questions. Here in Michigan there were some very interesting and quite successful reforms to our welfare system. We have very few people drawing any kind of benefits that are not working, but the working poor are somewhat supplimented in that affordable heath care insurance is provided. Got the welfare numbers down so far that we have eliminated the move of people here to draw our great welfare benefits. Guess what, urban sprawl is increased at an unbelievable rate because now our tax base is low and industry is moving back. So, sometimes the "solutions" bring unexpected problems.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.

Yup, big problem everywhere. How do you keep the riffraff out and only attract the "well-to-do yuppies". I expect anyone making under $40-50K a year would be riffraff, whither they are new or current residents

-- Lynn Goltz (lynngoltz@aol.com), February 14, 2001.

Lynn, interestingly enough, I got a similar response from my sister. I guess she doesn't realize that I've never made over $20k in my life, so I'm REALLY riff raff, I guess.

It's a serious concern. I don't think we can "keep people out", so much as, hopefully, educate people to the fact that what they do does affect not only themselves, but also their progeny, the earth, and everyone else on it.

JOJ

-- jumpoffjoe (jumpoff@echoweeb.net), February 14, 2001.



Joe, I waited all day to answer your post, giving myself time to really think it through. Immigration, legal or illegal, is going to continue. And it is a fact, like it or not, that most of the Latin American immigrants are prone to having very large families. I'm totally against abortion as an answer (China), but we sure could do something to make having large families less popular. Like no more deductions for children, no matter how many there are. In fact, penalties for larger families. Make adoption easier and cheaper. We had 2 and adopted one, not asking for admiration here, but it was our way to make a difference. And before the Christians on this forum get upset, I am also a Christian. And we have already subdued the earth. It's time to be good stewards of it. Another thought: This all needs to come from the top down. The government, that all- powerful machine, needs to go back to encouraging (with tax incentives) solar energy, recycling, energy effeciency retrofits, etc. We had a consciousness about energy in the '70s. Maybe Jimmy Carter in a sweater was hokey, but it had our attention. I fear that the general opinion is "I have my little piece of Heaven, let everyone scramble for theirs". And Joe, not all Christians think everyone should have as many children as God will provide. Nor do all Christians believe they can abuse the earth forever and God will still take care of it. I don't want to start anything, just my opinion.

-- melina b. (goatgalmjb1@hotmail.com), February 14, 2001.

Lynn, I hope you are not thinking that attracting yuppies was more attractive than attracting welfare to me. I was using as an example a solution to one problem can bring unexpected other problems. Michigan was literally going broke because the welfare cost here was so high that industry was moving out. We couldn't float a bond or fix a road. Most people work here now, and we have an insurance plan that covers every child so the working poor are able to get health care and still work. Under the old system you couldn't get heath care unless you were totally unemployed. Unfortunately, with affluence comes urban sprawl. And can you blame people for wanting their place in the sun?? I just wish it were a more modest place and less consumer oriented. Actually, given the choice, I would rather have poor neighbors than yuppies any day. I would go back to our old state in a heartbeat if it would rid us of the land eating affluence we have here now. Down the road I think we will all be losers as the greed continues.

-- diane (gardiacaprines@yahoo.com), February 14, 2001.

Melina, that you for expressing your opinions!

-- Joy F in So. Central Wisconsin (CatFlunky@excite.com), February 15, 2001.

It has always amazed me that you have to prove competence & take tests & get licensed to drive a car, but any dern fool can have a baby.Sooner or later we are gonna HAVE to address birthrates, speak about birth control, etc.I don't think that means condoning premarital sex, but a drive almost as strong as hunger & the need for sleep should be respected, not babbled about with 'abstinence' phrases and such simply because people are ashamed about their sexuality. My people have never understoood the Christian idea of 'sex is a shameful nasty degrading thing, & you should save it for the one you love' attitude. go figger

-- Sparrowhawk (sparrowkiak@yahoo.com), February 15, 2001.

loved your post melina,,,,you restore my faith in christians.

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), February 19, 2001.


I don't think sex is nasty and evil, I think it's a sacred act and a covenant to be shared between two mates. If it's just used whenever with whoever, it's not special anymore. And I'm having a very hard time understanding the rationale of no tax breaks for people who have a certain number of kids. to my mind, income tax is not even constitional,the gov't is stealing your money. But if you are raising more taxpayers for them, they're willing to give back some of the money they stole. They are not taking my money to give tax credits to the family with six kids, so why should I care if that family gets a tax break? They are just giving back a portion of what they have extorted from the couple. I think a person would have to be insane to have a baby just for the tax break, it costs a lot more to raise the child than you get from the tax break. Last I heard, we had a birth rate of less than 2.5 children per couple, which is not much more than the replacement of 2 per couple. Hey, I've got a bright idea- maybe if we all have twenty kids, we can put the IRS out of business! (just kidding of course)

-- Rebekah (daniel1@itss.net), February 20, 2001.

It may well be extortion but the fact is the government is going to get a chunk of money no matter how you look at it. In my opinion those having the most children should pay the most in areas where tax money is used to pay for things pertaining to their children.Such as schools. Now I believe kids should have a good education and I'm willing to contribute to each family as long as the number of offspring stay in the few catagory, but when they hit the several, I think the parents should be taxed heavily for the burden they put on the rest of society as well as the planet we live on. It's called responsibility and whatever the reason people use to justify to overpopulate, let them assume a little more responsibility for their beliefs. While I'm all for conservation,recycling, etc, it's a drop in the bucket when compared to simply having one less child.

-- jz (oz49us@yahoo.com), February 20, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ